More On The Mac and Unix 188
acaben writes: "On MacSlash, we're running a story that gives more information on the Unix-ness of MacOS X, expounding on recent articles from MacWeek and Slashdot. With insightful commentary running from packaging applications to using X-Windows on the MacOS X Beta, we hope to shed some new light on the Unix aspects of the Public Beta."
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:1)
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:1)
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:1)
You probably haven't seen NeXTstep. The workspace manager and open/save panels hides whatever is located in the '.hidden' file in current directory. It is the same thing on Mac OS X Server, where the
bin
cores
dev
etc
lib
local
lost+found
mach
mach_kernel
Net
private
root
sbin
tmp
usr
var
mnt
If you want to access them, no problem. It is just a user-interface issue. Terminal.app will show you the real content of your disk. And, those files are here (ie: if you type '/etc/inetd.conf' in an open panel, it will do what you want). If you type '/etc', it will temporary switch to 'expert' mode, where the '.hidden' files are ignored.
And there is an option to switch to Expert mode, but you won't want to use it...
I used that for years. Very simple and effective. And not seeing
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Scary times ahead for traditional Mac users? (Score:1)
However, secure is secure. It really doesn't matter what your opinion of the classic MacOS is. It -IS- very secure for a server. The fact that you wouldn't or couldn't use it for a high bandwidth site doesn't matter.
"OSX definitely means that the Mac is coming in from the cold but will some/many Mac users decide they were better off on their own?"
I have no idea what this sentence means. The vast majority of Mac users won't really notice any difference when running MacOS X. It will have a new interface and other differences, but by the time most Mac users have a crack at it most apps will be carbonized and it will be no different than the System 6-7 or 68k-PPC transitions. I'd guess that 90% of Mac users won't know or care that there is a BSD layer underneath.
"I can see plenty of areas for friction between Macintosh (the company as opposed to the users) and the freenix world."
Apple and Steve Jobs care nothing about the Linux community. The Linux community has nothing of value for Apple. Apple has a great relationship with BSD camp and will continue to.
"How will they react to the *nix world
demanding that OSX stay compatible and open?"
You mean the tiny open source Linux crowd? Why would Apple care about their opinions on Apple's OWN OS? The majority of the Unix market is not made up of open source/Linux fanatics.
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:1)
Re:Paste? (Score:1)
stupid select-to-put-it-on-the-clipboard... grrr...
command-c command-v my fine furry feind...
nert (Score:1)
Moral: Personal computers are evil.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
I believe I said "MacOS X".
If you don't know the difference, well, please go elsewhere.
Do you know if Apple has any plans to release "MacOS X" on the x86 platform?
If so, please post a trustworthy link, and I will admit to either being a troll, or not knowing that fact, dealers choice.
If not, please go somewhere else...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
I'm sure Apple doesn't need people who know they aren't the only game in town. I'm not supporting their price-gouging for hardware, and I don't like how often they fall victim to NIH ("Not Invented Here") Syndrome.
I think MacOS X is a chance for them to repent, and show what they can really do, but that obviously hasn't happened yet.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
I generally use Mozilla for web browsing, (because the latest builds are awesome!) everybuddy for chatting, (because it supports ICQ, AIM, and the lot) elm for mail, pico for text editing (although I do like nano better), and I generally don't use anything Office-like if I can help it, but if I have to, I'll try those out too. (last I saw, StarOffice is just like MS-Office, but I'm not sure if that's a feature)
As to widget sets, well, that's generally up to the application developer, but they're all usually fine with me, and better than Motif. Mozilla is themeable, and I tend to use fvwm2 for a window manager; I love my virtual screens. None of the apps are half as annoying as the Windows Explorer or the MacOS Finder, with its cryptic negative error messages, and bizarre Trash Can behavior.
And yes, it also makes a great server, and I'm currently reading slashdot from w3m, which is a great browser even on a server.
I gather Mozilla at least would be available on MacOS X, and some of the rest might build there too, but why bother? It all works great on Linux, and my (non-Apple) hardware platform works great too...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
I didn't, I was comparing PowerPC to PowerPC.
IBM can make a 1Ghz PowerPC processor.
Apple can't get them due to fabbing agreements (IIRC).
Is that so hard to understand?
And yes, the PowerPC is a different architecture. But it isn't so fundamentally different that it's twice as fast as my Athlon, clock for clock, for general purpose apps. So even given some benchmarking, they still need to catch up a lot.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
I think Apple is missing the boat; yes, I think their boxes are more expensive. However, I could be wrong, so let me check real quick...
Yep. The base price on anything except for an iMac is more than I paid for my system. For $200 more than I paid for my computer, I can literally get half the computer I have. If I paid ~$1,000 more, I could get something roughly equivalent.
The difference between my statements and yours are that I can quantify mine; if you want the details, I'll go into it for you, but suffice it to say that Apple's boxes are massively more expensive than what I can get in x86 land. Sorry, it's still true. If the opposite were true, I'd probably be running Linux on PowerPC, and think about trying MacOS X.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:I am converted (Score:1)
I've tried Be; it is indeed very cool. I didn't run it before because it didn't support my video card. (grayscale sucks)
Now that I have a new computer, BeOS supports my hardware just as well as Linux does; I tried the free version, and I liked it. Maybe I'll play around with it some more after they have more cool apps for BeOS.
But I completely agree: they put the friendly interface on top of Unix first. BeOS detected all my hardware easily once it was supported, it was very friendly, and it wasn't even hard for me to get to a command prompt.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
Sorry; I can't get an equivalent Mac for less than $1,000 more. Unless you know a place that's cheaper than the Apple Store? I'd be happy to spell it out for you, but the equivalently priced macintosh would have less than half of the specs my machine does. Half the RAM. Half the Hard Drive space. A crappy video card with half the Video RAM.
I didn't even compare the Mhz; that's why it's as low as $1,000. But if you want to send me an appropriately specced Mac, I'll benchmark the two.
If no one cares, then why did you reply? Obviously I struck a nerve. I can tell you weren't interested in the details, either, or we'd be discussing those instead. Could it be that you don't agree with me, but have no valid argument, either?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
That $799 iMac is pitiful; I've looked at the specs. In fact, anything with a built-in monitor is downright archaic, regardless.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
1) If Apple graciously incorporates the code and releases versions of MacOS X for other platforms, maybe I'll try it out.
2) If Steve Jobs curses them and doesn't release anything for those 'renegade' platforms, I'll sigh as I always do when Apple doesn't get it.
3) I'll wonder why people didn't make a fuss like this over BeOS. It is also rather easy to use and Unix-ish, and at least they "get it" somewhat.
However, *BSD has accomplished something big: at least we won't have people tortured by MacOS anymore. Hopefully. Now let's see how long it takes for Win2k to turn into a *real* Unix.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
I know that Apple makes their money on their hardware; it's painfully evident in their pricing. However, I think you missed what I was saying.
If Apple released MacOS X on Intel, and it was truly a good OS, then I would buy it, and try it out, and use it. Otherwise, they lose my business, because I'm not buying their proprietary, overpriced hardware, and I certainly don't support their *closed* way of doing business. If that way of doing business changed, then I would respect Apple more.
Apple will eventually reach a hardware crisis. As it stands, there isn't much available for the poor, neglected Mac consumer. Their processor is woefully underpowered, due to Apple's agreements with IBM (no 1Ghz levels of speed, even though it's possible), and they don't have the same choice the PC market has. (Want a fast 3D card? Which one?)
Also, in the not-too-distant future, everyone will be porting to a new hardware platform. Windows and a lot of major Unix flavors, including Linux, will be available. Will Apple be there?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
1) LyX
2) focus follows mouse
3) moving between windows from the keyboard
I wouldn't consider switchin without *all* of these.
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
Reality says one OS on my desk. I need access to all my files, all the time, and when I'm running servers for my students, they need to stay up.
This means that I either run FreeBSD with X, or that I run OSX--running both isn't an option, meaning that either I stay, or get a mac and switch.
hawk
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
yep
It certainly shouldn't be the default on the mac, and certainly isn't appropriate for new users. However, it *is* something I use all the time
Also, my mouse doesn't move aruond much; I don't have to worry about where it is . . . About the only thing that regularly leads me to mousing around on a regular basis is making graphs with xcircuit and sorting through large quantities of mail (I use the command line for small quantities).
hawk
Oh, so wrong. (Score:1)
Let me know when they have file permissions nailed down in BeOS, wouldya?
Know what pisses me off? (Score:1)
Seriously, WTF were you thinking? Personally, I don't read MacSlash. I'm not a Mac luser (at least, not right now; once the semester is over and I go back to the papers, it's all Mac, baby!) but I find this sort of story interesting. MacOS X is basically a BSD box with a technologically-updated OpenStep. While I don't own one, I know a few folks who were fortunate/smart enough to pick up an old NeXT box and love the things to death. Regardless of what you think of, say, Display PostScript (now Display PDF) or Objective C, the old NeXT boxes rock. If the new OS X boxes come even close...oh, baby.
So shove off. If you don't like the story, you can filter this kind of crap out. Don't bitch about it. Your opinion isn't the only opinion that counts. Neither is mine, for that matter. But it's a simple matter for you to simply ignore the story.
Re:Q & A (Score:1)
>feet up on while working on their Wintel boxen.
Obviously you've never worked in the print business. Or held a creative job in your life.
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:1)
OTOH, I don't look forward to the day when I'm working away at a machine and, say, a bad PDF causes me to have to reboot.
BTW before you say "what good are PDFs?" you'll just expose yourself as a moron for doing so. PDFs are used in the printing business to ensure portability between different platforms/packages. The last newspaper I worked at actually took to sending out jobs to other printers exclusively in PDF because using the PDFs elsewhere was so brainless:
1. Start QuarkXPress 4
2. Pull in PDF as image
3. You're done; no loading in of fonts/other images necessary. Check the colors & send it to the imagesetter!
Finally, someone with a clue. (Score:2)
On another note, I've had a few people rant to me about how bad Linux "sucked" because their scanner didn't work or their weird soundcard didn't work. Hell, it's all PnP; why wouldn't it work in Linux?
Support, man, hardware support.
Why is hardware support so bad under Linux? Thank Microsoft. They're the ones that pushed for companies to release standard drivers instead of documentation. Now, instead of companies releasing program info, we have companies that release drivers and, if you want hardware info, oft times they want an NDA signed/agreed to. And we've seen a proliferation in the number of different chipsets/instruction sets. Remember when printers were ProPrinter, Epson, or PCL compatible? Or video cards were compatible with whatever IBM/Microsoft were touting as the latest-greatest standard?
*sighs* man, I'd love to see a tech manual for my HP DeskJet. Or, for that matter, my parallel-port cheapo scanner.
>How many windows users know how to partition, and
>format a hdd, then install an OS on it? Not many.
Ah, but it's worse than that. There are users that feel like something's gone wrong if, say, their kid changes the background image in Windows. Once they decide to change it back, they have no idea! My wife still doesn't understand the Windoze taskbar. For that matter, I was trying to help her through something, and I asked her to minimize the window that was in focus. Minimize? God, you would have thought I asked her to produce final results for the Human Genome Project. This from a woman who is light-years ahead of me in music theory. I've tried to get her to go through the nice little Win98 manual that comes with Windows (it's true! the book is good for something other than the serial number!) and she won't do it; it's too confusing. Confusing, yeah, like Curious George is confusing. Heh.
Re:I am converted (Score:2)
Well, I know Apple hasn't exactly hidden the UNIX origins of thier new OS, but they also haven't made a secret of building a lot more on top of it. I guess I'm skeptical that OS-X will convince people that UNIX is consumer-ready.
In fact, I predict the opposite - the corporate world will, IMHO, see the OS-X story as "well, UNIX seems to be a good foundation, but look how much work Apple had to do to make it useful." Now, I'm not saying that's an accurate conclusion, but it does seem a likely one.
Besides, I would wager the majority of (non-geek) computer users, at least outside the Mac Users' domain, probably couldn't care less about OS-X. And I'd wager that most of the folks who care about OS-X as end-users don't care that it is based on a UNIX-like OS: they just want thier Mac to run. The credit for the stability of OS-X will go to Apple, not to BSD, for the most part (even if that is inaccurate).
--
Um, actually... (Score:2)
Apple didn't have to do that, of course. They could have kept the source to themselves (If I remember right, NeXTStep did this; the only thing the community got back from them was GCC's Onjective-C compiler, and even that came only after a rather little-known court battle). Perhaps that's why Apple is Open-Sourcing Darwin; Steve hasn't forgotten his last tangle with the OSS community and doesn't want to risk another one.
Speaking of compilers, have Apple's modifications to GCC gotten back into the main or devel trees yet? I know they were going to contribute back their changes, and given Apple's history with MrC I would imagine this could help towards a truly kickass compiler on PPC.
----------
Hiding parts of the system already happens (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
All of which have been phased out. That is to say, _Apple no longer uses these technologies in their products.
So the challenge stands: name one piece of Apple hardware that is proprietary.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
But I think that rather than meaning that any one particular thing on the Mac is proprietary he probably meant that they use proprietary motherboards - you can't just walk into a store and get a generic Mac board the same way that you can with IBM clones. (though I did build my own system around a 4400 board some years back
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:1)
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:1)
Sadly, there was a large sales department in between me (and the other operators) and the clients. So I never got to find out if the people who sent us botched jobs were worth being nice to.
OTOH, when you work at a factory that makes PVC cards (e.g. driver's licenses, library cards, hotel keycards, transit cards, phone cards, all kinds of free passes, frequent flyer cards, etc.) it is useful to keep a few... ahem... production proofs around for a rainy day
Re:I am converted (Score:2)
Otherwise I see little visible effect of the underlying Unix on the user experience.
Middle-mouse-paste is the same as Drag & Drop (Score:2)
In fact all this problem about being "unable to select what to replace" is also true of Drag&Drop, except because you have to hold the stupid mouse button down people don't think about the fact that they can't select what to replace. (I have tried using middle-mouse-drag to select the replacement but it does not seem to be user friendly).
If you treat it this way, it should be clear that middle-mouse-paste should work for any data type, as long as drag&drop works.
It would be nice if Apple, having much more control over the gui, might consider adding some ability like this.
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
It would be nice if they allowed X applications to work (not window managers, though!). This could be done by either making a dummy X server or by replacing Xlib. I expect several third-party solutions for this will show up quite quickly.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
Apple has enough sins now. Don't blame the current administration for the actions of others.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Q & A (Score:1)
Only during the summer - during the winter I prop my feet in the Wintel box to keep my tootsies toasty warm!
=tkk
And I only have to reboot three or so times a day!
Re:X on the Mac (Score:1)
Re:X on the Mac (Score:1)
MacOS X Server has a 'remote display architecture'. It came from NeXTStep, and all you had to do to run a host remotely was throw a -NXHost flag on the command line. There is even 'OpenSesame', a graphical app which would let you select an application in the workspace, then select the host on which to run it.
Been there, compiled and installed that. (Score:1)
Re:What in the heck... (Score:1)
Re:command+v (Score:1)
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
An SGI acquitision would give Apple immediate access to SGI's high-end hardware design experience as well as credibility in high-end visualization markets that might like an Apple GUI but don't believe it can cut the mustard on the rendering jobs they do.
I imagine Apple would LOVE to offer a high-end Apple branded 3d video solution. Apple loves to sell proprietary hardware where the margins are tasty, and its users love to pay the money for it as well. SGI could be the source of that technology.
I can also imagine complete product solutions that merge Mac desktops with Origins and a seamless, networked GUI that can tie them all together.
I can't believe that all the time Steve spent doing animation he didn't seize upon this idea..
Re:X on the Mac (Score:5)
Totally off-topic, but I'll reiterate that I *still* think Apple should buy SGI. It'd give them the high-end visualization market that SGI still has and give them an instant entree to the enterprise-scale hardware which they very sorely need.
Now that they're dedicating themselves to OS X, think of the low-end SGI apps that could fairly easily be ported to the Mac *and* think of the Mac stuff that could go to the SGI.
By adding X support to OSX they could make this kind of marriage really fly.
If Sun can buy Cobalt to get into the applicance business, why couldn't Apple do it the other way around?
Re:X on the Mac (Score:1)
http://www.tenon.com/products/xtools/
From the Tenon Web site
"Tenon Intersystems announced today that they will offer a fully integrated X Desktop for Mac OS X. The new X (pronounced X) for OS X (pronounced 'ten') will not only allow remote X applications to be displayed on the Mac OS X desktop, but will also include complete set of X tools and libraries to support local execution of X applications and X games on OS X."
Re:Damnit (Score:1)
What's wrong with either using OS10 or being unashamed to pronounce it "X"? At least in those cases it'd be consistent
Damnit (Score:2)
Under the Radar: the Next/Openstep Developers (Score:2)
I think the enthusiasm has waned a little bit -- back when Apple first released Rhapsody DR1, there were already apps from many NeXT developers. TIFFany -- which claimed to be a photshop killer -- comes to mind. I think, however, that time to market for the consumer version of the OS and probably Apple's tendancy to support/favor big names (like Adobe) and mistreat *step'ers probably made some of these guys drop off the radar. It's certainly made some of them less than enchanted with apple
Omni Development (among others), though, is still going at it, daring to stand up in the browser market among others. If you're interested in a peek at the community I've been talking about, check out Stepwise [stepwise.com].
Identifying a MacOS X ready machine (Score:1)
so open Terminal.app silly (Score:1)
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
Good for you, give yourself a pat on the back. However, for every person like you, probably 1000 more would simply pirate it, buy either borrowing a cd or downloading and burning an iso.
The only reason Microsoft makes any money off of selling client operating systems is because they come installed on virtually every pc shipped. Apple, not having twisted the arms of OEM's for 20 years, would have no such luck.
Otherwise, they lose my business, because I'm not buying their proprietary, overpriced hardware
Troll. Name once peice of Apple hardware that is proprietary. Ummm, PCI, nope....AGP, nope....USB, Firewire, ATA, SCSI.....nope nope nope.
And Apple hardware is not overpriced, for an OEM. Of course you can get more parts for your money from www.bargainbasement.com, but the same would be true for Dell or Gateway.
Their processor is woefully underpowered, due to Apple's agreements with IBM (no 1Ghz levels of speed, even though it's possible)
Actually, those problems would be from Motorola's ownership of AltiVec. I'm sure IBM would be happy to sell 850 mhz PowerPC's to Apple, but Apple wants the chips to have AltiVec after spending the last year hyping it.
(Want a fast 3D card? Which one?)
Um, the Radeon? Its not quite as fast as a Geforce 2, but it is faster than a V5. Its a good card.
Also, in the not-too-distant future, everyone will be porting to a new hardware platform. Windows and a lot of major Unix flavors, including Linux, will be available. Will Apple be there?
What hardware platform are you speaking of? IA64?
Aside from Apple's open source [apple.com] site, you might cruise over to Open Packages [openpackages.org] where Apple is at the top of the list of sponsors. That must be a real sore spot with you.
Re:Paste? (Score:1)
Or is it $39.95. Whatever.
You must be a Windows user, you are making it harder than it needs to be.
Re:Don't underestimate the mystery-factor! (Score:1)
I still love HyperCard, and mourn the fact that it was abandoned.
We have our history, and if the Mac user is introduced to the history of the UNIX underpinnings of their OSX, they will understand and appreciate. Artists are, at their core romantics. I think you will find more in common between the Mac user and Unix user than the bean counter Wintel user.
Watch a graphics pro work his Mac. You will be impressed. It is like a dance. The speed and grace of the graphics artist, is what we need in the Nix world.
Most businessmen use just three applications, wordprocessor, spreadsheets, and solitaire.
A few still play minesweaper, but we don't talk about them. They don't care about the machine, but just the money they are making. the UNIX and Mac users care about their machines, and become emotionally attached. That is one reason Jobs made sure he sold beautiful machines because he understands the role of beauty and grace.
the UNIX user sees the beauty in the function of the machine, the characters flashing by when a command is typed, The Mac user is transfixed by the soft curves, the clarity of the graphics, and inviting UI.
Re:Apple on did this to annoy Gates (Score:2)
We all know that gcc and other cool CLI tools are ready and waiting for us when we get our OSX box. For many, that is the reason for Linux.
Yaboot, for sure!
Al
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
I think it's wonderful for you that you can go to www.pricewatch.com and put together a system that cheaply! Good, I guess that's nice. However, you don't get tech support with that, you have to risk bad merchants, you have to assemble it yourself, and so forth. This is fine if you, like me, are capable of providing your own tech support, do a little research, and enjoy messing around inside a computer. The vast, overwhelming majority of computer users cannot or will not do those things. They will buy a Compaq from Staples (or whatever). Have you looked at those prices lately? Suddenly that $799 iMac becomes much more competitive.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Re:Finally, someone with a clue. (Score:2)
Translated: that guy is *used* to Windows. Take someone who doesn't know anything about computers and Linux/FreeBSD/Unix will be easier than Windows if it is preinstalled with all user software and necessary drivers (just like Windows systems). But once someone learns a system they don't want to switch. Anything that's different is always initially harder.
Re:X11 apps on OS X? (Score:2)
As far as an X11 -> Quartz compatibility layer, that would be great. Tenon (www.tenon.com [tenon.com]) has created an X server that runs on OS X and sounds like it integrates pretty well. They have a description & screenshots here [tenon.com].
Re:What in the heck... (Score:2)
Why not?
Are we to post our comments on both MacSlash and Slashdot?
Last time I heard, it doesn't really matter. You can shut up too for either sites if you want.
Or post reactions to the article on MacSlash and reactions to Slashdot's article on MacSlash's article here?
If you're that bored, and that's your cup of tea....
What's the point of providing two discussion forums for the same story?
So maybe just because /. links over there, we should shut down either sites' discussion forum, just because vertical-limit can't take the duality?
Maybe you haven't figured it out yet (ie you didn't bother to click the link), but the opinion article is IN MacSlash. It's not like MacSlash linked to some story, and Slashdot linked to MacSlash, just so users can find the link on MacSlash.
Why just Slash? Maybe we should exclude all ZDNet stories too from now on, and scurry over to their "Talkback" forums.
Re:Don't underestimate the mystery-factor! (Score:1)
Which is, I'm going to venture, its most important feature -- the thing that REALLY distinguishes it from the Mac and Windows worlds. These commercial PC OSes try extremely hard to make the past invisible, so that you're always living in the now, or the future, looking to the next upgrade. UNIX, on the other hand, embraces its heritage. When you type 'ls', you're tapping into parts of the OS that are decades old. They're not just part of the functionality of UNIX, they're part of its *culture*.
The strength of the Linux movement, to me, is that it is a forward-thinking project that takes its heritage and culture seriously. It's that heritage that ties the community together.
Re:Don't underestimate the mystery-factor! (Score:1)
... and that's why I am sceptical about Apple's aproach to UNIX being anywhere near as successful.
Re:Paste? (Score:1)
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
3) I'll wonder why people didn't make a fuss like this over BeOS. It is also rather easy to use and Unix-ish, and at least they "get it" somewhat.
I was pretty excited about BeOS, but then they never ported it to run on any PowerPC other than the 603's and the 604's. Hard to stay excited about an OS you can't run on your box (I had a 601, and followed it with a G3 later). ;) In the Mac rags there was a fair amount of excitement about Be, and it was widely expected to be licensed or bought by Apple. The excitement petered out both because of the NeXT purchase and Be's decision to drop later PowerPC support (likely due to Apple's waning marketshare - if they had cared that much about PowerPC support, I expect they would have reverse-engineered G3 support in much the same way Linux did. The marketshare issue would have made it appear to be not worth the effort).
Re:Scary times ahead for traditional Mac users? (Score:1)
So yes there may be some very confused Mac users. I need to do more exploration as I just loaded it last night.
Look for a review on my website which may be up late tonight or tomorrow. >> uJoda.com
X11 apps on OS X? (Score:2)
(1) Is anyone working on XFree86 for Darwin?
(2) Would it be possible to create some kind of 'X compatibility layer' for porting X11 apps to OS X?
(3) If (2) is not possible, how about porting GTK+ or Qt to OS X/Carbon/whatever?
It would be a *huge* bonus for Apple if they could have easy access to the vast array of Unix/X applications already out there; I'm surprised they haven't given more thought to this concept, especially with the current community and media interest in Linux.
-- briggers
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
Ick. That's the first thing I change when I get X up and running on a new UNIX account. It's a major annoyance to have to keep your mouse in the way of your window when typing on it. It also requires you to manage your window positions carefully so that no two windows overlap in a major way. Most new users I've seen run into it get confused or frustrated very quickly.
There's no way in hell Apple would ever switch their GUI behavior to that. They just recently gave in to allowing you to click on widgets in a window that did not previously have focus. Personally, I'm against that behavior since it makes it to easy to accidentally close a window, but it's not nearly as bad as the danger inherent in mouse-based focus where you could accidentally click anything in a nearby window.
No way -- Display PDF (Score:2)
Not necessary at all. Theoretically, Apple could begin using the Quartz Display PDF layer to perform the same functions as the old NeXTSTEP Display PostScript engine. Both technologies are much more efficient than X. While they wouldn't be as easy to view from other machines due to the wide market penetration of X, that's no reason to have to cripple your architecture by wedging in a hacked up protocol to an existing clean architecture.
As for the SGI comment, I'd love to see NUMA-based high-end Mac servers, but other than that SGI's hardware business is suffering. The typical strength of SGI was in the graphics market, where NVidia, 3dfx, and others are chewing them apart in the race to be the best card for gamers. The rest of what they do is done better by people like Sun.
History and some Common Sense (Score:2)
Actually, no. There's a good bit of history you might have missed if you weren't paying attention 3-4 years ago. Apple saw that the Copland project was going nowhere, so they axed it. They began to shop around for other OSes to buy and convert to Mac. BeOS was the first contender way back in the days before it even had basic things like printer support. In fact, this is what got Be the national limelight.
However, Apple saw that they were looking at a company with some really good ideas, but their current work-in-progress was very raw and unfinished. Plus, the head of Be, Inc. was an ex-Apple headknocker who left under less than amiable terms. He wanted to stick Apple with a huge bill for buying out Be.
Then Apple was pointed the way of NeXT, Inc., which was formed by Apple founder Steve Jobs. It was a product that had over a decade of maturity, and established customer base, and a series of visionary technologies that were years before their time. It also had a staff of top-notch, well recognized engineers, such as the head developer of the Mach microkernel. OPENSTEP, the cross-platform version of NeXTSTEP, was powerful, stable, and had a great interface that could be built off of. The fact that UNIX was the source of its stability wasn't a big deal. It was just another bonus.
Still, why didn't they just go all out and run Linux on it. They could cut a load of their development staff and save money if they did that.
No offense, but this one is a serious no-brainer. Mac is strong everywhere Linux is weak. The interface and ease of use is what makes Mac beloved by all its users. To move to Linux would be a slap in the face of the Mac faithful who don't like tinkering with their system because they have to to get something to work. To go from the eligance of the Mac GUI to any X-Windows based solution would be to fall behind Microsoft in terms of UI. Also, it would mean completely abandoning all of their developers who would sooner turn to Windows-only solutions than try to rewrite for Linux/X11.
Furthermore, moving to Linux as the OS would destroy Apple as a hardware company. Why pay twice as much for only slightly better performance than an Lintel system? The reason why people buy Macs is for the Mac OS. Seperating the two or destroying one half of the software/hardware marrage would destroy the entire company. Some common sense should let you see why they wouldn't move to Linux.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
If Apple released MacOS X on Intel, and it was truly a good OS, then I would buy it, and try it out, and use it. Otherwise, they lose my business, because I'm not buying their proprietary, overpriced hardware, and I certainly don't support their *closed* way of doing business. If that way of doing business changed, then I would respect Apple more.
...and Apple would be out of business. Think of all the OS vendors in the world. There are only a few major types of OS vendors:
The first group gets all their money from hardware. This includes Apple. The reason to develop the OS is to sell the hardware. In Apple's case, the situation is worsened by the fact that the main reason to buy the hardware is to get the OS, unlike Sun, SGI, HP, etc.
The second "group" is Microsoft. Windows is paid for in three major ways: (a) ripping off the OEMs by forcing them to buy Windows for each machine, no matter what, (b) revenue from other products, such as Office 2000, (c) forcing businesses to buy over-priced versions of their "server" OS to run other over-priced software that MS has convinced them that they need. Apple doesn't really have any way to leverage any of these.
The third group primarily makes money by making installing Linux easier and by promising support. Their software is generated for them at no cost by legions of Open Source programmers. Unfortunately, good GUI design is one of the things that the Open Source community is bad at. You need a Cathedral, not a Bazaar, for a good GUI it seems. The chaotic, feature-obsessed nature of OSS programmers always seems to fly in the face of GUI design goals such as consistency and simplicity.
Also, Apple wouldn't make any money from support since Apple's design goals in creating their OS is to avoid the need for support. The Mac is too easy to use and well-designed to generate a support-based revenue stream.
Finally, we have the fourth group -- the one NeXT used to be in. Be, Inc. makes its money off of selling a relatively cheap OS and only off of selling that OS. Unfortunately, this is not a large enough revenue stream to support the staff of developers that continue to revise and improve the Mac OS, Quicktime, and other Apple software.
Apple could, instead, go the old route of NeXT, Inc. and charge $4000 per seat of Mac OS X. Unfortunately, that would never fly. It would be pirated left and right or it would simply die in the marketplace. Heck, even at $500, it would cost more than some budget computers. Selling it on Intel would also bring about the ire of Microsoft. Cancelling Office or IE for Mac would put a serious crimp in the growth of the Mac OS. Also, vendors who still had to pay the Windows tax and who risked losing their discounts on Windows were reluctant to commit to an x86 Mac OS back in the Rhapsody days.
The fact is Apple cannot realistically sell Mac OS X on Intel. It would tank their business. You don't have to respect that. If you want to continue using an inferior OS because you're cheap, then that's your problem. Apple, quite frankly, doesn't really need your respect.
(Oh, and what's this new platform nonsense? Itanium? Puh-lease. We'll see if it ever comes out and if it can ever outperform Intel's own Pentium chips, much less AMD's Slegdehammer.)
One word: (Score:2)
Re:OS X and Unix (Score:1)
Why does it seem like Linux fans (is that the right word?) love choice, as long as it is the choice of Linux distros?
It is something different. Alot of windows users tried linux, for something different, not for some great longing to use a unix like system.
I think months from now, alot of people will be changing their tune, if they get a chance to try OSX. But far be it for anyone to give apple credit for trying to do something bold, and incredibly difficult, that involved making tough choices, and (from most reports on a BETA) doing an great job.
Zealots never see the whole story, and suffer for it. Mac, Windows, Linux,BSD, Sun anyone who is TOO into one thing is missing alot.
Open Source != Open Mindedness apparently.
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:3)
As far as I recall, all OSX configuration files are going to be valid XML. Thus, when the system tries to use a config file, it checks to see whether the config file conforms to its DTD or not, and responds accordingly.
Why is this relevant? Because well thought up XML schemes can be used to dynamically generate neat windows in which the user can see what possible actions there are with the current config file, ie. the user does not have to be able to see the /etc dirs directly, because some generic admin tool can be made, to transform all the nasty looking config files into pretty drop down boxes and what have we.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
1) It wasn't the wisest thing to promise.
2) There's a really good reason why Gil is no longer CEO of Apple. He wasn't cutting the mustard.
3) Rather than hold to a promise with a crappy OS, improve what you have as much as you can (OS 8.6/9) for those who might be left behind with the new OS you are really going to bank your company's future on (OS X).
Personally, I'll add the following: since the OS X strategy was announced (not rhapsody), Apple has been very consistent about what hardware would and would not be officially supported. G3s and G4s yes, 604 PCI systems, maybe. Everything else, um, it's dated and it's time to upgrade.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
IBM chose not to include Altivec with their version of the G4 initially, then later licensed it from Motorola after Apple screamed for more chip volume and Motorola couldn't keep up with demand for a 500 MHz chip.
Come July/August, Motorola is still having severe yeild problems with their manufacturing process. IBM OTOH, has, if both you and I recall correctly, a much better yeild of higher MHz G4's. I'm sure Apple would love to have them, but IBM's agreement probably stipulates they can't speed bump Motorola.
So, until Motorola pulls their manufacturing process out of the doldrums, we're stuck for a bit. See the archives at MacOSRumors [mosr.com] for some completely unsubstantiated background. BTW, this post assumes they *aren't* fabricating their site.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:1)
Re:Questions (Score:2)
So yes. They are Apple and oranges
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:2)
Is everybody out here in geek-land who was supporting Gnome and KDE because they wanted unix brought to the general user, going to go out and now recommend OS X?
Re:OS X and Unix (Score:1)
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:1)
about the paths (Score:1)
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
Could someone with hardware insight comment on the feasability of phasing in PPCs inplace of MIPS. Does the MIPS architecture have a justifiable reason to exist, or is it around just for legacy reasons?
Re:I am converted (Score:2)
at solving a lot of low-level technical issues, and the best
cross-architecture platforms out there are UNIXes. But they have
awful, unforgiving user interfaces. It's roughly the conclusion I
take from the Unix-hater's handbook, etc.
Re:Paste? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:5)
People accumulate knowledge, and draw connections between bits of knowledge. If you have many bits of knowledge, and no connections, you're going to feel really dumb and confused. If you dont have a lot of knowledge, but really know how it all fits togeather, you dont feel really stupid, and you feel comfortable. When you learn something like windows from the gui down, you get to learn the most basic behavior of software. Just like you can be familiar with your body, without having a PHD in biology. A preinstalled OS lets you get comfortable before you go rooting down in the more technical areas. When you start from the bottom, you are exposed to a huge amount of information - you dont understand the context of it, and thus cant draw relationships. You get confused, and feel stupid, and blame the OS for being complicated and not user friendly.
How many windows users know how to partition, and format a hdd, then install an OS on it? Not many.
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
Gil said at WWDC 1997 that 'all PPC machines sold by Apple after this date will run Rhapsody.' And a release of a X86 version of rhapsody was promised.
Mac OS X Server said rhapsody when you did a uname -a.
Gil, speaking on behalf of Apple, made a public claim. Mr. Jobs went back on that corporate promise. And all that ever made it out of the x86 version of Rhapsody was DR2.
Mac OS X has had a few promises that were not delivered. But, hey that's no different than Micro$oft.
Re:MacOS X and Unix and stuff... (Score:2)
>Troll. Name once peice of Apple hardware that is proprietary. Ummm, PCI, nope....AGP, nope....USB, Firewire, ATA SCSI.....nope nope nope.
Try ADB, Localtalk, NuBus.
How about Apple's lies to consumers over the years.
"Apple
"Apple ][ forever." - Said because Apple wasn't selling enuf macs, and needed to milk the ][ users to fund the mac side. Forever is 12 years at Apple.
"The Newton is a very important part of our educational line-up." Said on March 4th 1998 at a national ed. show. (hint: 19980227 was the day Apple killed the Newton.
"All machines sold by Apple in 1997 will run Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
"We are committed to shipping a X86 version of Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
Pink, Copland, the list goes on an on.
Not a lie, but just pointing out Apple's desire to screw its customers:
"We are committed to high shareholder value" - Spindler in a press conference. Given Apple's position in the market as of that date...the only way to do that was to take as much money as you could from your customers.
Given Apple's past, the original poster isn't a troll. Perhaps not informed about how the new Apple hardware is configured.
Re:Don't underestimate the mystery-factor! (Score:2)
Da. UNIX vill make kountry stronk.
Thanks. I have long been fond both of UNIX and that quirky style of the Socialist Realism artwork - it's almost as funny as some of the modern corporate advertising imagery such as high tech, slim, withit, blonde HP power lady skipping over the floor polishing machine, no doubt working hard after hours and Getting Things Done (years before Carly Fiorina arrived); or the man with the Jeep and cell phone in the woods Being Individualistic but Getting Business Done on His Own Terms.
All that aside, as a UNIX user I've always noticed the peculiar skirmishes going on between two other camps of computer users: Wintel and Mac. LOTS of people would use Windows, of course, but the Wintel crowd was heavy on beancounters, people wearing suits that are NOT fashionable but rather purchased for large amounts of dollars and meant to portend power. Those folks didn't seem to have a very well-developed sense of humor. We don't know why it is ubiquitous, but then, so is television.
The Mac crowd was heavy on artists and academics, freethinkers that love birds and sushi, sometimes dressing in black shirts with the top button buttonned. Often, though, they didn't care much about clothes except as another decorative expression. We know the Mac users are in the minority and they know they're in the minority, and we never know if they'll be doomed two years from now. It reminds us of lovers standing in the breeze on the bow of the Titanic.UNIX has had a mythos from long ago. As a student in the late 1970's, strolling along a corridor in a physics building (Caltech had more than one physics building, but only one humanities building), I could see where some graduate student had plastered a printout with the word "Unix" on it, very much as a Statement. Just as now, in my large scale workplace, some of the Mac users don't have plain drab just the nametext nameplates next to their doors - they have an identifying colored rainbow apple next to the name text.
The myths live on.
X on the Mac (Score:3)
What on earth for? I can't see any reason to put X on Mac OS. Its' GUI is fantastic, why would you want to replace it (unless you are some wierdo-S&M type hacker (or from attrition :-)))?
I can understand trying to get X apps on top of the Mac GUI, but if you need all of X, why not just install a linux/bsd distro on the Mac?
Does anyone see any reasons for doing this?
Re:X11 apps on OS X? (Score:2)
Right off the top of my head, I can think of one that would hit the spot: XMMS. I haven't found another MP3 player (including Quicktime) that behaves in any sort of sane fashion for MacOS, let alone a free one.
Oh, and then there's Abiword, GNUmeric, and the like...MacOS is one of the few platforms where no free MS-compatible stuff is available.
Perhaps those poor art students who cannot foot the bill for Photoshop (or steal it) would like to use the GIMP. Or those music majors who want a new experience would like to check out jMax.
That being said, I can easily see many Mac users raining down Holy Hellfire upon any application which doesn't use their native widget set...witness Mozilla as an example. Regardless, the excellent BSD foundation of MacOS X will make writing cross-platform apps that much easier, which is good for everyone.
Re:one step closer (Score:2)
--
I am converted (Score:3)
I used to be a hardcore Mac user (and still am) but I have to say, after playing around with the Public Beta, I am amazed, to say the least.
Aqua is cool, and Classic runs okay... carbonized apps are cool, but what I love is the USIX aspects of OSX. It is'nt that hard to grasp, and once you do, it transforms the MacOS into some sort of superOS.
I love being able to maintain my webserver (APACHE not WebSTAR) through a telnet client. And OSX is so damn stable, it's like a dream come true. BSD is the shit, and I think OSX is what sold me (and will a lot of other people) on UNIX as a consumer OS.
djsw
Re:Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:3)
However, your typical user still has to deal with making all of the hardware work correctly - this is not a problem with a preinstalled computer because the user doesn't yet know that all the hardware doesn't work correctly - however our experience windows user is fully aware that the computer does not work as well under linux as windows. This is not a suprise, our user has spent some time making it work under windows, tweaking from the default buggered install. However, we now have to deal with the fact that - there is no control panel to fix the system with, none of the familiar commands work and we have no documentation. This is a major barrier to actually making the transition.
I made the transition from linux hater to linux user because I had network access to a machine I wasn't adminstrator on and found applications that were useful with no obvious windows counterpart (e.g. using cron to automatically email companies that don't respond). Then an experienced friend of mine led me through a complex RedHat 6 install making all of the network and modem go to route out the network on my house. Then I installed a simpler Laptop of my own and then did a reinstall of my server. Now I'm quite happy with command line + Linux and my laptop no longer runs X to give me more battery life.
To make the transition decent answers have to be given to
why use linux?
how do I install linux?
how do I make it work?
I think your best market now is Win2K users who can't burn CD's (adaptecs software is f****d under win2k). Show them a linux system that will burn under heavy load and they may be persuaded to try it out.
Re:X on the Mac (Score:3)
The one thing I really like about X is the fact that you can run applications remotely. I've gone into a computer lab, sshed into my machine in my dorm, and started Netscape, Mozilla, GAIM, etc. all from my home machine. And they run on the box.
I've also had to use Maple for math classes, and since I'm too cheap to buy a student version, I'd rather use the Tru64 version that the college owns. Bottom line? Again, ssh into the server, and run the application on my desktop. Being able to run GUI applications on another machine is incredibly useful - and that's what X is for. X isn't about the GUI, that's why we're seeing GTK+ and Qt and all the other GUI toolkits. X is a method of running graphical applications so that they run on one machine and display on another. That's why you'd install X - so that you can ssh into you're friend's *nix box, and run X applications off it.
Now, using X for a local graphical environment would be insane - sorta. Except that if Apple did that, you could run Mac OS X apps over a remote link. That would be very nice. The reason X is still around is that it does a job very nicely - allowing a graphical application to be run over a network. And that's why people use X.
Re:X on the Mac (Score:2)
Maybe it's because Aqua is less like the classic MacOS interface we have come to know and love and more like...well....NeXTStep.
If I can run KDE2 instead of Aqua, I will be a happy camper. Why? Because I can make KDE behave a whole lot more like my beloved Classic MacOS than fsckn Aqua.
I want my Apple Menu. I want my Control Strip. I want my drive icons on the desktop. Aqua has much more in common with Windoze than the Classic MacOS, what with its "Finder Window" (can you say My Computer?) and its Dock (can you say Taskbar?)
I suspect also that recompiled Linux apps will probably run better on MacOSX than non-carbonated Classic apps.
MacOS 7.5.3 forever! ;-)
--.\\<-H--
Don't underestimate the mystery-factor! (Score:4)
This is true, up to a point. But in some ways, a general ignorance of Unix seems to help drive a certain romantic ideal -- an ideal that keeps the word "Unix" in very active circulation even outside of geek circles. To the typical Mac end-user, Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old. Unix is like a brawny Soviet on a Constructivist poster, swinging his hammer for his comrades. We don't know why it's good, but damn if our hearts aren't stirred by the weighty, solidly angular goodness of it all.
For Unix to become "consumer-ready," it must first create for itself a certain popular mythos, the same way computers themselves did in the eighties. That's already happened among Mac people... it remains to be seen how far it spreads beyond.
Will this create havoc for maintainance? (Score:4)
Making something that's derived from a unix-like OS easy to use certainly seems no easy task. Apple seems to be addressing this issue by trying to completely hide the BSD layer from the user. From a user-interface standpoint, I can understand this, but I wonder if it's going to create lots of problems with system maintainance. Wilfredo Sanchez's USENIX paper [mit.edu] gives a few examples of problematic differences between the Mac and BSD systems. For example, since the pathname delimiter is a colon in MacOS and a slash in BSD, filenames have to be translated, and different programs will see the same file in different ways; likewise, Mac programs will often expect a file to have a resource fork, and BSD programs won't normally be aware of the resource fork. Apple seems to have addressed these issues, but their solutions still strike me as somewhat ugly hacks to intertwine two drastically different systems; it seems like this could cause problems in certain cases.
Sanchez also writes, "although we use BSD as the core system software, we do not want to require our users to understand how BSD works. Ideally, the typical Macintosh user does not even know that BSD is there. The very presence of such folders as 'usr' and 'etc' on disk is therefore awkward, and we hide those directories and their contents at the application level". I understand the reasoning for this, and I agree that having cryptically named folders floating around wouldn't help ease of use. At the same time, it's disturbing to me because the 'usr' and 'etc' directories do exist and presumably are critical to the operation of the system, and hiding them from the users is bound to cause problems if for some reason it's necessary to access them. Apple claims that it'll never be necessary to see these directories, but I'm skeptical; perhaps you won't encounter them in normal use, but what if something in them gets corrupted, or something? Hiding parts of the system from users sounds like it'll lead to a maintainability nightmare.
Another point, less significant but still non-trivial: the internals of OS X are massively different from those of any previous OS. This presumably means that expert users are going to have to learn anew how the system works in order to maintain it.
Because it's the apps! Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:2)
in two words, it's the user and the apps, dummy.
The unix beards and suspenders folk are a quiet mysterious set of gurus whose faces are hardly ever shown to the public.
In the other corner, we have the Jade iMac being advertised on the tellu with Joe Raposo's "It's Not Easy Being Green", a artfully crafted box with an equally attractive OS, and a whole world of commercially supported apps, like photoshop, etc.
OOPS-- Did I say the dirty work 'commercial?'
Some folks still can't or won't adapt to the notion that it's okay to use free (speech and beer)
apps, largely because they can't program, and don't want to
A) pester developers to fix bugs when they can't contribute code
B) tolerate crashy software while the baazaar gets it's act together.
C) spend the hours configging and maintaining/managing the box that could be used productively editing home videos of the kids over firewire for playback on Aunt Edna's tv.
So really, bridging the commercial and free worlds in this way is valuable to both our communities.
And besides, if you must have your devtools and such (and I want em too, this is posted from Mandrake/helix-gnome) you can put em back, along with X... but if there's a Aqua/carbon/cocoa'ed solution that runs native, am I gonna choose the crashy X version especially if the open source project is poorly managed and stagnant (too often the case)? not a chance.
A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close
OS X and Unix (Score:2)
Re:OS X Innovative? (Score:2)
I can not for the life of me understand why Slashdot readers think disdain for colored cases qualifies them as hacker gods when they're unable to comprehend the difference between a completely novel GUI that replaces everything from X up and an Enlightenment theme with translucent buttons.
Somehow, I do not believe we will be seeing this open sourced anytime soon...so why is this so innovative?
Uhh, because innovation is in what you make, not what license you use?
---------
Scary times ahead for traditional Mac users? (Score:3)
Security: some Mac users like to boast of how secure Mac OS is as a web-server. But that security was partly because Mac OS simply doesn't do as much (in terms of network services) as an NT or *nix box and partly because Mac OS is less used for internet servers and so less known. OSX, though, is *nix. You can do more with *nix - and so can the cracker. How will Mac users react to that? If Macintosh do lock down the security, I bet it won't withstand having a load of freenix tools and services added.
Biodiversity: the Mac way of doing things has meant great uniformity amongst Mac machines and systems. From my *nix-geek POV that's not great but it has brought definite advantages to Mac users in terms of stability and ease-of-use. On the downside, IME because Macs work so well together I've found it very difficult to talk to Mac users who want to send/share files with our staff (Linux/Windows environment) because they have trouble with the idea that it might be difficult to get two computers/filesystems/networks to communicate, for them it just happens. How will Mac users (and Macintosh) react to an influx of *nix geeks who want to be able to change everything but still have it all work with the bits they haven't changed. How will they react to the *nix world demanding that OSX stay compatible and open? What will Mr Jobs think?
I can see plenty of areas for friction between Macintosh (the company as opposed to the users) and the freenix world. Steve Jobs' own dealings with the Human Interface group show how little time he has for awkward developers. If there is friction, how will the notoriously loyal Mac users react? Especially if adapting to the Unix world-view means some painful changes for them (viz. my comments on security above).
OSX definitely means that the Mac is coming in from the cold but will some/many Mac users decide they were better off on their own?