A Linux User At MacWorld 202
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.
Apple (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Apple (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Apple (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:Apple (Score:1)
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)
Re:Apple (Score:1)
t.
Re:Apple give back centralised management (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apple give back centralised management (Score:1)
Darwin Mascot (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Darwin Mascot (Score:2, Informative)
A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard a lot on
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.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:1)
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.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah I guess that's why Fermi has their own distro.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
> 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]
> (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.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:1)
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.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
Personnally, I think it's the best PC / operating system combination I have ever used.
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care that Apple makes their money on the hardware....I actually think it's a very good way: pay good money for a good system and you get an excellent OS "free" with it. Sounds better to me than paying cheap for crappy hardware with an instable OS (x86 with Windows). People are cheap and that is why x86 is popular (okay, Apple is a bit on the pricy side but for quality you should compare them to IBM and they are quite pricy too)
I have a lot of x86 machines, don't worry....I like them too, but I install them according to what they will be used for. Windows for my familiy to do surfing and play games, Linux for me and for my servers. (And OpenBSD as firewall...)
Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and Their kernel, Darwin, runs on x86 as well as PPC.
Oh, and no their hardware isn't all that expensive. Take a look at the low end iBooks and compare it to the low end Dells. The iBook was about 70$ CDN more for the same basic system (except the iBook had firewire too). So I bought an iBook. Their desktops are a bit pricy though.
iMac Competitiveness (Score:2)
If you can take a 1024x768 screen (I can't
Sony: $ 799 + $ 500 Sony brand LCD = $ 1,299(2)
iMac: $ 1,299 with included LCD = $ 1,299
The iMac has the advantage of the super-cool form factor and desk arm to keep your desk clear for all the papers that inevitably collect on it. That's a convincing argument for the iMac right there.
(Of course you could get a cheap off-brand LCD with the Sony, but we're trying to compare (ahem) Apples to Apples, and the Sony monitor is what you need to get the same quality level as the Apple).
I would count the iMac 700mhz as very close in capability to the Pentium 4/1.5ghz, and if we do that comparison, Apple actually winds up looking cheap, even if we substitute the high-end iMac with the SuperDrive
Sony 1.5ghz $1,500 + Sony LCD = $ 2,000(*)
Apple 800mhz $ 1,800 = $ 1,800
and the Apple includes a DVD writer, which Sony users are bound to lust after. Even if you give the Sony an off-brand LCD that just drops them to the same price, and without the SuperDrive.
As you can see, Apple competitiveness is not half bad, if you compare it to a company with similar pretentions. In fact, some might consider it downright aggressive.
You can make similar comparisons with the iBook and Titanium PowerBook G4. I will admit, though, that at the moment the desktop line is long overdue for replacement. http://www.aapltalk.com/ did some very informative comparisons of all the lines.
Hope that was of interest.
D
(1) Microsoft's video editing software as bundled with XP is, well, quite honestly useless and therefore doesn't count as a competitor to iMovie. I know, because I tried it in the store. Horrible.
(2) Minus $ 50 rebate is $ 1,250, but I find myself losing rebate coupons or forgetting to use them at quite a remarkable rate. Which, of course, is what Sony is counting on.
Welcome. (Score:2, Insightful)
This doesn't work (off-topic advice needed) (Score:4, Funny)
Apple really has something here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 :)
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2)
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
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2)
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
I've had DiskCopy crash while creating image files, but I've never had the burning process die.
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:1)
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes and no... (Score:5, Informative)
There actually *are* commercial apps that do the things these apps do, in some cases better, and unlike in cases of Microsoft melding their apps into their system, on the Mac you can throw out the apple software (quickly, easily, and painlessly) and use fully functional alternatives. On Windows, you try making Netscape your browser for everything. IE will still come up regularly like it or not. On the Mac, IE is also the default browser but it took me about a minute to switch completely to Netscape once I'd configured my network. Most of that minute was remembering which control panel to make the change in. I threw IE out.
Apple can be accused of bundling software. (Whether they meet the legal definition of having done so or not, I have no idea, but I think we can agree that they give enough of the appearance of having done so that they could be accused of it.) However, they haven't displayed the heinous behavior of forcing you to *use* it.
It also doesn't hurt that Apple's software is usually easy to use and actually works.
Re: Apple really has something here... (Score:2, Troll)
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]
Re: Apple really has something here... (Score:1)
Re: Apple really has something here... (Score:2)
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.
Re: Apple really has something here... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:1)
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...
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Apple really has something here... (Score:2, Informative)
once you get it installed all you need is
$ sudo apt-get install xfree86-server
and you've got x installed!
Software stability in the public opinion? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Software stability in the public opinion? (Score:2)
Re:Software stability in the public opinion? (Score:2, Informative)
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? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:A Linux User At MacWorld? (Score:2)
Just a matter of timing. (Score:1)
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 ?
Re:Just a matter of timing. (Score:2)
Unless, of course, new features always came out a year later on the intel side.
.
I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (Score:1)
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
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....
Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (Score:1)
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.
Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (Score:2)
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.
.
One button mouse (Score:4, Informative)
My own observations as a fairly biased mac user: It is largely a matter of what you are used to. I find two button mice to be no great advantage when I use them. I suppose for a one handed person (or perhaps someone who's other hand is 'busy') a two-button mouse is a great increase in functionality and ease. But for two handed computing it is a step down in functionality (if not in ease) since now a mouse click is only modified by one other button rather than by the four modifier buttons a mac user is accustomed to (Command, option, control and shift). To gain the equivalent functionality that a mac user is accustomed to having at their left hand while their right hand manages the mouse you would need a 5-button mouse which seems like it would be unweildy and awkward (how would you move the thing with all five fingers up on the surface of it pushing buttons?).
A scroll wheel on the other hand is a huge advantage and something I wish Apple would either adopt or create a reasonable (or better) subsitute for. Of course their is no reason I couldn't get a mouse with more buttons and a scroll wheel.
Re:One button mouse (Score:2)
I should have pointed out in my original post - I only use a mouse occasionally. No I'm not a keyboard using CLI geek. I use a Wacom tablet almost exclusively. Which adds one more (and for me absolutely indespensible) piece of functionality: pressure sensitivity. I also think it's hilarious that you can turn the stylus around and use the "eraser" even in text editors like BBEdit.
Re:One button mouse (Score:2)
Re:One button mouse (Score:2)
To each his own. As for me while I'm using my right hand for the mouse my left hand is sitting idle on the keyboard anyway so I might as well be using it to press modifier keys.
Actually I shouldn't say 'mouse' since I only rarely use a mouse at all no matter how many buttons. I use a Wacom tablet most of the time. For a lot of my work I need the pressure sensitivity and a more natural "drawing" input. The rest of the time I've just grown to prefer the tablet and don't bother with the mouse unless I'm playing a game.
this makes the iMac special? (Score:2, Insightful)
so this is different from using putty on win95 in which way?
Re:this makes the iMac special? (Score:2)
Does every mom with win95 have putty?
Re:this makes the iMac special? (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh man...I could totally make a bong out of those new iMacs...hey! Where did you leave the chips?
No Respect! (Score:1)
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!
Re:No Respect! (Score:2)
Give you whiny Linux kids another ten years and you'll just be whiny Linux using adults. What is funny about Linux users is there are so few developers and so many users. A majority of Linux users will never ever contribute any code to any project ever. They will however complain about something that doesn't have the features they want or not all features work correctly. Yet when this feature lacking program is compared to a fully featured and robust closed source program they will hypocritically acclaim it as the best thing since sliced bread. Despite them never contributing code they think of themselves on par with open source developers who actually DO contribute code. Thus all open source software was produced by "the Linux community" and notby some dudes that are better programmers than all the other dudes. Recompiling your kernel != development.
Apple Gives Nothing Back to Open Source? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
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:
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
(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.Speaking of Macs and Linux... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Speaking of Macs and Linux... (Score:2)
1024x768 is fine except for thosse times when you're at your desk with a big external monitor and a real keyboard and mouse.
Cryptnotic
OS X from the view of a Unix newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple probably could compete at this end of the market by keeping the original iMac alive and selling it cheap (I'm thinking no more than £500, which is about $750 I believe)
I think that if they can secure the low-end of the market as well as keeping their foot in at the top end that the middle ground of the market shall come to them naturally
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:1)
Nobody taught them how to only buy second-grade RAM, take that Airport port out, buy 10Base-T only Network card (who needs 100Base-T anyway?), forget FireWire, stop wasting time designing their boxes, and why the hell would you want a glowing power button for?
And I still think they would need M$ "approval" before taking more than 10% of the market, otherwise they could say good-bye to office, and THAT would hurt.
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:1)
You've got a point about MS, ie. if they get scared they'll stop supporting Office, but there are still plenty of Office-esque suites out there. I'm pretty certain that once companies have made that first spend they'll pay to keep it valid (isn't this how MS have been operating?) It's not as if these things are expensive or hard to produce either, Apple could ship an Office suite with the OS maybe, after all a word processor is much mre a fundamental part of the OS than, say, a web browser...
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:1)
Russell
Exclusive OS (Score:2, Interesting)
All three markets can coexist, and should coexist. It's perfectly normal for the computer world to divide into different virtual geographies with different personalities, just like the real world. Apple's new vision is to build a line of products that appeal to people that hang out in places like South Beach or Greenwich Village. Linux appeals to people attracted to places like San Jose or Austin. Windows appeals to people that for some unknown reason spend their time in Detroit.
The biggest reason why Apple is so cool is because they know their niche and they cater to it. Opening the flood gates and bringing the bazillion Windows users and developers into the Apple world is the worst thing that could happen to Apple, because without the exclusivity that they have right now, they would be just another OS. The last thing that I want to see on my beautiful OSX system is a bunch of crappy shareware built by 14-year-old teenagers in Hungary with no design sense whatsoever. I don't want the bouncers letting people in jeans and sneakers into the nightclubs that I visit, and I don't want ports of a bunch of ugly Windows applications running on my Aqua system. If Apple's market share rises too high, then the whole mystique will be broken when the exclusive feel of the OS is lost.
The applications available for OSX are mostly designed and built by people that are very into the Apple mystique, and a lot of people like it that way. Applications for other OS's are generally not designed at all, they are just built. I keep an ugly Gateway PC in a side room for running junk like that when I need to, but it's an iMac running OSX that gets to sit in my living room. If I need real power, then I can pop up an X window on my iMac from the Linux server that lives in a closet where nobody sees it.
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:2)
Re:Apple candy and chatter (Score:1)
Jobs has said again and again, they view their main competitor as Sony, not Microsoft - look at the whole digital hub push. What is that but a direct competitor to the Vaio franchise?
"Buy cool stuff. Put it together. It works." That's the goal.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:1)
Neither one has a line of Unix code in it, and both can run Unix apps and are Unix-like.
And Mach was first...
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2, Informative)
Well, no. Far back in the mists of time (err..1992/1995), I earned my living writing code on the Mac. One of the things we regularly used was MPW - the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop.
Now, this wasn't necessarily the most elegant thing in the world. However, it was a fairly good approximation of a Unix development environment on a Macintosh. You know - command-line make, STDIO-driven command line tools with (emulated) pipes...much porting of utils from Sun-derived sources went on too.
Point is that Apple has never, to my knowledge, been anti-Unix. It's just that until recently, Unix simply wasn't what it did.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:5, Insightful)
They used to sell some Apple-badged AIX boxes, which admittedly weren't really macs, but prior to that (back in the early nineties) they actually had their own version of unix, A/UX. It was truly bizarre, an Apple desktop (circa system 6 or so) with a terminal window in it to actually get at the system.
I used to admin a couple of these things, they were unusual, but they worked. The weirdest things were the manuals - all standard Apple typesetting, but detailing how to use "ls" and "cd"...
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Don't forget mkLinux -- a formerly Apple-developed distribution, which they started back in '95-96 (i.e., a few years before the majority of
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
I heard a story - most likely apocryphal but funny if it was true. Supposedly Apple sold a few UNIX workstations beyond the ones you mentioned. Apparently the internal art department in some company wanted macs but there was a corporate policy mandating Windows with a small loophole for the occasional UNIX workstation. Solution: sell the Macs through a subsidiary with MkLinux preinstalled as a "Unix Workstation" neither MacIntosh nor Apple appear on the invoice and the purchase is approved. Once the box arrives wipe Linux of the machine install MacOS from the CD and presto chango the designers are happily running their preferred OS despite company policy. Suposedly this was not a one time thing but a trick they used on a few occasions when trying to sell to large corporations with "Microsoft only" purchasing polices.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if I remember, OS X has been recognized POSIX-compliant, and as such, is probably as close to the Unix throne as Linux is. It is amusing that talking about computer we should hear such arguments as "original source code" and "traditional architecture". If being Unix is running on 30 years old computers, I guess Mac OS X is far from it. But as far as I'm concerned, Mas OS X is as Unix as it gets, if only because any developer used to any Unix variant out there will master Mac OS X internals in 5 minutes time.
But I think you're right about Apple PR having completely changed its stance on Unix, and most of this change was brought by Copland's complete failure, prompting Apple to buy NeXT to get a memory-protected operating system.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Indeed. That's my point. The Darwin kernel is nicer and more modern than the BSD kernel or the old UNIX kernel. Why does Apple keep calling it "UNIX"? It's all marketing, because UNIX has a good reputation. Maybe one shouldn't complain about it, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm sure the old UNIX hackers at AT&T would give you an earful about all the things that are wrong, according to them, with the Darwin architecture.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Yes.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.
Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
The DirectFB [directfb.org] project looks promising, and is almost finished (most recent release is 0.9.8). Of course, what really is there to such a graphics layer? Considering it piggiebacks on the Linux framebuffer console anyway, probably not much.
They have an X compatibility layer for running X apps. I see there is a patched gtk available as well, but is that enough to do anything? Now if someone could port a WM and a DE...
IMO, there's actually nothing wrong with X11, but rather XFree86. I understand that XFree86 needs to work on more platforms than Linux, but still. As a Linux user, having a completely separate driver system just for XFree86 is both redundant and annoying. Configuration is also a disaster (fonts anyone?).
DirectFB with an optional X layer sounds like the future for desktop Linux.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Better is a matter of opinion, and people who claim that usually do so out of ignornance of X. You're unlikely to find a better windowing system than X any time soon. Sure, it has some problems in current implementations, but those are being fixed with time (alpha blending, antialiased fonts, etc.). X is so much more than people think, and still has a long way to go. If people put in the effort to get it to where it was always intended to be, it'll be untouchable. The ability for an application to specify an editor widget, for example, but leave the implementation as user-configurable. Sure, most people will just stick with the standard text box, but others can replace it with a vi or a jed or even emacs-alike widget. For *all* applications, not needing to be configured on a per-app basis. Those interested may find Alan Cox's comments from his April 7th diary entry [linux.org.uk] enlightening.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
I fully agree: for better or worse, Linux is not UNIX. (The Linux kernel architecture, however, is more similar to UNIX than OSX's is.)
Darwin is UNIX, period.
Oh, and what is the reason you think that?
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Well, perhaps people don't do it because it's not such a good idea after all. Apple's applications look slick and are often easy to use, but that doesn't mean that they made the best choice for the underlying graphics model.
In fact, the open source community does have something like this: Display PostScript (in multiple implementations). And there are good reasons why people don't use it.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention all that freeware that did what UNIX tools did on Mac.
And what about that apple UNIX like server OS, what was it, A/UX?
Apple's been flirting with UNIX for years, it's just now that they're finally getting it on.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
And apparently the Apple zealots on /. have no sense of humor about it, given their trigger happy moderation. The worst thing about Apple is the smugness of the company and its users: according to them, Apple can never do anything wrong.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:1)
Yes, and, neither does linux, bsd, or many if not most of the commercial unix vendors.
> has little of the traditional UNIX architecture.
Kindly explain what on earth you are talking about. System calls? The internals of the kernel itself? Command line programs? Any way you slice it, I'm afraid you're wrong.
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:3, Funny)
Not a Unix? Excuse me, but what part of...
[cty197:~] fuy% cd /
[cty197:/] fuy% ls -al
total 1228649
drwxrwxr-t 35 root admin 1146 Jan 11 08:58 .
drwxrwxr-t 35 root admin 1146 Jan 11 08:58
-rw-rw-rw- 1 fuy admin 8196 Jan 3 17:03
dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 128 Jan 11 08:58
drwxrwxr-x 28 root admin 908 Jan 7 17:07 Applications
drwxrwxr-x 11 root admin 330 Nov 15 22:59 Developer
drwxrwxr-x 27 root admin 874 Dec 20 19:16 Library
drwxr-xr-x 6 root wheel 264 Nov 9 23:23 Network
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 264 Dec 10 17:45 System
drwxr-xr-x 2 fuy unknown 264 Nov 12 08:54 Trash
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 92 Nov 9 22:29 Users
drwxrwxrwt 3 root wheel 264 Jan 11 08:59 Volumes
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 512 Jan 11 11:08 automount
drwxr-xr-x 33 root wheel 1078 Dec 21 20:00 bin
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 13 Jan 11 08:58 cores -> private/cores
dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Jan 11 08:58 dev
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 etc -> private/etc
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 9 Jan 11 08:58 mach ->
-r--r--r-- 1 root admin 563484 Jan 11 08:58 mach.sym
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3152156 Dec 8 00:40 mach_kernel
drwxr-xr-x 7 root wheel 264 Jan 11 08:59 private
drwxr-xr-x 59 root wheel 1962 Dec 21 20:01 sbin
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 tmp -> private/tmp
drwxr-xr-x 10 root wheel 296 Dec 22 20:40 usr
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 var -> private/var
...don't you understand?
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Re:it's kind of funny (Score:2)
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:2)
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:2, Insightful)
It's too slow! Okay, so that's just an immediate problem and will be fixed with beefier hardware. If OS X ran on X86 hardware, it would be great since fast processors are plentiful and cheap. (Enough with the "Is there an echo in here?" jokes! I know the OS X on X86 comment is more overplayed than the latest Brittany Spears song!) Before you go off and comment that I've probably only used a Mac at the local CompUSA for 5 minutes while my friend is on a quest for the super-secret hidden location of the public restrooms [flushmate.com], well, you'd be right. However, I also own a Mac too.
Granted, it is an iMac 500MHz G3 with 256MB of RAM, which would be considered "entry level" in the Mac world. Would a top-of-the-line G4 have more snap when running OS X? You bet - I tried one of those out too at CompUSA (the bathrooms must be REALLY hard to find, cause my friend was gone FOREVER). The G4s run OS X great, and for a brief moment in time, I felt like this OS had a real chance - until I returned to reality and realized how it runs on the system I was able to afford.
My only hope is that the Apple fairy comes in the night and sprinkles some speedup dust on my iMac - otherwise getting $800 for it on eBay [ebay.com] is starting to look really good. That money could get me a REALLY nice Athlon XP [amd.com] barebones system.
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:1)
This summer I bought my fiancé an iMac DV (400MHz G3). The computer came with the stock 10GB hard drive and only 64MB of RAM.A week after I purchased her machine, OSX was released. I went out and bought a nice 7200RPM 40GB hard drive (7200s are not always recommended because of the possible heat issue but I haven't had any problems) and 2 256MB sticks of Crucial RAM. I did a clean OS 9/X install and I was a little disappointed by the speed.
However, when 10.1 was released, I was amazed at the difference. I have a 1.4GHz Athlon, and the perceived speed difference between her machine is not that great. The only slow thing that I have noticed is when starting the Classic environment. However, because the iMac is quite and stable, I have only had to reboot when installing updates. Please, if you are going to make the hackneyed claim that's machine Y is too slow - think for a minute. I bet if you were to spend the $35 and get another 256MB of RAM, you would notice a big difference.
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:1)
I just recently got a iBook (600MHz) with 128 MB of ram. OS X (10.1.2) runs quite smoothly. When I start running a lot of programs though things grind to a hault. The memory requirements are quite high. I plan to pop another 256 MB of ram in there soon. With nothing running almost all of my ram is used up.
I think people are confusing massive swapping with the fact that the thing runs slow. When I'm not swaping like mad, it runs smooth.
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the constant advice Apple gets and fortunately Apple wisely disregards it. Apple is very successful when considered as a hardware company. It's marketshare is comperable to it's hardware competitors. It has better gross profit margins, and far better customer loyalty. It has been expanding while it's hardware competitors are laying people off. And considering it's share of the overall market if they can convince just 5 more consumers out of 100 to buy macs they will double in size. Apple is a large, profitable hardware company with a lot of room to grow.
When considered purely as an OS vendor they do horrible with only 3% worldwide marketshare and pitifully small percent of their revenue coming from OS licenses.
When considered more broadly as a software company Apple does OK with several successful software titles in a wide variety of markets - A multimedia file standard and authoring software (Quicktime), Office productivity (Appleworks), Video editting (Final Cut Pro), DVD Authoring (DVD Studio Pro), Web Application Server (Web Objects) and database software (FileMaker) as well as a bunch of applications they give away for free to spur hardware sales. Still with all of their success in software it accounts for less than 1/6th of their revenue. The Year 2000 number I found had software revenue of $966 million out of total revenues of $6.135 billion.
Why would a company severely undermine a hardware business that brings in $5.168 billion dollars ion revenue to pursue a software business that only brings in $966 million? Yes they could start selling the software they currently give away for free and maybe expand MacOS marketshare - lets be generous and say that despite the enormous risks and costs they TRIPLE their software revenues by the time the completely transition from a hardware company to a software company - they would still by only HALF the size they currently are. It just doesn't seem worth the risk especially when the current business plan of using the software business to enhance the hardware business has proven to be quite profitable even in a recession.
Re:Apple is going nowhere (Score:2)
True. That was the time when their OS advantage was so great they could have succesfully made the transition. Yet even then Apple was already a very large business, with decent marketshare and 50% gross profit margins on their boxes. It still would have been a very risky plan to go from a large and successful hardware maker to (initially at least) much smaller (if potentially more profitable) software company. At that time licensing an OS was an untried business plan - Microsoft was puny compared to Apple (and remained so for a lot longer than most realize) and was looking get out of the OS business itself - ironically to focus on selling MacOS applications. In hindsight Apple obviously should have licensed it's OS to clone manufacturers or at least cut it's gross margins to compete with cheaper IBM clones and killed the Windows market in it's infancy. But it wasn't obvious at the time and Apple chose to enjoy those huge profit margins rather than to dominate the industry. Oh well.
However, we would all be talking about the evil empire of Steve Jobs
Too true - he likes closed boxes and control over everything which is not necessarily bad (IMO) in a niche product but would be a disaster for the industry as a whole.