Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Linux Journal Likes Mac OS X 59

Posted by pudge from the but-it-is-not-free dept.
sobchak writes "In an article from the latest issue of Linux Journal, Doc Searls and Brent Simmons review Mac OS X. It's a fair and balanced analysis, but is a definite thumbs up for Mac OS X from (yet another) respected Linux source. They stop just short of calling the new OS 'developer nirvana,' but did say, 'Last week we put Mac OS X on a Titanium laptop. It blew our minds.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Journal Likes Mac OS X More

Linux Journal Likes Mac OS X

Comments Filter:

  • Can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KillerKane ( 260666 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @02:02PM (#3182160)
    It's nice to see, for a change, an article that doesn't pit Linux and OSX against each other, but instead focuses on how they can be complementary and what benefits there are for both camps. The article seemed very even-handed to me. It seemed to say "Linux is cool, OSX is cool, and the cross-pollination of advances in each is even cooler". Bravo.

    • I use Linux and OS X. OS X is my main machine and it serves a few php pages, etc. My Linux box is the server for my home network and repository of all things X11. I run Linux StarOffice, etc from my Mac using XDarwin. The setup is great. I get all the benefits of Linux on x86, a real UNIX, and Aqua.

  • The key quote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by foobar104 ( 206452 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @02:12PM (#3182226) Journal
    Since the server is currently curled up in the corner, whimpering and mewling, I can't cut-and-paste and must paraphrase from memory. But as I remember it, the best one-liner from this article went something like this:

    "When it comes to OS X and Linux, it seems that the market logic is AND, not OR."

    (You may now begin the tired and meaningless flames about the difference between AND, OR, and XOR. No one will read them. ;-) )
  • I am thinking about joining Apple Developer Connection for access to Carbon/Cocoa tech notes. Any feedback from other users?
    • Many common software and docs are available from the online (free) subscription to ADC. Just register online, and you should be able to get SDK and tool packages by download until your eyes bleed.

      For beta participation and other NDA software, you'll need to fork over cash for a stronger ADC membership, but there is a student version if you qualify. Go for it.

      • Re:OS X(again) and ADC (Score:4, Informative)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @05:46PM (#3183520) Homepage Journal
        What Spencerian Said. I've been an ADC student member for some time and I think it's worth every penny -- I got a big (one-time) discount on a new Mac, and I get the latest releases of the OS almost as soon as they come out, which easily pays the cost of membership and then some. OTOH, the regular (non-student) membership is pretty expensive, and probably only worth it if you're doing professional Mac development.

      • I too joined the ADC as a student member. For your $99 you get a 10% to 20% once in a life time hardware discount (I got a 20% discount on my iBook in the UK), and all the developer goodness that they ship out. It's worth every penny if you're a developer and plan on getting a Mac soon.

  • The OS isn't the problem... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OneFix ( 18661 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @04:28PM (#3182996)
    As a former Amiga user, I can say that the single thing holding the Mac down is its hardware...not that the hardware is bad (far from it), but it's the closed architecture.

    It's true that a closed architecture can have a signifigant advantage (I won't go over that argument), but the Mac is close enough to the PC in its price range and target audience that the comparison to PeeCee hardware is valid.

    If a potential Mac user doesn't fit into a mold of what Apple has designed a system for, then that user will not find "value" in the Mac.

    As well, hardware manufacturers (in general) have always treated non-PC hardware as an afterthought. I know there have been some advances here as well, but the fact still remains that support is generally less than stellar for anything not wintel.

    There is also the problem of percieved cost with Mac vs. PC. Alot of ppl look at a cheap Mac and say, but this PC is so much cheaper. Apple has attempted to fix that with the iMac, but I don't see it happening...

    Don't get me wrong, the Mac has a great OS, and I personally belive that the 68k and PPC processors are superior to x86 based processors, but this is the problem that Apple & the Mac community as a whole should be addressing.
    • I disagree, but understand your opinion.

      By "closed architecture," I make the assumption that you mean that you can't go and build a Mac like one could do for a PC. True.

      But then, you don't run out to your auto store to build a Jaguar. I know, the car analogy is cliched now, but it illustrates the point.

      Apple doesn't expect every person to switch--only the people who consider the value of the Macintosh (both OS and hardware) worthwhile. Even if they get a fraction of Windows users to switch, they're successful.

      Apple has been getting away from the "hardware proprietary" model since 1998 pretty well. Today, in their G4 towers, the only proprietary hardware (outside of the chassis) is the motherboard and perhaps the processor. Everything else can be bought and installed as you would a PC. I'm probably not telling you anything new.

      I think Apple's computers meet a greater flexibility than a typical PC because they hold a tighter grip on the true standards. Some PCs offer the same standards but implement them strangely. The feel of the machine also is different from PC to PC. That's rare from a Mac perspective.

      You're right on the cost--but people do seem to look a little more at looks now, too, as they would with cars. I think Apple needs to address how easy it would be to MOVE from Windows to Mac, and make it easy by making systems with Virtual PC bundled and a tool for moving data from the PC to the Mac.

      I see one thing about the iMac that few have realized: Sales are through the roof and Apple is having a hard time with demand--for their HIGH END, MOST EXPENSIVE version!!! Imagine the sales numbers for the lower priced models once they work out the supply issue.

      I guess baby steps is better than no progress at all in terms of turnover to Mac tech, however.
      • But then, you don't run out to your auto store to build a Jaguar.

        I don't think this analogy ever worked...here's why...

        1) It is a proven fact that an automobile as a whole is much cheaper than all of the parts...meaning that if you went out to buy a V8, Frame, Body, Radio, etc and then put em all together to make a new Jaguar, it'ld be at least double the cost of a new jaguar.

        2) The trend in the automobile industry is to keep the technology out of the hands of the consumer (ever wonder why noone uses RS-232 for access to the computer anymore?)...the situation in the hardware industry is the exact opposite. Most ppl wouldn't touch their fuel injectors in their vehicle, but it is common for someone (even those that don't build their own system) to switch things such as printers, CD-ROMs, CD-RWs, and DVD-ROMs...even adding memory and harddrives.

        3) The reason for all of this is that (and you just inadvertently strengthened my argument) automobile manufacturers manufacture their own replacement parts. If they sold parts at cost, then someone would come along and make a cheaper/better Jaguar. This is exactly where the problem of a closed architecture is apparent.

        • Re:The OS isn't the problem... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @05:28PM (#3183403) Homepage Journal
          Most ppl wouldn't touch their fuel injectors in their vehicle, but it is common for someone (even those that don't build their own system) to switch things such as printers, CD-ROMs, CD-RWs, and DVD-ROMs...even adding memory and harddrives.

          Um ... no it's not. The vast majority of home computer users have never opened up their cases and never will. Businesses may be a little more likely to upgrade, but these days it seems they're more likely to buy new machines and sell the old ones to employees, or donate the old machines to local schools for a tax writeoff, or whatever.

          The car analogy is a nearly exact one in this case. People who upgrade their own processor or replace a CD-ROM with a CD-RW at home are the "shadetree mechanics" of the computer world, equivalent to car owners who will put in a new exhaust system to get some extra horsepower. Far more common are those who will take their [cars / computers] into a dealer for [a new set of performance tires / installation of more RAM]. But both groups are vastly outnumbered by those who use the machine until it breaks down or is rendered obsolete, and then buy a new one.

          • Of course, in the hardware world, the "shadetree mechanics" are always the ones that end up building/recommending those systems that everyone else uses "until it breaks down".

            Like I said before, the whole automobile analogy is inherently flawed, but it more closely relates to a closed architecture because of the artificial barriers the automobile manufacturers put in place.

            And I know for a fact that every company I've worked for would almost always upgrade their systems as soon as they got em (New NIC). And most ppl have stuff left over from their old system (Printer, Camera, Scanner, etc) that they'ld like to keep with their new system.

            Like I said in my first comment, it is not something that I want to get into, because there really is no other other industry that has both open and closed architectures.
      • I agree completely with most of what you said. Just wanted to comment on this little point:

        I think Apple needs to address how easy it would be to MOVE from Windows to Mac, and make it easy by making systems with Virtual PC bundled and a tool for moving data from the PC to the Mac.

        From what I've heard, practically the only reason Apple won't bundle VPC with new Macs is support. They don't want to be swamped with the massive amounts of support calls that Windows will generate. Even if they put some sort of "you're on your own" disclaimer with the Windows stuff, I'll bet it would be a continual problem.

        One of the beauties of Mac OS (classic or X) is that it's designed to be easy to use. I don't have any hard numbers, but I'll bet support incidents per user are much lower than for Windows. The very thought of supporting all kinds of Windows issues probably gives Steve nightmares and keeps him from ever doing it.

      • Actually the processor isn't proprietary. IBM/Motorola have specs on the processor and how to build your own PPC (not apple) mobo. Granted the only thing holding back open apple hardware is the hardware ROM.

        It seems more open than the old IBM PS series of pcs
    • I just got a Titanium G4 550 Powerbook which replaces my workhorse Toshiba 2805 (running Linux,Win4Lin and, for DVDs, booting in the WinME that came with it). What impressed me was, of course, OS X with Darwin underneath (very solid:
      • [localhost:~] rjt% uptime

      • 8:00PM up 5 days, 23:20, 3 users, load averages: 0.76, 0.57, 0.54
      ) but also the impressive marriage of software and hardware. Apple's careful crafting admired by many in Aqua is evident in the sleek design of the Titanium's case -- even the packaging.

      Moreover, when I plugged in my older Sony DV8 video camera (having iMovie open) immediately iMovie reported "Camera Connected" and I was slurpping video instantly. Yes, I've done that on a PC -- October 1999 I spent the better part of a day making my Sony accessible over the fireware card I bought at Fry's. It was a nightmare of drivers and procedural steps to connect the wires and run the program. It never worked the first time and sometimes it wouldn't work. Having a machine crafted as an elegant and working unit is new to me.

      I don't doubt Apple could have OS X run on Intel-based hardware -- afterall NeXTSTEP, the base of OSX in many ways, ran on x86 hardware eventually. I just don't think the experience would be as enjoyable.

    • As a mostly former Amiga user myself. (I still trot out the A4000 but mostly for supporting Amiga dieheards with problems :) I'd have to question the premises for your argument.

      If you're talking about the iMac, it never was advertised as anything but a complete all-in-one machine for folks who'd never take a machine apart. It's still a great piece of work for the buck given that in the suped up system it's in someways very much like getting an Amiga with something approachinga built-in kid level Video Toaster in software.

      If you're talking about the tower machines, there's plenty of options for expansion in the name of PCI cards as well as CPU upgrades from comapnies like Sonnet (which even makes a CPU/Firewire upgrade module for the original Bondi Imacs)

      Externally, standard ports like Firewire, and built-in Ethernet in tower, iMac, and notebook configs answer a lot of expansion needs.

    • I've seen many attempted comparisons between Macs and PC's. Most don't seem to properly take into account the hardware factor.

      How would you compare the motherboard of a G4, aside from bus speeds, with a PC motherboard? How about the quality of the power supply and cooling fans?

      I think you'll find that a brand-name PC with the same quality of components throughout as Apple puts in its machine, will cost about the same.

      One area, however, Apple has succeeded in breaking through the "PC is cheaper" myth (and yes, I belive now it's a myth for the above stated reasons), is with the powerbook/ibook range, which, at least in Australia, is now considered good value for money compared with PC laptops. This often from comments in PC magazines.

  • This really should be on the front page of Slashdot.

    Anyhow, it's nice to see anyone outside of Mac users discussing Apple products without a sneer (let alone the uber-geek *NIX crowd!). "Refreshing" doesn't even begin to cover how it strikes me.

    Does anyone know how to make a "smug" face in ASCII?

  • my favorite line (Score:3, Funny)

    by cappadocius ( 555740 ) <cappadocius@vamp ... e r a d e . c om> on Monday March 18, 2002 @06:43PM (#3183832)
    my favorite line:

    [Aqua] includes variably translucent windows and other stuff Microsoft can copy later

    • ...probably should've said *will* copy later... =)

    • Fortunately for Apple, they control a patent (#5379129) for alpha-channel blending which makes the translucency thing easy to do. Apple has apparently donned a white-hat approach to this issue, though, offering a royalty-free license to use its method for the PNG format. I wonder if Microsoft would be granted royalty free use so that Windows XP can do translucency? Smart of Apple to make de riguer a look that is difficult to legally clone!
  • I have OS X on my titanium. I agree with the reviewer
    that is awesome.
    You have the beautiful Mac interface plus the terminal
    window to have fun on a normal UNIX.
    Best of both worlds. I can use it and my gf can use it too.

    The only glitch so far is there is no Java plugin
    for OS X. So playing those Java games is difficult.
    Apple/sun needs to solve this issue soon to allow the masses to use a Mac without any problem.

    Maybe the product version of Opera might solve this.
    • The only glitch so far is there is no Java plugin

      What in the world are you talking about? OS X has great java support right out of the box. One of the first things I did after installing OS X was to try to compile some of my Java2 stuff. It worked w/out a glitch. I also use jEdit and ArgoUML frequently. Java support in OS X is the best I have seen on any platform.
    • The only glitch so far is there is no Java plugin for OS X.

      There is an excellent Java-plugin for Netscape/Fizilla for OS X. I use it with Mozilla 0.9.9 for OS X and it works great !

      You can download it here at VersionTracker.com [versiontracker.com].

  • The Linux Journal dateline for Doc and Brent's online article is April 1, 2002. Heh, heh. Knew you were messin' with us!

    (That damn broken ADB keyboard on my TiBook/OS_X couldn't stop me from compiling Open Source apps, other *nix source, Java 1.3 apps/applets/servlets, building MySQL DBs, JSPs, running a research Web site, streaming QuickTime, and building a datamining system. Could someone what I'm doing wrong?)
  • I always seem to find myself going back to linux. I love Apple's suite of developer tools that come with each mac they sell. However I find Project Builder to be sluggish. Reponsiveness of Aqua is also sluggish.

    Alot of individuals claim that X11 is slow as molasses, i don't think they've ever used OSX (this is not a flame). When I'm debugging some code, i'm usually cycling through various windows and desktops and things happen quick. When I try to cycle through windows in OSX, Aqua takes can't compete with the performance I get with Linux (and X11).

    I've also observed that applications in OSX use more cpu cycles then similiar applications (and even ports) on different platforms. Apple seriously needs to work on Darwin And Aqua, especially since Linux 2.6 looks like it will shape up to the pre-emptive king of all kernels.

  • Heard it all before (Score:3, Insightful)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2002 @10:46AM (#3187451)
    The most interesting thing about the article is the way these unix hackers are swooning over the Mac usability, the very thing that many such folk have mocked for years. You plug something in. It just works. You unplug it. It still works. You change it all about. It still works.

    If only the entire open source movement could have this sort of eye-opening experience, Microsoft would be running scared.
  • I have a Blue and White G3, running at 333 Mhz. I love it. On the two hard drives on this machine I have OS X, SuSE 7.3, Mandrake (cooker), and Darwin installed on it.

    The rundown:

    OS X is lovely, but slow slow slow. Even upgraded to 10.1.2 it is still just too damn slow to use. Aside from that, I love the interface and the tools.

    Darwin is just too close to BSD. I like to have good configuration tools (aside from vi). Very little documentation, and too much of a learning curve for someone who has more important things to do than configure and administer a BSD box. I admit that I haven't played with it much.

    Mandrake is a bit rough around the edges (it is the cooker version, after all). It had the best install of any Linux distribution that I've ever used. I just love the bootloader that it installed. It is a two stage wonder program that lets me pick any operating system that I want.

    SuSE 7.3 is a joy to work with. It is responsive, has great configuration tools, has almost every application that I could want, and is just fun to use. I had two problems with it. I can't adjust gamma with XFree 4.x (which is an XFree problem), and it can't run the built in firewire (well it can, but only in raw mode which doesn't do me any good). I solved the firewire problem by buying a cheapo pci firewire card, and it is up and running.

    If I had a state of the art Mac I would run OS X in a heartbeat. On my G3, I prefer SuSE 7.3.
  • ``Frankly, I think it's a piece of crap'', Linus Torvalds wrote in his book, Just for Fun, which was also in the works around that time.

    When Linus Torvalds writes `Frankly, I think it's a piece of crap', he is infact refering to the mach kernel, and not os x it self. Sure, he might think that os x is crap, but he does not say so in his book. Linus Torvalds is an avid propenent of micro kernels in general, so this comes as no shock.

Slashdot Top Deals

Success is something I will dress for when I get there, and not until.

Close