Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses Software Linux

Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other? 698

Posted by pudge from the cats-and-dogs-living-together dept.
viewstyle writes "There is an interesting commentary on eWEEK discussing the 'synergies' between Apple and Linux after visiting LinuxWorld. It makes a good point that advancement of Linux is good for Mac OS X and vice versa, because of the ease of porting across the platforms (soon to get easier with the X11 on Mac OS X)." Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other? More

Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other?

Comments Filter:

  • But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:30PM (#5193731)
    >Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...

    But this is already happening. Cmdr Taco and Hemos both have Mac laptops, and from what I read online on their pages/blogs, they are their main machines these days!

    I am thinking of buying a 12" Powerbook for myself. I have many PCs over here (8+) and an old G4 machine. But I need a new laptop, and that 12" powerbook does look good. :)

    • Re:But they are! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alfredo ( 18243 )
      BTW, KDE 3 runs great on the Mac. So does Gnome.

      • Re:But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:07PM (#5193985)
        :shudder: You say that like it's a good thing. Given that Macs are generally slower than PC's, and generally more expensive, the only reason to own one-- and I own three-- is to run Mac OS X, Finder and all. If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.

        • Re:But they are! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by motorsabbath ( 243336 )
          I have one OSX box (867 MHz) and a bunch of Slackware and FreebSD boxes. If you want to run KDE, do it on inexpensive x86 (hopefully AMD :) equipment. If you're gonna spend the loot on a Mac, use Aqua. It's a great interface, I love it. My next purchase will definately be a Powerbook (my Thinkpad is beginning to show its age).

          Cheers - JB

        • Re:But they are! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by alfredo ( 18243 )
          It is about flexibility and choice. I do not see KDE and Aqua as an either or choice.

      • Re:But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by York the Mysterious ( 556824 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:06AM (#5194292) Homepage
        If you want to run KDE on a DESKTOP then get a PC. Desktops are desktops (at least while Apple has a plain old boring design on the PowerMacs). Now laptops are a whole different story. Apple does a great job of making interesting and neat hardware to use. This is very important in laptops. I've used a lot of PC laptops and while they might be faster than Apple laptops they just aren't very functional. Big bulky with poor design. It's all about the little things and I think that Apple understands that.

        -Tim

      • Re:But they are! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by erat ( 2665 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @06:32AM (#5195169)
        Perhaps... But when I plunked down a couple grand for my brand spankin' new iMac, I did so because I wanted to get away from that stuff. If I wanted a fast computer that ran KDE or GNOME, I would have stuck with my dual 1GHz PIII system with Linux on it.

        Quite frankly, KDE, GNOME, and even Linux bore the hell out of me now (I started with Linux back in '91. It was fun back then. It's not fun anymore). I'm having a better time with this goofy iMac than I've had with any computer or OS in years. Why ruin it?

        Just my $0.02...
    • I went to look at the 12" PB the other day iand it smaller than the old PB duos.. nice thing.. Howver the screen is high res for its size... but its also a small screen. at some point we are gonn a have ultra tiny hi res screens we cant read:)
    • Don't forget how the apple section of Slashdot also appeared around the time they got the laptops too.

    • Re:But they are! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `noraaver'> on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:22AM (#5194339) Homepage
      pudge is a Mac user himself. And being a Slashdot editor, I bet he even knew about Taco and Hemos. So, you see, it was supposed to be funny. Maybe not yuk-it-up funny, but all the same.
    • Yeah right. Next you'll be telling me that they use Linux!

      (Sorry, a bit harsh of me, I suppose. I guess I thought everyone knew that everyone knew about the editors and their Macs.)

  • X11... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    pronounced "10-11" by Steve Jobs!

  • Common Office platform (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:31PM (#5193735)
    If they can work towards an open file format system to replace MS office, they could chip away @ the MS desktop market.
    • I think that one of the reason's OS X is having such success as a desktop Unix is that it has a native MS Office to work with. Say what you will about Windows, but I have never had a problem working with their Office products. Pay for windows? Nah brah. But I have no problem paying for something that works well.

      • Re:Common Office platform (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Xzzy ( 111297 )
        it's not at issue, from what little I pay attention to the anti-office crusade I see it's mostly an issue of open standards.

        linux zealots wouldn't give two bits about Office, either microsoft's or sun's, if the file formats had been open and documented. Because competitive full featured suites would have popped into existence 5 years ago.

        think where open source could be today if the community was able to boast a complete clone (for lack of a better word) of microsoft office. Not just claim it now.. but years ago.
        • it's not at issue, from what little I pay attention to the anti-office crusade I see it's mostly an issue of open standards.

          linux zealots wouldn't give two bits about Office,...

          But Linux zealots aren't the ones making Macs successful. The ones who buy Macs the most are regular users that like the Mac interface while still being able to use their familiar MS Office programs. I think that is what thryllkill intended to say in his post.

        • Re:Common Office platform (Score:4, Informative)

          by shellbeach ( 610559 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @04:00AM (#5194941)
          FWIW, MSOffice - or at least, MSWord - does have an open file format that is almost 100% compatible with native .doc - it's called RTF, is extensively documented on Microsoft's Web Site, is an open standard and has been around for years.

          In fact you can (and I have done so) write a RTF document with nothing but a text editor (although it's not the most pleasant of things ... but that's not the point :). It supports just about everything .doc does - including footnotes, endnotes, margin spacing, layout, etc.

          So the "open file format" issue can't be all that's behind the lack of good open-sourced office suites!

          • Hmm... you probably never got a .doc e-mail attachment (with something important). If you tried to convince them to send it in .rtf instead of .doc you'd get a) why do you need it? b) i see, i don't know how to do it c) did you said it was possible in MS Office d) they'd be pissed of your "amateur" approach...

            • Re:Common Office platform (Score:4, Insightful)

              by sheriff_p ( 138609 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @06:36AM (#5195177)
              Perhaps where you work. Working in the anti-virus field, it's often policy that no .doc files go through the mail server - guidelines state that if someone sends you a .doc file, you should write back and ask for .rtf.

              The turning point is normally pointing out to the sender that:

              a) If they send a macro virus, they could be liable
              b) They may be sending a lot more information that they wish to by using .doc

    • Oasis working on Common Office standard (Score:5, Informative)

      by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @03:56AM (#5194935) Homepage
      OASIS is working on a standard format [eweek.com] for producivity packages. OpenOffice/StarOffice look to be the main beneficiaries, but since the standard will be open, you can write your own wordprocessors or spreadsheets to read/write/edit these files.

      As mentioned in other posts, if the file format had been open and documented there would not really be an issue. However, since legacy formats are starting to punish businesses with real costs, the issue can no longer be ignored, even by those that don't/can't plan ahead.

      DMCA and EUCD are two additional reasons for migrating from legacy formats. These two could legally prevent businesses (and agencies) from accessing their own documents if encoded in undocumented, proprietary formats and the tools to manage these formats are no longer licensed.

      If they can work towards an open file format system to replace MS office, they could chip away @ the MS desktop market.
      Chip, yes, but it MS-Office revenue will collapse like a sand castle when it goes -- but that's a separate thread. Since Microsoft has alrady taken a publicly stated position against the open file formats, the collapse will only reduce the overhead costs of businesses, agencies and citizens.
  • I attended Jeff Bates's talk at linux.conf.au [linux.conf.au] where he gave his presentation using OS X. The only presenter all week who dared to use a non-Linux platform.
    • oh, sorry to reply to myself but i might add there were plenty of apple laptops there running linux, mine included. The other notable Apple laptop user was Rusty Russell, writer of IP tables and more recently the new kernel module architecture.

  • Sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CoolVibe ( 11466 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:34PM (#5193750) Journal
    Aplle takes the KHTML engine, improves it, makes a lightweight browser, gives the sourcesn abck to the KDE project.

    Not only Linux wins, but all platforms capable of running KDE win. Huzzah.

  • I think care needs to be taken around Apple.

    While they are producing some good stuff now (lets not talk about the past will we) they are a commercial company. That much won't change any time soon

    As such their "priorities" so to speak are different and opposed to those of open source, linux, and software.

    We could end up just feeding apple a lot in the way of open source projects, all up and dancing in a hoohaa of joy.

    What happens when apple change their mind? Suddenly they're not so supportive of OSS. The commercial climate is fickle, and it WILL change
    • True enough...

      However, them being a commercial company is part of the appeal.

      Things like supported dvd playback, good media support, cohesive destop experience.

      And all other things being equal, a computer purchace (thankfully) isn't forever.

    • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jeboyer ( 24453 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:42PM (#5193801)
      What happens when apple change their mind?

      That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.

      Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.

    • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Garin ( 26873 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:48PM (#5193836)
      Well, but who cares? In the mean time, Apple cleans up KHTML, gives some credibility to Unix-on-the-desktop, and makes a bunch of pretty notebooks.

      What's the worst that could happen?

      Imagine Jobs has a change of heart tomorrow and decides that open source sucks. So what then? They stop using KHTML. KDE will continue on without them, I guarantee it -- and they'll always have the work that Apple contributed. The xBSD crowd will probably be a little disappointed if Apple stops developing BSD stuff, but it's not going to shut them down or hurt them in any way. Maybe they won't get the benefit of some of Apple's work, if Apple chooses to keep it to themselves, but there's no real subtraction there. BSD software abounds in closed-source applications, yet BSD is still doing just fine (despite what the trolls will have you believe :)

      See, that's the beauty of open source. Companies can -help- by improving the software, but they can't -hurt- by wrecking it for everyone. About the dirtiest trick they could pull would be to try a Microsoftian embrace-and-extend. We've dealt with those before, and they're not that big of a deal in the long run.

      I dunno, I say we encourage Apple to do as much as they can with open source software. They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on. They take the best of what's out there, improve it, use it in their products, and contribute back to the community at large. It's win-win, as far as I can see.
      • They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on.

        Oh mark this up as insightful!. Apple are leading in pop-kind-of-way the demonstration of "we're commercial, we also use open source". IBM have been doing the same with their support of linux, but for some reason it doesn't have the mass appeal of "Apple's using OSS and it's smooth! polished! slick!".

        There's 2 things apple are giving the OSS community. Changes to OSS software projects themselves, and marketing! marketing! marketing! :)

        • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Garin ( 26873 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:17PM (#5194055)
          Yeah, IBM is using Linux. However, we all know that IBM can't market it's way out of a wet paper bag. Apple, though.. Those guys *definitely* know a thing or two about making their products sexy. You're right, Apple contributes marketing. But I don't think they're going to seriously affect the way that the public thinks about OSS. That would be nice, and I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't think Apple cares. While IBM is using the popularity of Linux to boost itself, Apple isn't using the popularity of OSS and KHTML to boost itself. Yeah, they mention it I suppose, but it's more in passing than anything else.

          They don't really care so much about OSS in principle, I'd say, as much as they care about having a robust product working very quickly. It happens to be a fact that OSS very often displays those features. It also happens to be a fact that a lot of OSS lacks polish and flair, "sexiness" -- to Joe Public. Very few people question the fact that Apple is very good at making things friendly, useable, and just all around sexy.

          It's a perfect match, I'd say. Apple gets the robust code, and the value they add (and charge for) is the interface that they put on the front. The OSS community gets a few patches and bugfixes, and a bit of publicity. Everyone gets something out of it.

      • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ruiner13 ( 527499 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:21AM (#5194336) Homepage
        Apple is, and always has been, a company who's primary objective is to sell their hardware. OSX, iPod, Safari, iLife.. all that crap just makes people want to buy thir hardware. Unless this changes sometime in the near future, I don't see why they would turn against OSS, there would be no profit in it. It sure wouldn't help them sell hardware, in reality it would hurt them as they would most likely scorn a whole new following of Apple fans (not addicts... yet).
    • I've seen all of you saying 'it doesn't matter', but it does.

      From a purely technical standpoint, it might not matter. From a 'how things look to the outside world', it matters a lot. If a company as large as Apple was to have a change of heart, it would be as detrmental to the *idea* of open source to the same extent that Apple support open source has been a positive factor. You can't have it both ways.
    • If you want to write an application for osX and you used X11, porting to linux would be much much easier.. So more applications will hopefully make there way from macos x to linux. I don't think many mac programs are X11, but if you wanted to program cross platfrom developers should start thinking about using it.

      Linux /GNU has helped make OSX much better with fink (OSX version of debian app-get) which gives mac osX users easy access to install a lot of gnu software. I got perl/ ImageMagik and xemacs running on my osX box. Its a great thing.

      The fact that gcc is the standard OSX compiler doesn't hurt either.
      • I don't think many mac programs are X11, but if you wanted to program cross platfrom developers should start thinking about using it.


        Alternatively, you could write your Mac app in Cocoa and port to Linux with GNUstep [gnustep.org].

    • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:40AM (#5194411)
      repeat after me: "apple is a hardware company". say over and over until you get it. apple is truly an innovative, technology company. apple makes it dollars selling its technology, its innovation. that is why it frequently upgrade their hardware. not like a 2.4GHZ to a golly gee, 2.6GHZ P4, but real upgrades. look at the new TiBooks. hell, they could've installed a MacLinux on every new mac if it's sold more boxen. they just don't make enough on software. in fact, they use their web site to market third party software, so you can see all that the mac can do. so you'll buy their hardware. open source has just been another avenue for them to sell hardware. they understand that all the OSS in the world doesn't cut into their bottom line. not one bit.

      no, apple isn't approaching OSS from a philosophical standpoint, like many of us do, but rather from a practical standpoint. and if OSS makes good commercial sense, then it is good for OSS. pissing off the F/OSS community is a bad move on their part. apple knows it. even though office X is nice, m$ is the long run enemy of apple. m$ represents a different direction, different hardware. apple can't sell its os to run on intel. it needs to sell hardware. OSS is just one way to do that. they keep trying to prove they're good citizens, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt.

      (writing this on my ibook, running mozilla, while i edit my php/perl files on gvim, and test on apache/mysql, and create graphics on GIMP)
      • YES, Apple is a hardware company, but I would also not ignore the fact that software is an important part of their business as well.

        They're a solid company that is an "early adopter" when it comes to inclusion into their systems. To suggest that they could not be just as innovative in creating x86 boxen is selling Apple's capabilities short.

        I'm one of those nutbars who thinks that Apple could actually kick some MS butt by moving towards x86. How many people wouldn't die to have an x86 based powerbook? There is a cachet to Apple hardware, and it is well earned.

        If Apple moved over to x86, how many Linux users would switch? I think there would be some significant numbers there. How many Windows users would switch? I think the numbers would be surprisingly large here.

        I'm a Windows user, and I'd gladly pay $100 for OSX, and an additional $100 for those wonderful iApps. The only reason why I don't switch to Mac is because I like the commodity hardware platform.

        Having said that, I would (and many people I know) would have no qualms about spending a few extra bucks to buy Apple x86 hardware. Apple has one of the strongest brands out there.

        Think of it this way, when you spend $100 on a Burberry scarf, are you any warmer than you would be with a $15 scarf? Probably not. Just like a Burberry scarf, the "warm and fuzzies" you can get with Apple hardware would in my mind would give Apple hardware sales the same if not better revenues than with their current fare.

        I think Apple could _easily_ eat away at some of Linux's market share... if they moved onto the x86 platform.

        • Re:Linux should be careful (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@xm s n e t . nl> on Friday January 31, 2003 @10:56AM (#5196466)

          I doubt it. PC making is a commodity market, driven almost solely by price. Nice design and high quality doesn't sell.

          If Apple were to move to x86, they'd have to compete with Joe Clonebaker and the Crappy Componentbuilders. And at the same time, Apple would have to make sure OS X worked with all the bazillion motherboards, PCI cards, etc. available for PCI processors.

          They would lose much of the "there is no step three" user experience (hassle-free installation, etc.) they can offer now.

  • Apple OS X and Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:41PM (#5193790)
    I'm waiting for Apple to get a version of Quicktime for Linux.
    • You mean you want the Sorensen video codec on linux, not the crappy Quicktime player.

      • Re:Apple OS X and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:15PM (#5194044)
        Actually, I assumed he meant the QuickTime libraries themselves, represented by QuickTime.framework under OS X. (They're available for Windows, too, but I have no idea how they're packaged for Windows.) Having QuickTime for Linux would mean Linux software could take advantage of the QuickTime API's for dealing with file formats and media playback. That would be very handy for things like homegrown processing farms. Lucas Digital uses that sort of thing a lot, as do many other media-type companies.

        Of course, Apple's (understandable, and mostly correct) position is that anything you can do with Linux you can do better with OS X, so it's easy to see why they haven't bothered porting QuickTime.framework.
    • What good will it do Apple?

      Think about it. Contributing code back to KHTML and X11 helps Apple, because it makes it easier to borrow code again in the future (reduces incompatible changes, and avoids tying up "upstream" developers on work Apple already did). Contributing to Rendezvous helps increase the mind- and market share of a young technology that Apple is backing. Contributing to Darwin gets them, in the best case, free bug fixes in an area they do not feel competitive to start with. At worst, it buys goodwill.

      What will QT for Linux do for Apple? I'm not saying it does nothing, but no reason I can think of is as compelling as the examples I gave above. For the same reason, Apple is not going to help Linux by giving it iTunes or iPod software, or in general improve Linux as a desktop OS for nothing.

  • Uh, soon to get easier? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:43PM (#5193806)
    X has been available on OS X for about a year. With XDarwin and OroborOSX it's about as perfectly integrated as it can get. Most X programs will compile just fine (and the ones that don't more often than not the problem is with the configure scripts.. rewrite the makefile and it works) I use gvim as my text editor and other X programs with relative frequency. OS X really is the best of both worlds IMO.

    • Actually, if you use fink, you've noticed that the shared libraries in Apple's X11 distro are named in a non-standard way. I've spent days recompiling things that I'd compiled before I noticed there was a problem.

      That said, the opengl support makes pymol nicer.

    • buggy as swamp in july (Score:4, Insightful)

      by urbazewski ( 554143 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:19PM (#5194066) Homepage Journal
      With XDarwin and OroborOSX it's about as perfectly integrated as it can get

      If this is as good at it gets I'm in deep trouble. One of the synergies between Mac OS X and Linux is that Matlab is available for the Mac again, after Mathworks had previously announced that would no longer release on the Mac platfrom. Very good news for me, however, Matlab for Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX, and it's incredibly buggy. (I am using Simulink, which relies heavily on OroborOSX.)

      What kinds of bugs you ask? I can't always navigate through the fields in parameter boxes (one button mac mouse and the key combos just don't do it). I can't use the letters 'f' or 'd' in comments when OroborOSX isn't in the mood (well, there are 24 other letters in the alphabet). Matlab crashes reliably if I choose "cancel" instead of "save" with the "save as" command (in a Simulink model).

      And sometimes when Matlab crashes, XDarwin doesn't shut down completely which prevents me from being able to reboot from the system on my internal hard drive -- I have to reboot from an external hard drive and then restart. It happened (again) yesterday while I was working at a coffeeshop.

      I'm not sure who's to blame here, and I'm really pleased that Matlab is available, but the integration of these various programs still has a long way to go.

      blog-O-rama [annmariabell.com] (more raving & ranting about my experiences with OS X, etc. etc.)

      • Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX, and it's incredibly buggy

        I had similar problems with Matlab and OroborOSX. The worst was that OroborOSX wouldn't start up reliably, so that starting up Matlab would often be a half-hour ordeal. In addition it tended to crash semi-randomly, which meant I had to go through the ordeal almost every day.

        In the end, I found a way to use Matlab with Apple's X11 beta here at this site [macosxhints.com]. This solved all my problems. Matlab starts reliably and faster, doesn't crash, opening and closing windows works fine, and it's still well-integrated with OSX. All it takes is installing Apple's X11 and making a few small changes to .xinitrc.

        You should try it out. Hope this helps.

      • Re:buggy as swamp in july (Score:5, Informative)

        by tbmaddux ( 145207 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @08:32AM (#5195539) Homepage Journal
        Matlab for Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX...
        You can switch to the Apple X11 (after installing it, of course) by editing /Applications/MATLAB6p5/bin/LaunchMATLAB.app/Conte nts/launch_matlab.sh (watch out for spaces inserted by SlashCode in that path) to read as follows:
        #!/bin/sh
        # $Revision: 1.1 $
        # Copyright 1997-2002 The MathWorks, Inc.

        if [ "`ps xc | grep X11`" ]; then
        # Bounce less if Apple X11 is already started
        sleeptime=10
        else
        sleeptime=15
        fi

        # osascript -e 'tell application "OroborOSX" to activate'
        # osascript Contents/launch_oroborosx

        open -a /Applications/X11.app

        cd ../..

        bin/mac/setsid bin/matlab -desktop -display :0.0 &

        # Bounce to let user know MATLAB is starting up.
        /bin/sleep $sleeptime

        The changes are a reduction of "sleeptime" since Apple X11 is faster, a change to what we "grep" for, and of course the "open" call to X11.app. Apple X11 is a lot faster and stabler for me than XDarwin/OroborOSX. If you prefer not to switch to Apple X11, at the very least you should update OroborOSX since the version distributed with MATLAB 6.5 is several releases old.

    • X11 has been available for OS X for a helluva lot longer than a year. The one-app, double-clickable OroborOSX maybe a year, but XFree86 has been around for OS X and OS X Server for two and a half years, perhaps even a bit more. It was only a few months after OS X 10.0 was released that Carmack was working on a port of XFree to OS X and Darwin in general.

  • Apple (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:43PM (#5193809)
    Penguins like apples. They grow quite well in Antarctica.

  • funny (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:45PM (#5193821)
    It's funny, I've used Macs since I was a young'n in 1984, and I've used Linux since kernel 0.99. I've never used anything else, except for a couple years in college using Windows and Sun on and off.

    Linux has power and flexibility, and the Mac always "just worked". Sometimes I was annoyed that Macs were so closed, and sometimes I was annoyed at the lack of polish on Linux. Between the two I could do anything.

    It's amazing, almost *surreal*, that Unix and Mac merged together in Mac OS X. It's truly the best of both worlds.

    Of course, I'm still wary of "depending" on Mac software, because of the proprietary lock-in and other evil stuff that companies do. But Apple's continual underdog status has been keeping them in check.

    I look forward to more cool stuff from Apple...just getting ready to invest in a 12" powerbook (Mac #8 in my life) and a new Linux-based mini-itx PC to build a home gateway (Linux box #4).

    Life is good (well, computer-wise ;-).

  • Works for me (Score:5, Informative)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:54PM (#5193878)
    I've been running both OS X & Linux boxes at home [no-ip.org] for the last 10 months. I can and do use both hardware and software as common elements, from drives & PCI cards to mail, music, browser and office apps, etc.

    For me, these boxes are extensions of each other, not competitors, and I've come to think of them as one environment.

    MySQL on one...MP3s and image db's on the other. Apache and PHP on both...DVD's play on both... TV on one...DVD authoring on the other. It continues to delight me that I can expand and build as they both mature. This effort started out as an experiment. Now, I wouldn't consider just running one box or one system.

    The beat goes on.

  • OS X means more open source developers == good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mactari ( 220786 ) <rufwork&gmail,com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:55PM (#5193883) Homepage
    First off, just to clear this up...
    soon to get easier with the X11 on Max OS X

    X has been on X for quite some time. You could fink it [sourceforge.net] if you wanted, or, if you want something even easier, you could XonX it [mrcla.com] or xdarwin it [xdarwin.org].

    What's new, of course, is Apple's X11. That Apple would Aquafy X11 is really a great step forward, and hopefully means that -- and this is key -- Apple will start shipping Macs with X11 preinstalled.

    Just as OS X's built in Java Virtual Machine makes OS X a first-rate Java deployment platform as Java apps look and act native without a single end user consideration about VMs, soon OS X could be a first-rate, well-integrated client-side deployment platform for open source software. Most importantly, this will continue to add new developers to open source movements, and that can't be bad. Even if Apple doesn't share everything they do, the fact that you'll have people used to making client-side apps increasingly contributing to open source projects is a great thing.

    Not to mention that I've been impressed with what Apple's give back to the oss community, even though they technically often have no reason at all to do so. They've made Darwin open source, and have worked with the BSDs to share code that they have no pressing legal reason making them do so. Safari's updates to KHTML continue to be checked back in to the Konquerer source code by this paid Apple employee [mozillazine.org], which is another great move.

    The only way I see Apple's new love of oss possibly being a bad thing is that Apple tends to hire the best away from open source projects and slap them onto Apple-first ones. Though this is great in that these people feel connected to the oss community, it has to shift their attention away from Linux and other F/free *NIXes a bit.

    But more developers, especially good client-app developers, is a good thing, and having Apple return their contributions to the community is icing on the cake.

  • Interesting synergy : User Mode Linux under OSX (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jim Buzbee ( 517 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:55PM (#5193884) Homepage
    As I posted in another Mac article,

    Here's what I'd like to see :
    [sourceforge.net]
    User Mode Linux under OSX That would be interesting. Running a complete Linux distribution as a user process under OSX.

    Based on the comments from the linked exchange above, Jeff Dike (UML developer) thinks it can be done.

  • fink (Score:2, Informative)

    by theKiyote ( 542132 )
    one of the best *nix apps sights out there:

    http://fink.sourceforge.net

    I'm currently running windows maker on top of aqua

    kiyote

  • Consistent Message (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Space Coyote ( 413320 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:58PM (#5193914) Homepage
    Both the Apple and Linux camps represent the same message to the legions of Windows users out there:

    You are not a slave.
  • It's natural they would help each other. Mac OS X is based on Unix and is mostly linux compatible, and Linux gets support from the "if it's better I don't care what it costs Mac ideal" in software development for Mac that is also portable to Linux. In fact, I'd predict Mac's new iLife be ported to Linux within a year and that new mac OS's will use a modified Linux Kernel. Not only that, Mac and Linux users both appreciate operating systems far superior to that other OS :-)
  • from the cats-and-dogs-living-together dept.

    And twins?

    And I love you too.

    Here's to love songs!

  • Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages (Score:5, Funny)

    by bluesangria ( 140909 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:07PM (#5193986)
    The proof is self-evident.


    I brought home my Ti OS X PowerBook from work one day. My Solaris/Linux loving spouse immediately downloaded OroborX (sp?), turned on the wireless networking, fired up iTunes and accessed remote Xterm apps for his job. I have asked him to stop greeting me at the door with "Hi Honey! Did you bring your PowerBook?", as it makes me feel he loves me only for my laptop.


    Negotiations are currently underway for his own PowerBook, so that I might eventually recover mine.

    bluesangria

  • Sounds like a plan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alcimedes ( 398213 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:08PM (#5193994)
    If together the two groups and help eachother out, that seems wonderful to me. Not every business in the same market has to be working to destroy all others. Often times a symbiotic relationship will be more beneficial than a destructive one.

    At this point they have 90% of the market to shoot for. There's plenty of room for both to grow together while taking most of their customers away from MS.

    More marketshare means more apps. It also means that technologies like OpenGL just might survive and keey DirectX from taking over the gaming world.

    Just think, standards that are standard. Programs designed to run on multiple platforms. Sharing ideas rather than secreting them away.

    Sounds good to me.

  • Despite what the average Troll on either side says, both do complement each other well. And when you mention Open Source to an Apple developer they light up, they truly do seem very pleased about having Linux/Open Source thriving.

    But I am disappointed that Quicktime hasn't been released to Linux as a native app and iTunes still doesn't encode in Ogg yet.

    StarTux

  • I always knew that penguins prefer to eat small and soft fishes than Apples ;)

  • {Streaming video, Apple, Linux} (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:24PM (#5194094) Homepage
    I laughed when I saw this story because just now I was trying to understand Apple's relationship with Linux regarding Quicktime. I complained earlier today to the U.S. Mint because of this page [usmint.gov], which is a sublte advertisement for the Microsoft Media Player. WMP has significant proprietary features [reuters.com], and just linking to Microsoft as the sole standard implies something.

    The immediate licensing problem in WMP may simply be a side effect of DRM, but of course Microsoft intends to use WMP as a wedge to push its own standards into what is now fairly generic commerce -- as it did with MSIE. I told the rep at the U.S. Mint (who knows if anyone will care) that it was unseemly for the government to tacitly endorse a private company by offering just one format, even providing a link to the company's site to get the player, especially where across town the government just recently busted Microsoft for monopoly abuse.

    Anyway, Apple doesn't make a QT player for Linux (right?) but appears supportive of it (right?), and there are options to access QT content from *nix. Meanwhile, Microsoft's antagonism towards GPL is very well known, and may appear over WMP [theregister.co.uk]. Of course, generic MPEG does streaming, which QT plugins will play. (Also, there's Real, yech.) Maybe this is most another Windows versus Macintosh [apple.com] struggle, but I'd hate to see the government take sides, and I don't trust MS.

    On standards and compatibility ... I've written several emails to other government sites that sport the infernal "best viewed with Internet Explorer" links. I doubt I can take credit, but my state of Virginia dropped the MSIE tags. (They originally wrote back explaining, "Frontpage told us to say that." :)

    BTW ... why was I hanging out at the U.S. Mint site? My 6 y.o. thinks the state quarter program is very cool, and the Mint even has a whole kids' site built around the damn things. I'm getting tired of state factoids, but am impressed by the savvy of the Mint. We've already calculated how much the Mint would make if everyone in the U.S. took a complete set of commemorative quarters out of circulation.

  • Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Angerson ( 121904 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @11:25PM (#5194100) Homepage
    The article makes a lot of good points, especially the fact that a lot of Linux users are picking up Apple portables. As a longtime Mac user I noticed this trend early last year on all the Mac boards I frequent. More and more Linux users were popping up talking not about how they "switched" but how they picked up an iBook to compliment their Linux desktop. The most common reasons for doing so seemed to be a combination of the stylish design of Apple's portable line, the slick GUI mixed with the familiar CLI and of course the long battery life.

    On the contrary, the adoption of OS X on the desktop by Linux users seems quite a bit lower in my experience. Perhaps this is a testament to the fact that Apple is losing the edge in price/performance in the desktop market (even among its own users) and that it's just so much geekier to build your own box. :)

    Either way I agree that both systems compliment one another quite nicely. Then again, as a web developer I produce my sites on OS X, test them on XP and host them on Linux boxes so in my opinion all the OSes have something good to offer.

  • Let's hope so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Patik ( 584959 ) <cpatik@NoSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:43AM (#5194425) Homepage Journal
    Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...
    This could be a good thing -- I hear OSX comes with a spell-checker...

  • It's not that difficult to see why ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:20AM (#5194513) Homepage
    They're hardly in any competition for marketshare. Apple competes with Windoze and so does Linux, but from 2 opposite extremes. It's very much like Jerry and the dog allying against Tom :)

    Of course, that might change in the future

  • not all that useful for Linux (Score:3, Informative)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:37AM (#5194580)
    I bought a couple of Macs about a year ago when OS X seemed ready for prime time. They look great, and they work reasonably well. It's nice to be able to port some UNIX/Linux software to it fairly easily, and it's nice that some system administration skills carry over.

    But Apple has made the system much more proprietary and non-standard than it needs to be. The system administration database is different from mainstream UNIX systems made integrating the Macs into my home and work networks much more work than a Linux machine. The window system is completely different from UNIX, hard to port to, and rather sluggish. Apple's software package management is worse than even that of Windows. And the commercial software situation on Macintosh is not all that great either. A big disappointment, too, was that Apple had promised "free .Mac service with every iMac" and then started charging less than a year later.

    Altogether, I think Apple has benefitted quite a bit from UNIX/Linux compatibility, by promising a no-hassles Linux-like environment and attracting some UNIX and Linux users. I don't think they really have delivered, and I will probably not be upgrading my Macs--I can get better functionality and more software for less money with Linux. On the other hand, Linux has not benefitted directly from OS X: there is little or no useful software that Apple has donated to the Linux community (Darwin is more of a distraction), and I don't think Apple's "switch" campaign has been all that effective.

    I think in the long run, Apple will be forced to become more and more Linux compatible, and then maybe there will be more benefit to the Linux community. Until then, every Windows user that moves to Macintosh is still of some benefit to the Linux community.

  • iBook + networked Linux server == perfection (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MarkWatson ( 189759 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @10:48AM (#5196409) Homepage
    I used to drive myself nuts dual-booting a PC between Linux and Windows 2000, depending on what I was working on.

    I have never been happier with my home office setup: an iBook on my desk (with the improved Mac X server :-) networked to a dual-processor Linux box in a closet (so I don't hear it).

    I do a lot of AI work, and having the Linux box for long machine learning runs, etc. and for hosting experimental sematic web stuff is great - that leaves my iBook for most coding, running design tools, Microsoft Office, etc.

    Apple's recent release of a customized X server really helps a lot (still some work needs to be done on it though). Linux KDE applications look great (fonts!) using the iBook display.

    Anyway, I feel like I get both the fun and productivity of Linux with the great experience of OS X. Perfect!

    -Mark

Slashdot Top Deals

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Close