Desktop *nix Users Find No Solution in OS X
 by J. Paul Reed, in Editorials - Sat, Sep 14th 2002 00:00 PDT

Tim O'Reilly, founder of the popular books with animals on the cover, recently wrote an article on people switching to Mac OS X. He provides some anecdotal evidence -- which, to his credit, he cites as such -- about the makeup of users adopting the new OS, and attempts to make the case that Mac OS X is Unix on the desktop, achieving what Linux and numerous other Unix vendors have failed to do. But O'Reilly's claim that Apple has achieved a desktop flavor of Unix in OS X (and should focus some marketing effort on converting Unix/Linux users) dances around a number of issues, not the smallest of which is one extremely important fact: Mac OS X is not Unix.

Let me repeat that: OS X is not Unix.

Consider the following: all of Apple.com's marketing pages on the subject of their darling new operating system are extremely careful to note that OS X is "UNIX-based". While the foundation of the operating system is Darwin, a BSD-based kernel, the core of the operating system is NeXT; just ask all the hardcore Unix users who have tried to change their OS X settings using configuration files in /etc, only to find all their changes ignored. Apple's Unix-like operating system uses NetInfo, for a configuration datastore, something more akin to the Windows registry we all know and hate.

Consider, too, that any Unix users poking around an OS X box will be surprised to find a "Unix" with no gcc. Or gdb. Original versions didn't even have bash. And Unix's beloved fortune, who dutifully greets us upon login, is missing. That's because all of those utilities that arguably make a "Unix system" a Unix system don't come by default with OS X; users who care about these tools will need to find the Developer's Tools CD, which Apple is nice enough to ship with OS X, but which is not part of the operating system distribution. At least "Terminal.app", featuring "vt100/vt220 emulation on par with xterm", is there.

Speaking of xterm, where is X? You know, that often-maligned client/server hardware-independent platform MIT came up with to provide GUI services for *nix while Steve was still getting his Xerox knockoff right so Bill had something to steal? You won't find it in OS X by default. "Display PDF" provides the pretty pictures for OS X users to drool over, but if you need to run that X application, you have to find yourself an X server for Mac OS X, which Apple doesn't even want to acknowledge exists (but thanks to the XDarwin project, OS X users have something to run Unix programs on their "Unix" boxes).

I could go on with stories about Unix users who expected OS X to live up to the marketing hype (my favorite being that you have to "enable" the root user before you can login as root... "Unix" indeed) and were unpleasantly surprised.

To be clear: It's not that being a Unix-based operating system is bad. In fact, most OS X users will point out that my operating system of choice, Linux, isn't really Unix either, and they're right. But while the kernel is merely Unix-like, show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities (even fortune) that make Unix Unix.

Further, show me a Linux distribution that ignores /etc and stores its configuration data in a binary registry. Linux may not be Unix, but it is so rooted in a Unix heritage that it is in a position to offer its users a "Unix" desktop environment. Contrast this to OS X, which, for all of its praises, can never provide a "desktop environment for Unix". You can't give your users something you don't have.

Another weakness inherent in O'Reilly's argument that OS X is the future of desktop Unix reveals itself in his painstaking coverage of those who switched to OS X. If we were to believe his analysis, the KDE devs might as well all go get "real" jobs, since users are moving "in droves" to OS X for their desktop experience. A closer look at their stories betrays their motives, which reveal that they weren't using Linux for the right reasons and never really "grokked" the platform.

Putting aside those who upgraded from < OS X and those who migrated from Windows (we all know why they switched), the complaints of those who moved to OS X from Unix/Linux seem to fall into two categories: "User experience" on the Linux desktop isn't "there" and application support isn't always available for Unix/Linux.

Let's look at applications first. We all buy computers to get work done, and applications are the vehicle for accomplishing this. The two most popular applications you hear Mac OS X users raving about "just working" on their Macintosh come from the same company that Apple tried to go head to head with... and, like so many others, failed miserably. Unlike those now non-existent companies, Apple realized it before Microsoft cut off their air supply and went crying back to the monopolist like a dog with its tail between its legs to get Office.X and Internet Explorer ported so OS X didn't go the way of OS/2.

There is a special irony in the fact that these OS X users would support and, in some cases, highly praise a vendor they supposedly dislike so much for everything from technical to philosophical reasons. It suggests that OS X users switching from Unix on the desktop should never have switched to Unix on their desktops in the first place; you don't exactly switch to Linux for application support. Would they blame Wolfgang Puck for his sub-par cooking skills if they went to his restaurant looking for a gourmet Chinese dinner? The same invalid blame is placed when they fault Linux for their disappointment in what they perceive as a sub-par desktop experience when they were expecting clones of their Windows or OS 9 experiences.

The second category lies in the nebulous "user experience" realm. O'Reilly's testimonials include phrases like "[OS X] just works" or "Computing is fun again" or "[OS X] doesn't suck". Looking past loaded words, they don't mean anything. My Linux box, with its AfterStep desktop "just works". I've only recently begun to appreciate how fun and cool my Linux workstation is when I'm running gaim and Mozilla off my desktop at home, bounced through Solaris and HP-UX servers to a lab on campus. iTunes isn't "fun". That's fun, and it "just works".

A few of O'Reilly's testimonies do give some concrete examples of user problems they had: "I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place. Like most long time-Linux users, I know the pain of spending what seems like endless "cycles" trying to figure something out. But unlike other operating systems, once I hack those "scripts and codes and config files", it all "just works", and it continues to "just work" until I introduce a new variable into the equation. This is different from other desktop operating systems, OS X included, under which an application modifying something somewhere in some binary NetInfo registry could break something else. In other words, all that fiddling time may be annoying, but it is not for naught. Linux is very much a "configure once, run forever" operating system.

One of the "switchers" O'Reilly profiles likens the Linux desktop to a "typical British sports car from the 70s: Lots of engine, but it has a lousy paint job. The car 'mostly' runs, but the electrical system is erratic", while OS X is a "Mazda Miata: Stylish [and] sexy...". But Linux was never meant to be a sports car; I like to think of my Linux desktop more as an expandable VW bus towing a boat behind it and an SUV behind that. You don't really have the urge to "lick" it, but it does make you say "Damn... that's pretty cool", and you still have room for twenty more people and another car behind the SUV. See how far you get in your Miata when you try to stuff five people in it and attach a boat.

The final clue that O'Reilly's users shouldn't have been using Linux for their desktops is not what they said, but what they didn't say. Not one ex-Linux OS X user mentioned anything about freedom. I'm not referring to some Stallmanesque argument about whether the "GNU" goes before, after, or behind the "Linux", but rather my ability to look at the source code and find out exactly what it's doing if I need to, from the kernel on up. (Before OS X users mention the "Open Source" Darwin kernel, show me the source to Display PDF.) I can verify that applications aren't sending information off to Apple (or Microsoft). I can work and play on my Linux desktop without ever fearing that Linus will send me a cease and desist order for making my desktop look a certain way or telling the truth. And because my platform isn't controlled by a public corporation, I know that Linus won't slip some nefarious clause into a EULA because a majority of stockholders thinks it will maximize their profits. OS X users make a huge deal out of their beautiful, lickable desktop "just working", but the cost of this "convenience" is their freedom, both in terms of liberty and technical flexibility. For many Linux users, that's too high a price.

A "desktop environment" is many different things to different users of different platforms. It is unfair and invalid for current OS X users to fault the Linux desktop for shortcomings they perceived as they mistook a 747 for a (admittedly stylish, but smaller) Leer jet. The development of a "desktop environment" on Linux, in the form of KDE, Gnome, and -- in the tradition of Open Source -- software we haven't heard of yet, will continue and is of value to those who are using the Linux platform for the right reasons in the first place.

O'Reilly is wrong about Apple's possible markets. Apple may have a market in desktop users who want some of the stability and flexibility a Unix-based operating system affords them. They may even have a market in Unix users who want a desktop-focused platform for their home or desk at work, but they will never find one in Unix/Linux users who want a desktop environment.

Thanks Tim, but we already have a number of pretty damn good ones.

Author's bio:

J. Paul Reed is a Computer Science Senior at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. When he's not hacking on the email notification component of Bugzilla or managing OpenRatings, he's been known to volunteer for the campus LUG, TA for the department's Unix Systems Programming course, and, sometimes, even attend class. He's looking to continue the research he's started in computer systems security and software engineering in graduate school next year.

He can be reached at preed@sigkill.com.

T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing articles on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an article gets a t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

[Comments are disabled]

Referenced categories Environment :: MacOS X Environment :: MacOS X :: Aqua Environment :: MacOS X :: Carbon Environment :: MacOS X :: Cocoa Environment :: X11 Applications :: Gnome Environment :: X11 Applications :: KDE Operating System :: MacOS X Topic :: Desktop Environment Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Gnome Topic :: Desktop Environment :: K Desktop Environment (KDE)

Referenced projects AfterStep - A Window manager for X based on the NeXT look and feel. KDE - A powerful graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations.

 Comments

[»] No solution?
by Melvin - Apr 2nd 2007 23:51:21

"Desktop *nix Users Find No Solution in OS X"

First off, I must say the author is right about MAC OS X not being Unix (even today), but I don't agree/understand the title of this article... Perhaps it should have been something like "Desktop *nix Users Find No GCC (among other things) in OS X"... Anyways, this article has already fallen old, GCC is available as of today from Apple Dev Tools and I'm quite sure you will find quite a lot of *nix tools available also.

About X, well, I haven't tried Tiger or Leopard yet, but Apple says is integrated and fully compatible with any existing app made for it.
Mel

[reply] [top]

[»] ...
by Iruatã Souza - Mar 15th 2005 13:29:00

" (...) when they were expecting clones of their Windows or OS 9 experiences."

Why UNIX-like window systems has tu be ugly (Windows is ugly, OS 9 is not)? It seems like some kind of "naturist" hippie dogma to me.
Desktop systems MUST be beautiful and practical; if you re running xtemr, copying files with cp, with do you want drag-and-drop? But if you consider getting easier and easier for the desktop user you have to think outside the command line.

"Linux, isn't really Unix either, and they're right. But while the kernel is merely Unix-like, show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities (even fortune) that make Unix Unix."

Oh shit I cannot find gcc in my HP-UX!
gcc and gdb definetly doesn't make UNIX UNIX, they make Linux Linux.
Some minimal Linux installations doens't come with compilers and debuggers (see Conectiva).

Considerer trying to get out of your GNU hype jail.

ps: No, I don't use Mac OS X. My personal desktop is NetBSD at home and OpenBSD at work.

--
iru aka muzgo

[reply] [top]

[»] Waste of time
by lefsha - Sep 8th 2004 15:03:00

Me personaly, do not see any problems in that OS X is not Unix. The comments about which OS is better are not related to this article. Whether the author tried to explain the same thing - if OS X is not realy Unix so doesn't matter what it is, but for "all" is clear Unix way is better and it's related to Open Source Community, but OS X is not...

It is a wrong way to think so. IMHO.

I don't see any advantages that config files are spreading in /etc and to make localization, for example,
you need not only to set some (quite a lot) variables, but also change init files (apply patches), because
without it you don't get a full functional environment.
Does it mean that it was a gut concept? For me not.

X server? Ha-ha-ha...
Who needs a Graphic Interface thru IP protocol?
May be .1% of all users. Then it is a strange logic
to create concept with meets only small part of user
requirments... But till now we have no complete UTF8
support from box...

So, there are a lot of bad words, which can be said about Linux. So, forget about how OS X is bad.
Think better how we can improve this unix clone.

Regards,

--
Alexei

[reply] [top]

[»] ...
by Sord - Jul 8th 2004 21:47:31

I am a switcher to OS X. I do have to completely agree with
the most of this article however. It is nice being able to use
my desktop with gcc and the "Unix-base" terminal and such.
One thing that I will never do though, is switch my server to
linux, OS X, or windows and it will always run on FreeBSD.

Just thought I'd share that atleast one (not including anyone
else who has commented because I havent read all of them
yet) OS X user does agree.

[reply] [top]

[»] Some of the details are arguable
by Grim Harvest - Mar 31st 2004 22:08:40

But the gist of his editorial is right. OS X is for people looking for the "polished" desktop experience. Which is fine. But Linux and BSD are for people who believe in Open Source, want real choices and want free as in speech (and as in beer) OSes. Now after all these fanatical, raving Mac addicts got done flaming him, they might have taken the time to acknowledge the truth about the different priorities people have in their OS of choice. The fact remains that no matter how good OS X can be, you'll do things Apple's way. With Open Source you can make changes, do it your way. And that's the real difference.

[reply] [top]

[»] NetInfo more like YP than the registry
by Nick Sayer - Dec 16th 2003 09:29:47

just ask all the hardcore Unix users who have tried to change their OS X settings using configuration files in /etc, only to find all their changes ignored. Apple's Unix- likeoperating system uses NetInfo, for a configuration datastore, something more akin to the Windows registry we all know and hate.

You must really hate YP, which has been a part of every *nix since Sun invented it in the 80s. NetInfo is an exact analog to YP, but without the bad security.

In the same way that YP uses a set of /etc files as its source for information, so does NetInfo. It's just that unlike YP you can also edit a NI data store in place.

As for the disabled root account, so what? Just use 'sudo'. The fact that you can't by default log in as root is meaningless, and actually improves security quite a bit. The number one security problem with Windows is that damn near everyone logs in as an Administrator. This is more or less necessary if you're going to do anything non-trivial with the machine? Why? Because unlike OS X, Windows has no convenient facilities to temporarily 'up-shift' to root. But this was a Linux screed, so I digress.

There has been too much bad journalism in the technical press of late - people writing bad reviews about systems they don't fully understand. The present article is but a symptom of the disease.

[reply] [top]

[»] Wow your jealous prevails
by kuruption - Oct 17th 2003 08:35:50

First off, in the interest of full disclosure... I am a security architect for a Fortune 100. I work with various systems daily, including Windows, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and OSX. Some I like, some I like more than others... but none I really dislike. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, but that's not the point of this discussion.

I find your statements to be immature and factually incorrect. I wonder how you made it to be a senior at a top rated university making such false statements in essays you've written, but I digress...

Your statement of 'While the foundation of the operating system is Darwin, a BSD-based kernel, the core of the operating system is NeXT; just ask all the hardcore Unix users who have tried to change their OS X settings using configuration files in /etc' is correct, HOWEVER you can change within OSX whether to use the NeXT-commands or /etc config files.

Secondly, you statement 'Consider, too, that any Unix users poking around an OS X box will be surprised to find a "Unix" with no gcc. Or gdb. Original versions didn't even have bash' is completely invalid. Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX all do not come with gcc or gdb. So what part of gcc or gdb classifies a system as UNIX? If I remember correctly, the 'g' stands for GNU which stands for 'GNU IS NOT UNIX'. So how can you say that the absense of NOT UNIX utilities makes a system UNIX?

Thirdly, 'And Unix's beloved fortune, who dutifully greets us upon login, is missing.'. Fortune was a program written in order to test out the first btree implementation. It's a game, not a component of UNIX. Also, note again, fortune does not come with Solaris, HP-UX, nor AIX.

Fourthly, 'Speaking of xterm, where is X? You know, that often-maligned client/server hardware-independent platform MIT came up with to provide GUI services for *nix' is wrong. X is not a GUI, but X is a client-server architecture designed for distributed computing. The GUI part of it was just there because there was nothing available at the time. Again, why does X make UNIX?

Fifthly, 'you have to find yourself an X server for Mac OS X, which Apple doesn't even want to acknowledge exists', to the contrary, available from Apple's download site, xtools 1.2 which is an X server for OSX.

Sixthly, 'A few of O'Reilly's testimonies do give some concrete examples of user problems they had: "I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place.'; referring to my background,it's not that I shouldn't be using Linux, in fact, I used Linux as a desktop OS for several years WITHOUT X, that's right, console only, and did my time writing scripts, hacking config files, and re-installing. The problem is not that I don't know how to do these things, it's that I don't want to have to do these things. You may be a college student with infinite time on your hands, letting your mommy and daddy pay your way through life, but some of us have jobs and want things to work NOW and not after 80 hours of hacking.

Seventhly (if such a thing exists), 'But Linux was never meant to be a sports car; I like to think of my Linux desktop more as an expandable VW bus towing a boat behind it and an SUV behind that.'; in other words you acknowledge that Linux is slow and unable to perform under heavy loads? Give me a break... even I know that Linux's main design is to be quick and responsive, and the various benchmarks constantly comparing Linux w/ Apache and Windows IIS is the proof of this.

Your rant is just that, a rant. You have no valid facts, and the facts you do have are illegitimate ones. You insult the users of OSX, saying they were incapable of using Linux. Please go back and review your facts before making any more ignorant statements.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Wow your jealous prevails
by Carlos Sousa - Feb 28th 2004 13:46:08

very nice indeed ... no windowz in this fight. i've recently gotten myself a powerbook g4 12" that came with macosx10.3.1 post jaguar and it impressed the hell out of me ... i've realized i've beem away from the mac market and the darwin approach is basically what all us linux blooded people want ...

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Linux Moot
by Curtis Yanko - Oct 8th 2003 19:03:23

OS X has obviously come a long way since this article
was written but I said it then and I'll say it now, "OS X
make Linux moot"

I was a Windoze user since there was windoze. Not
because I like it or thought it was good but because my
job sucked me into it. I tried getting into Linux in the
past but with a job, a family and a life I simply didn't
have the time to learn it well enough that it wasn't a
barrier to doing what I really needed it to do, work.

Now I have a eMac with 10.2 and I can't wait for 10.3

I have been able to learn Unix shells well enough on it
for my job where I work on 'real' Unix systems. Apples
FreeBSD based system has survived legal attacks from
the would-be SCO's over the years and is presently
free and clear of that little tussle.

This thing runs circles around any box I have ever
used. It has never crashed and stuff, 'just works'. Like
my new video capture unit. At first I was miffed
because I couldn't find the CD to load the software like
the instructions said. Then I realized that was for
Windows. On OS X I just plugged it in and iMovie was
ready rock-n-roll.

But there aren't any apps for Macs, right? We'll that
work I reffered to earlier comes down to email,
manage and print my digital photos, surf the web. Truth
is, the iApps are probably over 80% of what I want/
need to do with my 'home' computer. The OpenSource
community is filing the rest of my needs with apps like
MacGIMP and a GLTerm.

Well, Macs are more expensive. Hmmm... I put this one
to the test to. Just to make sure I wasn't being a geek
and buying a Mac because I thought it was cool when I
could get a Intel box for hundreds less. Funny thing
was, I couldn't find that box anywhere. By the time I
configure it to have what the eMac had I was paying the
same price.

So, who do you give your money to? Bill Gates and his
Wintel Cartel or Steve Jobs, the closest thing IT has to
a rock star?

And while I can't argue how 'Unix' OS X is or isn't I do
know I finally found a Linux I could deal with.

--
-Curtis Yanko Sr IT Systems Analyst

[reply] [top]

[»] That's nice.
by scut - Feb 22nd 2003 11:42:32

I'm not a techie, but I'm trying to get my head back into
UNIXland so I can understand just what I can do with Mac
OSX...or what I can't. I'm a code hack turned graphic
designer and now manage creative folks. I enjoyed reading
this article, but would like to point out that no matter how
many tech heads wish it, the company known as Apple
isn't going anywhere. The entire advertising business is
built around Apple products...from its hardware to
software like Final Cut Pro. For this reason alone Apple will
live for a long, long time. Then there is the rabid following
its products have attracted....those people who don't
necessarily have to use Macs to get their work done (as I
do), but chose to do so. I bet someone could do their
entire psych thesis on these folks (if they haven't already).

Might I also add that OS X is in its infancy. Why do people
forget this fact? I can't wait to see where Apple, and more
importantly the open source world, take it. Hey, if you
don't like it, work with folks like SourceForge to take it
where you want it. They've already one-upped Apple by
creating software solutions that allow Macs to print to just
about any printer ever created. I can now print complex
postscript documents to all those old nasty HPs that seem
to populate the halls of the Novell-world I work within.
Just my non-tech two cents!

[reply] [top]

[»] The truth
by Maynard - Jan 21st 2003 02:08:32

The truth is some people are quaking when they see what Apple has done with their UNIX based OS. And they did it damn well. I applaud it. Give credit where it is due.

I personally think Netinfo is a very good idea. I just don't want it to be as cryptic as the Windows registry, you know, with all those long strings of letter and numbers which supposedly do something. I would like a central place to do all my configuring. It doesn't have to be a binary thing. It can be a small database of config files. Or XML files too while we are at it.

gcc is available for Windows too, so is X windows, does make them UNIX though.

I personally hate it when people think that one must configure their system for it to be stable and useable. Hell no, It must have a default state that is immediately useable. Configure things like Apache and sendmail and ftp, yes, configre MIME tyoes and the like NO. Configure sound, NO. Configure video for use. Not unless I am a graphics professional with some really comlex requirements. Finding dependencies is an absolute NO NO. Ask if OS X does this. YES. If that makes it less UNIX then I don't want UNIX. No, I want Linux to be more like OS X in that regard.

I am a linux user on my own PC. I really get the feeling that experianced users have forgotten how long it took them to master the OS. I do not think it is necessary for anyone to do that unless he/she is so inclined, which we are not all sorry to say.

I read somewhere that Freshmeat is a repository of apps people do not want. Maybe it is because developers forget that whilst they understand the apps they develop very well, to eb accepted, they need to be easily useable by the target market. Anyone is immediately comfortable with Mozilla coming from IE. It should be the same with all apps. It is unfortunate that the Windows world has imposed some of this on computing and open source software has too follow (unwillingly), but like MS, maybe we have to 'Embrace and Extend'

[reply] [top]

[»] Just works
by Sean Schulte - Jan 19th 2003 11:36:30

I don't know if you get the concept of "just works." When Apple says that OS X "just works," what they mean is that you don't have to configure it when you get it, and you don't have to do it later. If you have to change <I>any</i> configuration settings, then it did not "just work." That is according to Apple's definition. Your definition appears to be different. You call Linux "configure once, run forever." Well, that means you had to configure it. With OS X, you just have to plug it in and turn it on. You describe your setup and say that it "just works." Well, how much did you have to configure that to get it to work the first time? Did you have to change a lot of settings when you first installed it, or did it detect all your settings upon installation? That's right, you had to do it yourself. Now, you may have enjoyed that, but it is not an argument proving that Linux "just works." It is an argument proving that Linux just requires a lot more work. There are some things you may be able to do with Linux that you might not be able to do with OS X, but not everyone that Apple is selling it to wants to do that. If someone does, well, Apple provides the tools to write it, or simply to port it from the Linux version. Really, none of your arguments against OS X stands. The only thing you can definitively say is that you don't like it because you use Linux. Great.

[reply] [top]

[»] Two Words
by SomeGuy - Jan 13th 2003 16:00:47

I don't understand all the fuss. The main failing on the whole Apple strategy has nothing to do with the OS, never has. It's those sky-high hardware prices.

The strength of Linux has always been a Unix-like OS that runs on commodity hardware. It's two elements Unix + Cheap Hardware that make it such a powerhouse. Hell if we were trying to sell Linux entirely on the OS we'd have a tough time competing with existing Unixes.

OSX only runs on Mac hardware. Mac hardware is pricey as hell.

If people like the OSX GUI, then turn it around on them, make a OSX compatible system that runs on commodity hardware and put apple out of business at the same time you put MS outta business.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Two Words
by Bjoern Berg - Jan 17th 2003 10:05:29


> OSX only runs on Mac hardware. Mac
> hardware is pricey as hell.
Only if you have a look at the Desktop PCs, if you compare their prices for Powerbooks with Notebooks of other PC producers, they are on the same level if you compare price with the performance you get out of it, although the processor rates are not that high. And that depends most on MacOS X.



[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Two Words
by daniel - Nov 26th 2003 07:21:46


> I don't understand all the fuss. The
> main failing on the whole Apple strategy
> has nothing to do with the OS, never
> has. It's those sky-high hardware
> prices.
I really get fed up with this "PC architecture is so cheap" stuff. All the non-standard, non-compatible hardware isn't cheap at all. You can spend hours getting your brand new hardware to work, then give up, send it back to where ever you bought it and get something back that doesn´t work either. Just look at all the chipbugfix code in the linux kernel. I, and most of my friends run PC/intel ... hardware and ALL of us have had or has and will have hardware problems.
Of course something is cheap if it doesn't work. You can of course browse the net and look at tests but shouldn't you add the time you spend on doing so to the pricetag? Finally, if you find something stable and good most of the time it isn't that cheap any more...
correct me if I'm wrong.


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Apple has released X11 for Mac OS X
by Michael A. Lowry - Jan 12th 2003 12:41:53

One of the few points where I actually agreed with you is that Mac OS X had no X Windows server. This is no longer a reason to say Mac OS X is not a real UNIX. Here's Apple's official X Windows server:

X11 for Mac OS X.

-MAL

[reply] [top]

[»] Well... I use OSX 10.2 and it _has_ bash
by moebius - Jan 12th 2003 09:06:55

As MacOS X 10.2 appeared, bash is now present in the standard installation, but tcsh is used by default.
I've used PCs until last summer, starting with MS-DOS 3.30 and 8086-based PCs, and ending with Athlon-pwered ones. I have been using Windows (98 and XP), BeOS, Linux (some flavours: mainly SuSE & Gentoo, but I tested Redhate, Slackwarez, Madrakech, Debian). I have a testing partition in one of my HDs where I tested QNX, FreeBSD and Darwin/x86.
Last July I acquired an iBook and started playing with OSX. Of course I didn't like tcsh or NetInfo ignore my files at /etc, but after some searches at Google I downloaded bash, GNU fileutils, vim and made NetInfo use /etc. I installed the Apple's DevTools: they're totally based upon GNU stuff: gcc, gdb, binutils, autoconf, automake, libtool... plus IBuilder/PBuilder that I find great. I have comfortable development and desktop environments with the unleashed power of Unix. What else may I need?
You'll need to know that Apple didn't forget X11, as they are making their own implementation of X11R6 (based upon XFree86's) and it's in beta stage.
Also, Apple does not depend upon Microsoft at the moment: there are superior web-browsers for OSX, ranging from Mozilla and Chimera (based upon Gecko, the rendering engine behind Mozilla) to Apple's own browser, Safari. And there's OpenOffice, too.
After using OSX for 5 months, I'm sure I'll never switch back to PCs, as they have nothing they can offer to me.

--
-- Moebius -- Developer of the Lixoo engine (http://lixoo.sf.net)

[reply] [top]

[»] Unix, Linux, or GNU?
by Alpha - Jan 7th 2003 11:28:08

My inclination is to agree with the editorial, but it turns out that what he really doesn't like is the non-GNU-ness of Mac OS X. The only thing I really detest about the Mac OS X hype (I'm still running OS 9.x) is when they brag that you can run that lovely MS Office. Yecch! Haven't they heard of OpenOffice.org? One thing about the Mac (I'm also running Yellow Dog Linux) is that the hardware really is superior. And perhaps the iMovie, QuickTime, iPod and so forth are worth the proprietariness to lots of people.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Unix, Linux, or GNU?
by Nilz - Jan 14th 2003 01:32:48

One thing about the Mac

> (I'm also running Yellow Dog Linux) is
> that the hardware really is superior.
> And perhaps the iMovie, QuickTime, iPod
> and so forth are worth the
> proprietariness to lots of people.

Hmm ?? hardware superior? all the macs I have worked with (up to the dual 1.25Ghz) use old pc hardware. old fsb, old processor, slow memory, etc. They are actually talking about getting IBM or Intel to make the next cpu!
No the main reason to use Apple is it's ease of use and (for video) the magical Quicktime layer.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Unix, Linux, or GNU?
by Sean Schulte - Jan 19th 2003 11:26:44


>
> Hmm ?? hardware superior? all the macs I
> have worked with (up to the dual
> 1.25Ghz) use old pc hardware. old fsb,
> old processor, slow memory, etc. They
> are actually talking about getting IBM
> or Intel to make the next cpu!
> No the main reason to use Apple is it's
> ease of use and (for video) the magical
> Quicktime layer.

Hmmm, do you even know what you're talking about? No Mac uses "old pc hardware." The FSB might not be brand new and it might not be clocked as fast as those on PC boards, but it performs well. The processors really aren't that old, and blaming them for being old is like saying that old Alpha server that has handled its job so well for so long sucks because it's old. OS X is optimized for the G4 processor, as are many programs written for it. As a result, the programs really do perform very well, even though the processor sounds slower. Bear in mind, of course, that a 1Ghz G4 is comparable to a P4 with a MUCH higher clock rating. Obviously the fastest G4 is slower than the fastest P4, but the G4 runs very well.

They never talked to Intel about making the next iteration of their processor, and they would never be interested in something like that. However, it is true that they approached IBM to make it. Further, IBM agreed. Now, you seem to think that this is a failure of Apple in some way, but you don't remember the fact that it is Motorola that builds the G4 and Motorola that shares the G3 with, get this, IBM. In fact, Motorola has too much of the rights to the G3 processor, and it is thanks to them that IBM is not allowed to release G3s that are faster than Motorola's G3s. All the new G3-based systems that you can buy contain an IBM-manufactured processor. It is not surprising that Apple wanted IBM to make the next PowerPC, and it is perhaps less surprising that IBM agreed. That processor looks to be fantastic.

I personally think it's hilarious that your knock against Mac OS X is that Macs use "old pc hardware," while the main positive argument for Linux is that it is able to run on commodity pc hardware. Linux runs on old pc hardware, OS X uses no pc hardware, much less old.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Unix, Linux, or GNU?
by Iruatã Souza - Mar 15th 2005 13:35:00


>

> One thing about the Mac

> % (I'm also running Yellow Dog Linux)

> is

> % that the hardware really is superior.

>

> % And perhaps the iMovie, QuickTime,

> iPod

> % and so forth are worth the

> % proprietariness to lots of people.

>

>

>

> Hmm ?? hardware superior? all the macs I

> have worked with (up to the dual

> 1.25Ghz) use old pc hardware. old fsb,

> old processor, slow memory, etc. They

> are actually talking about getting IBM

> or Intel to make the next cpu!

> No the main reason to use Apple is it's

> ease of use and (for video) the magical

> Quicktime layer.

The mac processor is made by IBM

--
iru aka muzgo

[reply] [top]

---

[»] a few corrections the author should consider
by Reagen Ward - Dec 31st 2002 10:14:01

"just ask all the hardcore Unix users who have tried to change their OS X settings using configuration files in /etc, only to find all their changes ignored. Apple's Unix-like operating system uses NetInfo, for a configuration datastore, something more akin to the Windows registry we all know and hate."

Point one: If you're a NIS or NIS+ client, you can't just go mucking around with a lot of that stuff anyway.

Point two: I'm a seasoned UNIX user (started with SVR2.4, how about you?), and I like it. I think you'll find that NetInfo not only predates the windows registry, but it's also very different. It's what NIS+ wanted to be. Also, it's free, open source, and available for Linux. It may be different, but it's also better. If you feel the need to do it the old way, just nidump and niload.

"Consider, too, that any Unix users poking around an OS X box will be surprised to find a "Unix" with no gcc. Or gdb."

Hmmn... Name a branded UNIX that came with those before just recently. NONE. NeXTStep/OpenStep, just like MacOS X, has gcc as its standard c compiler and gdb as its debugger, but they are available as part of a developer's kit.

"Original versions didn't even have bash. And Unix's beloved fortune, who dutifully greets us upon login, is missing."

Bash isn't included by default with any UNIX-like OS I know of other than Linux. Certainly not with a real UNIX. Fortune is not exactly common either. I thought you used Solaris and HP-UX on a regular basis?

So, since I have all of the above, and X, on a Win2K machine, is it suddenly to your liking?

"That's because all of those utilities that arguably make a "Unix system" a Unix system don't come by default"

So, you mention tools that don't ship with commercial unixes and aren't installed by most UNIX-like systems by default and then claim that the lack of these tools makes these UNIX systems non-UNIX. Your argument is invalid.

You mention the dev kit, " but which is not part of the operating system distribution." Most desktop users have no need for these tools, so why waste disk space?. Consider the target market. Yes, market. This is a product, not a project.

Where's the HP-UX dev kit? Oh, it costs a lot more. Where's the Solaris dev kit? Oh, it costs a lot more too. How about AIX? IRIX? That's the big four (arguably, the big two and slightly smaller two), and they don't include a dev kit. Strangely, they're all UNIX.

"Speaking of xterm, where is X?"

I've used many UNIX systems without X installed. I have even used them where X wasn't available and you had to use NeWS. You remember NeWS, don't you? Not the Sony workstation, the Network Extensible Windowing System. All Display PS, very nifty. X11 (or X10, or whatever) certainly does not make a system Unix.

"you have to "enable" the root user before you can login as root... "Unix" indeed"

Most seasoned UNIX admins never log in as root if they can avoid it anyway. And remember, this is a DESKTOP OS. Why should Joe User log in as root?

"show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities"

I can think of a few where they are not installed by default and have to be added as packages, just like OS X. Slackware, Debian, etc. To me, that's like saying 'show me a distribution that doesn't ship with Mozilla, because that's what I use to browse.'

"I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place."

Perhaps that's the best point in your whole editorial. If the user is sick and tired of fiddling with things and going through what you called the 'endless cycles' of configuration, perhaps OS X is the solution.

"Like most long time-Linux users, I know the pain of spending what seems like endless "cycles" trying to figure something out. But unlike other operating systems, once I hack those "scripts and codes and config files", it all "just works", and it continues to "just work" until I introduce a new variable into the equation."

Or, until a new variable is introduced without you. Or, until you leave your job and someone else is forced to maintain your hodgepodge of scripts.

"under which an application modifying something somewhere in some binary NetInfo registry could break something else."

Such as? Given the structure of NetInfo, it's quite unlikely to happen. Not impossible, but unlikely. You're clearly confusing it with the Windows registry. Have you used NetInfo yet?

"The development of a "desktop environment" on Linux, in the form of KDE, Gnome, and -- in the tradition of Open Source -- software we haven't heard of yet, will continue and is of value to those who are using the Linux platform for the right reasons in the first place."

I'm assume that the 'right reasons' you mention involve free software, fiddling with configurations for fun, and being on the elite bleeding edge of near stability. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reagen

[reply] [top]

[»] Apparently someone has a superiority complex?
by laurion - Dec 23rd 2002 17:39:09

A few of O'Reilly's testimonies do give some concrete examples of user problems they had: "I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place.

It's thinking like that that makes no sense. What you are saying here is that only those people with the time and interest to learn complicated set ups should be the ones allowed to use a Unix OS? Pardon me, but setting a high barrier to entry like that is exactly why so many people *are* switching to Mac OS X, and if you don't like it, then you've got to be more friendly to the average person. Sounds like someone here resents the fact that his 'superior' knowledge and skill (which really just means greater interest in operating systems and more time spent, not any actual brain superiority) isn't elevating him above the masses quite so high. Forgive my hard words there, but flawed thinking does not give anyone the right to pass opinion off as fact. Mac OS X _is_ a Unix OS, but one where the traditional Unix barrier to use has been lowered. All the unix bits are still there for those who want them, and those who want them, will use them. It's a win-win. People who want Unix can have it, people who don't want to think about it don't. Either way, Mac OS X is a benefit to the rest of the Unix world, and that's an argument I will happily win, if you are interested in taking it up. All of the above is solely my opinion, which I like to think of as firmly rooted in fact, but you're free to see things your own way.

[reply] [top]

[»] gnu/unix??
by Michael J. Bergin - Dec 20th 2002 18:40:08

i read this article about a month ago and it actually really irritated me. not necessarily because i just switched from linux to a mac, well, actually i really just added a mac to my collection, but something about it bothered me. i even spoke to a few people about it one of which is hands down the most knowledgable computer geek i know. the main thing that irritated me about the article is that it didn't even mention the operating system!! the entire basis of the article was founded on external applications. on top of that it's gnu software!!!! there was no mention of that little thing called a kernel, no mention of any subsystems and the configuration facilities, what does that have to do with anything?!?!? if wrote a clone of the windows registery and threw it on your linux box would it then be windows or at least cease to exist as a *nix?
after a long time of thinking about it and talking with people about it became very apparent that even people that pride themselves on being unix junkies can't sufficiently explain exactly what makes a unix operating system a unix operating system. if you take two unix guys junkies that don't know eachother, put them in different rooms and ask them what makes an operating system a unix operating system you'll get very different answers. try to take the common denominator from their responses and after you go through a few more people that becomes thinner and thinner until it vanishes into thin air.
my question basically is what makes an operating system a unix operating system? the kernel? is the mach microkernel a unix kernel? if so the windows operating system has been using a mach based kernel since windows 2000 came out. would that make it a unix based operating system?
my point? the unix operating system has had a monumental impact on the computing world and on the design and implementation of every operating system i've even seen. it has enompassed so much of the computing world that it's difficult to even distinguish between what is unix and what is unix because almost every os vendor has borrowed, or tried to borrow, so much of the unix operating system.
my last question to the author is, so what if os x isn't unix? the linux operating system is also unix-based, as you pretty much said yourself. go out and pick up a mac, if you can't get just about any of the applications you would run on a unix box to run on your os x box then you probably don't even know how to use that unix, or linux box well enough to tell the difference between unix and os x. so either way you'll be happy!!

--
- Michael J. Bergin

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: gnu/unix??
by LadyH - Dec 23rd 2002 18:29:32

Use whatever makes you happy. I have the new 800mhz iBook, use WinXP/RH Linux dual boot desktop, and also have a Toshiba Satellite NB. My Linux "distro" is a recent install. Yes, I am very new to this world. If I want to tinker and explore the "what makes this work", I'll boot into Linux. If I want to tinker and be in compatability mode with what everyone uses in the workplace, I use the iBook. If I want to play certain games, I use WinXP....you get the point. I can program in VB, I can Program in C++, ....but I have yet to figure out what those damn RPM's would like for me to do with them. I'l figure it out but how many people would want to be bothered? Ease of use...even with "tinkreing" is the name of the game. Most consumers are not that curious minded as to want to know "what makes this work". For those who are (recent Win users)they don't mind tinkering as long as they can get their work done also. This is the lure of MacOSX. Be hopeful, maybe they will explore further, start writing scripts, program, etc. Maybe they will be able to delve into Linux or Unix and contribute also to these communities making choice in the free world even greater. Unix, Linux, MacOsX, BSD, ....who cares!!!??? You have the opportunity to support an entire movement where CHOICE is the objective. Divide and conquor positions will cause everyone to be using MS...with no other choice.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: gnu/unix??
by uberfreak - Jun 14th 2003 12:34:23


> my point? the unix operating system has
> had a monumental impact on the computing
> world and on the design and
> implementation of every operating system
> i've even seen.
Agreed; well put. One other thing to mention, however, is that Unix, originally, was never meant for the desktop. So, logic would suggest, that Unix made desktop-friendly is going to look quite a bit different than any flavor you've recently encountered.


> my last question to the author is, so
> what if os x isn't unix? the linux
> operating system is also unix-based, as
> you pretty much said yourself.
Depends on what you mean by Unix. If you mean philosophy, perhaps. Except that now, modern Linux philosophy is "if it's not bleeding edge, it's not worthy", which is somewhat off from Unix philosophy, "hm, that's nifty...how can I make it work with other stuff?".

On the other hand, if you're talking from a source-code perspective, not even close. The Linux kernel was meant to be a Minix clone. And the userland is GNU, who we all know stands for GNU's Not Unix. So, it looks like even the author has some misconceptions on both Unix *and* Linux.

Besides, beating up Mac OS X because it's Unix-based or Unix-like, and then turning around and touting Linux as the Right Way for exactly the same reason, kicks one's credibility out the window...even moreso when you're wrong about both.


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Moved to Mac OS X... Why ?
by Xavier Beaudouin - Dec 2nd 2002 16:45:53

I was a lover of Linux since it's old days (0.96.x kernel versions), I used and was pleased to do day to day admin and coding.
But kernels 2.4 was going out and my pleasure was less and less interressing : unstability, crashs, etc....
So I get a new platform for my servers : FreeBSD... It is really good... I think one of the more complete one.... but was rely on PC (yeah I know there is Linux on sparc, alpha, etc... as well as FreeBSD on alpha)... But PC are really bullshit unstable and really brain damaged hardware.

What is the result ? Crashs all the time, incompatibilities, locks, freezes and so on. I use mainly computer for developping software, but I cannot afford "fighthing" with hardware all the time.

Even if Un*x like systems like Linux or *BSD are good they still rely on x86 hardware that are still too mutch young and silly.

Mac OS X give me a clean and stable way to have :
- well looking hardware
- *SILENT* hardware
- stable hardware

When you get a iBook or a Powerbook machine that can get in "powersave" mode in 1 seconds and be up and ready to work in less than 2 seconds on x86 on <whatever> OS then, maybe I will swap for this OS.

By the way, OS X allows me to use those nasty things like all people use in work environment (even if I hate those beasts) : MS Office and so on.

Yeah there is good "alternatives" but in Real Work(tm) this cannot be used.

[reply] [top]

[»] I like it
by katorga - Dec 2nd 2002 08:59:02

I use an Apple OS X laptop as my mobile unix solution. OS X is not traditional unix, but I find dealing with its oddities no different than dealing with the differences between Solaris, HPUX, AIX and Linux.

The machine I got came with OS X and the developer's CD, so gcc gdb etc were included. I downloaded XFree and a window manager. So far all of tools I normally use on my other unix platforms are available in either package format or compile under OSX. Its been a pretty painless move.

The benefit is that I have a high quality laptop with a decent unix-like OS that runs all my unix tools that ALSO provides access to MS Office (grr, I need it for work), and allows me to run all of the entertainment apps that make travelling a little easier.

All in all a nice package.

[reply] [top]

[»] Main Point
by alanmusician - Dec 16th 2002 16:08:31

I think his main point is that OS X isn't going to offer anything to experienced linux users, in opposition to what O'Reilly implies. I agree with this: most of us have spent time streamlining and configuring linux to work exactly how we like to compute. The reasons O'Reilly cited were obviously coming from people who don't use Linux for it's two major advantages: customization ability, and freedom.

The author here isn't saying that OS X isn't a decent operating system. Perhaps it will even become the next mainstream one, and in fact, I hope it does, but will it pull experienced linux users away from their free software boxes? There's no mainstream reason for that to happen.

Think of it this way: something like 35% of x86 users are *nix users. A much larger percentage are windows users. Considering the shoddiness and cost of windows, it's no wonder people have been trying out linux more than ever. The problem with these people is they want a desktop and system just like the one they "grew up" on. When it doesn't turn out that way (usually after trying Mandrake or some other mainstream dist, none of which, IMHO, are good out-of-the-box systems), they ignorantly critisize linux in general. Those are the kind of user that O'Reilly mostly quoted in his article. Now the thing is, these people make up a majority of of PC users. So is linux best for a majority of PC users? No, I'd have to say it's not. Is OS X? Quite likely.

Not counting OS X, we have 3 major contenders for users' prefered environment: Windows, Linux and previous MacOSs. I believe that for Windows and previous Mac users, the switch would be a no-brainer. Does this make OS X the best operating system for most users? One look at the percentages confirms that. However, linux users have always been the users that had different needs then the mainstream computer user, and always will, I believe. This brings us down to the main point of all this: Mac OS X is not a linux competitor.

I say kudos to OS X, and that I think it's a wonderful idea, and also that the linux community will support it if they know what's good for them, but am I going to switch to it, or would even if it was free? No, for me it would be forfeiting what I consider a perfect operating environment, which I have constructed to fit my needs, and in return, getting something made for mainstream users. I think most experienced linux users share my sentiment that such a switch would be not only pointless, but counter-productive.

--Alan

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Main Point
by SwedishChef - Dec 25th 2002 14:26:05

I agree with this... I've used Linux since 1993 and can set up a server in under an hour and my own desktop in about 2 days of on-and-off tinkering. I also have an iBook which I find useful for trips and for planting in front of me when I'm watching tv but still want to surf occasionally. It's not Unix and it's not Linux but it's fine for casual stuff. I can't imagine OS-X replacing my Linux desktop however. But that doesn't mean I don't like it nor does it mean that I don't think that others will find it useful. But I understand Linux and am comfortable and natural with it. For me, Linux "just works" every time.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: I like it
by Sandy Hawkins - Dec 25th 2002 08:59:32

It's beautiful. End of story.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Linux without gcc, gdb, X and fortune?
by Titanium - Nov 14th 2002 01:00:51

"Linux, isn't really Unix either, and they're right. But while the kernel is merely Unix-like, show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities (even fortune) that make Unix Unix."

Linux without gcc, gdb, X and fortune? Try loaf.
www.ecks.org/projects/loaf/

[reply] [top]

[»] What is the difference between Linux and Windows? Answering this tells you what OSX is
by Hans.v.Buitenen - Nov 9th 2002 10:58:43

I will keep this short since this comparisment tends to...

I think the principle difference between Windows and Linux is that Linux is designed with technical motives. Windows has been designed on comercial motives. One has a solid basis, the other has a glossy cover. Just follow the money stream and then tell me what OSX is and if you like it.

I think Linux and Windows-XP are extreme opposites in this respect.

Linux devellopers, please don't start copying the behavoure of Windows i don't need Linux in bullshit-mode, I don't want shiny buttons. I just want to get the job done without the need for sunglasses :o)

[reply] [top]

[»] bad arguments
by Benoît Rouits - Nov 5th 2002 19:19:03

I just personnaly disapprouve this comparaison, since the arguments are useless to me. e.g:
X windowing system is not Unix. So, comparing osX to Linux through the windowing system gives you a bad point. Also, bash and emacs are not in Unix (but vi and sh shall), etc...
Also, you say that gcc/gdb etc.. are not part of osX, i reply that they are not much part of Linux user-oriented distributions. Even not on DMZ unices.
About the shell, even Solaris does not have bash "by defaut". And telling "by default" Unix is to me a little hazardous...

Anyway.. i had pleasure to read it. :)

--
keep simple.

[reply] [top]

[»] My 2c
by cxel91a - Nov 3rd 2002 03:36:30

I'm not going to discuss the trivial differences
between OS X and Linux. The responses I've seen thus far have placed Apple into the *nix world. Now, only if OS X was portable to PCs. I would consider it, but for now I have no need for a new computer.

Linux livez

[reply] [top]

[»] MacOS UNIX How-To
by ken - Oct 19th 2002 06:43:34

I think this kid does raise a good point... don't seem to
have any good HOW-TO to teach unix folks converting to
OS X. versiontracker.com has many freewares but not
really unix oriented. Should have a detailed respository for
tips for installing netatalk.... XDarwin or more exotic stuff
like FreeTDS

Just in case we got a kid next time bashing MacOS is not
UNIX

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: MacOS UNIX How-To
by Gavin - Dec 13th 2002 06:19:33

%startquote%
> I think this kid does raise a good
> point... don't seem to
> have any good HOW-TO to teach unix folks
> converting to
> OS X.

It might not be free, but O'Reilly has a Mac OS X for unix geeks book, not that any self respecting unix geek would need it, it's all in the manpages anyway.

%startquote%
> versiontracker.com has many
> freewares but not
> really unix oriented.

Freshmeat if you need unix apps, stepwise if you're interested in the NeXT / Objective C side of things. Versiontracker caters for people arrriving from mac/windows.

%startquote%
> Should have a
> detailed respository for
> tips for installing netatalk.... XDarwin
> or more exotic stuff
> like FreeTDS

netatalk? This is apple, that stuff's built in, and way more reliable than netatalk. As for the other things, just try following their instructions. XDarwin is a point and click installer, most anything else can be installed with ./configure; make; make install (you did find the developer tools? they're the ones on cd, or look in Applications/Utilities/Installers)

%startquote%
> Just in case we got a kid next time
> bashing MacOS is not
> UNIX

Mac OS X is a novell approach to UNIX on the desktop, it's still maturing, but right now, it does at least 99% of what most people want, whether they're alpha geeks, or pensioners sending email to their grandchildren. Can linux / Solaris / AIX / Windows or any other platform make similar claims?

[reply] [top]

---

[»] One note, that I think should be cleared up..
by doveclaw - Oct 15th 2002 21:44:12

In regards to..
" But while the kernel is merely Unix-like, show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities (even fortune) that make Unix Unix."

Since when does any of that make a Unix Unix? Last I checked SunOS/Solaris (and I personally own three different versions) DEFINATELY does not come with gcc or gdb and doesn't "really" come with cc.. there is a cc command, but it'll basically tell you it hasn't been installed (a c/c++ compiler does not come with the OS). Most Unixes do not come with a compiler! Most Unixes either do not come with X or it is an optional and seperate install (once again, SunOS would be a good example). To say that a REAL unix would ship with GNU's programs is even more wrong. You've obviously spent most of your time with Linux if these are your expectations. Further-more.. are you saying that a Linux distribution or install without any of these programs are somehow less Unix? The only real way I believe one could decide on whether a OS was "Unix" would be to compare certain kernal workings or maybe the file system layout.. things which have been standardised if only fractionally.
I believe you said yourself that Apple only claims its Unix-based.. so this shouldn't really be an issue.. being based on something and "being" something are two entirely different things.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: One note, that I think should be cleared up..
by Angus John MacLeod - Oct 17th 2002 08:34:45


> In regards to..
> Since when does any of that make a
> Unix Unix? Last I checked SunOS/Solaris
> (and I personally own three different
> versions) DEFINATELY does not come with
> gcc or gdb and doesn't
> "really" come with cc.. there
> is a cc command, but it'll basically
> tell you it hasn't been installed (a
> c/c++ compiler does not come with the
> OS). Most Unixes do not come with a
> compiler! Most Unixes either do not come
> with X or it is an optional and seperate
> install (once again, SunOS would be a
> good example). To say that a REAL unix
> would ship with GNU's programs is even
> more wrong. Erm... exactly which versions of Solaris do you have? Certainly I've found 7,8 and therefore presumably 9 to install X as part of a default install - perhaps it's possible to do a minimal install, but that's not default IIRC... As to GCC and the rest of the GNU tools (shutils, etc), Sun DO supply these as an extra CD download (certainly for Solaris 8), as life with their provided utilities is painful, and they know it - otherwise, they wouldn't go to the trouble of packaging up the GNU tools! AJM

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: One note, that I think should be cleared up..
by doveclaw - Oct 17th 2002 16:41:14

Maybe you should read the message again. I never said anything about Solaris in that sentence.. but was talking about SunOS. SunOS (I have versions 2.5 and 2.6) comes with an optional/second CD install of X.Your comments are meaningless.. every OS has any of these or similar utilities somewhere.. were talking off the standard dist cd's. The fact is, most unix systems can - and usually have in the past, lived without these utilities. Solaris 7, 8, and 9 do not come with GNU utilities.. as you said yourself.


>
> % In regards to..
>
> % Since when does any of that make a
> % Unix Unix? Last I checked
> SunOS/Solaris
> % (and I personally own three different
> % versions) DEFINATELY does not come
> with
> % gcc or gdb and doesn't
> % "really" come with cc..
> there
> % is a cc command, but it'll basically
> % tell you it hasn't been installed (a
> % c/c++ compiler does not come with the
> % OS). Most Unixes do not come with a
> % compiler! Most Unixes either do not
> come
> % with X or it is an optional and
> seperate
> % install (once again, SunOS would be a
>
> % good example). To say that a REAL
> unix
> % would ship with GNU's programs is
> even
> % more wrong.
>
>
> Erm... exactly which versions of Solaris
> do you have? Certainly I've found 7,8
> and therefore presumably 9 to install X
> as part of a default install - perhaps
> it's possible to do a minimal install,
> but that's not default IIRC...
>
> As to GCC and the rest of the GNU tools
> (shutils, etc), Sun DO supply these as
> an extra CD download (certainly for
> Solaris 8), as life with their provided
> utilities is painful, and they know it -
> otherwise, they wouldn't go to the
> trouble of packaging up the GNU tools!
>
> AJM


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: One note, that I think should be cleared up..
by spamtrap - Oct 31st 2002 22:51:53


>
> % In regards to..
>
> % Since when does any of that make a
> % Unix Unix? Last I checked
> SunOS/Solaris
> % (and I personally own three different
> % versions) DEFINATELY does not come
> with
> % gcc or gdb and doesn't
> % "really" come with cc..
> there
> % is a cc command, but it'll basically
> % tell you it hasn't been installed (a
> % c/c++ compiler does not come with the
> % OS). Most Unixes do not come with a
> % compiler! Most Unixes either do not
> come
> % with X or it is an optional and
> seperate
> % install (once again, SunOS would be a
>
> % good example). To say that a REAL
> unix
> % would ship with GNU's programs is
> even
> % more wrong.
>
>
> Erm... exactly which versions of Solaris
> do you have? Certainly I've found 7,8
> and therefore presumably 9 to install X
> as part of a default install - perhaps
> it's possible to do a minimal install,
> but that's not default IIRC...
>
> As to GCC and the rest of the GNU tools
> (shutils, etc), Sun DO supply these as
> an extra CD download (certainly for
> Solaris 8), as life with their provided
> utilities is painful, and they know it -
> otherwise, they wouldn't go to the
> trouble of packaging up the GNU tools!
>
> AJM

Just looked in my Jaguar CD set.. Yep, there it is, the little grey CD labeled "Developer Tools"

By "doesn't come with gcc" you must mean that if the user chooses to not install them they aren't there... Just like Linux.

If you want to see developer tools done right, get a good OS X developer to demo Interface Builder/ Project Builder.

You will start to hate the GUI tools for Linux.

As for all of the other stuff that comes with your idea of UNIX.. Just get fink from source forge. The Linux stuff comes over quite nicely.

Parting Shot: You compare netinfo with windows registery.. I'll grant it but I have two words for you to ponder. "RPM HELL" You know what I mean, and it is every bit as bad as DLL HELL in the windows world. Only Debian has a foot to stand on with apt-get.

BTW: I run Linux for my servers and OS X for my desktop. Been using UNIX in some form since AT&T on a (3B1?) Whatever that integrated systems was..

No desire to go back to Linux for a desktop.
No desire to develope GUI software for Linux. It just requires too much effort for too little gain compared to OS X.



[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: One note, that I think should be cleared up..
by laika - Dec 10th 2002 20:54:19


>
> %
> % % In regards to..
> %
> % % Since when does any of that make
> a
> % % Unix Unix? Last I checked
> % SunOS/Solaris
> % % (and I personally own three
> different
> % % versions) DEFINATELY does not come
> % with
> % % gcc or gdb and doesn't
> % % "really" come with cc..
> % there
> % % is a cc command, but it'll
> basically
> % % tell you it hasn't been installed
> (a
> % % c/c++ compiler does not come with
> the
> % % OS). Most Unixes do not come with a
> % % compiler! Most Unixes either do not
> % come
> % % with X or it is an optional and
> % seperate
> % % install (once again, SunOS would be
> a
> %
> % % good example). To say that a REAL
> % unix
> % % would ship with GNU's programs is
> % even
> % % more wrong.
> %
> %
> % Erm... exactly which versions of
> Solaris
> % do you have? Certainly I've found
> 7,8
> % and therefore presumably 9 to install
> X
> % as part of a default install -
> perhaps
> % it's possible to do a minimal
> install,
> % but that's not default IIRC...
> %
> % As to GCC and the rest of the GNU
> tools
> % (shutils, etc), Sun DO supply these
> as
> % an extra CD download (certainly for
> % Solaris 8), as life with their
> provided
> % utilities is painful, and they know it
> -
> % otherwise, they wouldn't go to the
> % trouble of packaging up the GNU
> tools!
> %
> % AJM
>
>
>
> Just looked in my Jaguar CD set.. Yep,
> there it is, the little grey CD labeled
> "Developer Tools"
>
> By "doesn't come with gcc" you must mean
> that if the user chooses to not install
> them they aren't there... Just like
> Linux.
>
> If you want to see developer tools done
> right, get a good OS X developer to demo
> Interface Builder/ Project Builder.
>
> You will start to hate the GUI tools for
> Linux.
>
> As for all of the other stuff that comes
> with your idea of UNIX.. Just get fink
> from source forge. The Linux stuff
> comes over quite nicely.
>
> Parting Shot: You compare netinfo with
> windows registery.. I'll grant it but I
> have two words for you to ponder. "RPM
> HELL" You know what I mean, and it is
> every bit as bad as DLL HELL in the
> windows world. Only Debian has a foot
> to stand on with apt-get.
>
> BTW: I run Linux for my servers and OS X
> for my desktop. Been using UNIX in some
> form since AT&T on a (3B1?) Whatever
> that integrated systems was..
>
> No desire to go back to Linux for a
> desktop.
> No desire to develope GUI software for
> Linux. It just requires too much effort
> for too little gain compared to OS X.
>
>
Gentoo emerge trumps 'em all. RPM (Retarded Program Manager) truly is the bane of a civilized society. Arrrrgghhh... run away, run away! But you are correct. It simply is painfull to watch groups like Ximian and K bang out decent desktops with such paultry GUI toolage. I liken it to building the pyramids. You really can produce some incredibly precise shapes pounding away with a small stone by why in the world would you do that today? I think Ximian and K should have put a lot more effort into the tools and things would be in a much better state today. I honestly gave Glade a chance and I simply find it lacking in every repect when compared to any commercial tool available in today's market. Perhaps it's that there is so much invested in the X "middle-ware" toolkits that this just isn't feasable. Either way, that's the tact MS and Apple use to lure developers. They produce good tools. Terrible workshop, but quite nice tools.

-woof!



[reply] [top]

---

[»] OS X
by sighup9 - Oct 14th 2002 23:21:41

Unix or Unix-like it is fine by me. After 14 years of Windows, 10 years of Solaris, and 8 years of Linux staring back at my face; it's a heck of an improvement for a desktop OS. In fact, OS X 10.2 was good enough for me to go out and purchase an Apple computer for the 1st time and get me banging away on it.

Apple is moving away from the NetInfo idea according to the rumor mill. For a 2.0 release on and OS, they have done a tremendous job!

I do not mind typing 'sudo su -' to get to a # prompt.

Thanks to Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Without them, OS X, Linux and lots more would never have happened.

[reply] [top]

[»] Fortune Cookies
by Beren - Oct 13th 2002 04:20:01

The wheels completely fell off your tirade when you
stated that to be a UNIX an OS needed 'fortune' - up
until then I had been reading with the same boredom I
used to read Windowz vs whatever arguements.

I have rarely ever used a proper UNIX, having only
toyed with Solaris. However, I have RedHat servers
and Mac OS X clients. These UNIX-based OSs (none of
them running fortune) do everything I need.

This last week RedHat 8 Pro arrived. I like it. I note that
'fortune' doesn't load automatically, Bluecurve looks
more like Aqua than most GUIs, and maybe a
realisation that for UNIX-based OSs to make their way
onto more desktops the user interface needs to be
MUCH better.

Incidentally, according to Apple, OS X is now the most
widely used UNIX-based OS in the world, having added
some 4,000,000 seats in months. And that, my friends
has to be a supremely good thing for *ALL* UNIX-
based OSs, OpenSource and all things good. And that
is something to smile about!

B-)

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Fortune Cookies
by googleman - Oct 15th 2002 16:19:40


> The wheels completely fell off your
> tirade when you
> stated that to be a UNIX an OS needed
> 'fortune' - up
> until then I had been reading with the
> same boredom I
> used to read Windowz vs whatever
> arguements.
>
> I have rarely ever used a proper UNIX,
> having only
> toyed with Solaris. However, I have
> RedHat servers
> and Mac OS X clients. These UNIX-based
> OSs (none of
> them running fortune) do everything I
> need.
>
> This last week RedHat 8 Pro arrived. I
> like it. I note that
> 'fortune' doesn't load automatically,
> Bluecurve looks
> more like Aqua than most GUIs, and maybe
> a
> realisation that for UNIX-based OSs to
> make their way
> onto more desktops the user interface
> needs to be
> MUCH better.
>
> Incidentally, according to Apple, OS X
> is now the most
> widely used UNIX-based OS in the world,
> having added
> some 4,000,000 seats in months. And
> that, my friends
> has to be a supremely good thing for
> *ALL* UNIX-
> based OSs, OpenSource and all things
> good. And that
> is something to smile about!
>
> B-)
RedHat does too auto-install fortune, you dingbat. it jus
doesn't when you install a server. Try clicking the
desktop install and it will install.


[reply] [top]

---

[»] GCC and GDB came with my OSX
by Ray - Oct 9th 2002 20:29:13

My copy of OSX came with GCC and GDB. It even came with Project Builder and Interface Builder and a bunch of other applications to assist developers in making OSX applications. OSX will never surpass Linux in popularity but it is a viable alternative.

My Linux box plays nicely with OSX laptop. I use OSX but I will never give up on Linux.

[reply] [top]

[»] Touchy bunch aren't we?
by galtsavenger - Sep 26th 2002 09:48:15

I like Linux.
I like OS X.

Why can't we all just get along and squash the big
baddies? Those of us who want to lick the screen and
have applications called iSomething can stick to OSX,
and those of us that want to play with the kernel, hug
the kernel and LOVE the kernel can stay with Linux.

See how easy that is? Who cares what is Unix what is
not. Someone else said it further up - use the best tool
for the job. Your average user will not be able to set
up linux and be able to d'ld digital photos and edit DV
movies right away. Your average techie will not be
happy with trying to install OSX developer tools from a
CD.

We can all play together in a fun filled "unix-BASED"
world with stateful packet inspection, little prompts
with cute characters, ssh and vnc viewers for all.

Quit yer b*tchin' - ALL of ya

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Touchy bunch aren't we?
by googleman - Oct 15th 2002 16:23:53

We're "b*tchin" about O'Reilly's stupid remark that Apple should target Unix and Linux users in their ad market, so on and so forth. We're not complaining about MacOS X, just Tim O'Reilly. Oh yes, and the stupid people that complain about Linux after switching to OS X

[reply] [top]

---

[»] what defines UNIX?
by Bob - Sep 20th 2002 12:36:10

At the end of the day, utilities like GCC, GDB, fortune and X do not define what a UNIX system is - despite that they may come bundled with most UNIXes, so to speak.

GNU do not define UNIX. And neither does your poor and clearly stupid fanaticism for Linux and it's reliance upon Stallman's software (please find me modern Linux-based software that can be easily compiled using a compiler other than gcc).

The only thing, in my mind and I'm sure in the minds of many others, that defines what is a good, compliant UNIX system... is the POSIX standard. After all, MINIX doesn't come with gcc, gdb or X (maybe fortune) - does that mean it's not MINIX? Idiot.

OS X, as far as I know, is POSIX-compliant. That makes you wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. I dread to think what you teach at your university.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: what defines UNIX?
by cchiu - Oct 1st 2002 17:49:23

I second that. What a stupid argument!

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: what defines UNIX?
by Martin Pool - Nov 12th 2002 03:10:22


> The only thing, in my mind and I'm sure
> in the minds of many others, that
> defines what is a good, compliant UNIX
> system... is the POSIX standard. After
> all, MINIX doesn't come with gcc, gdb or
> X (maybe fortune) - does that mean it's
> not MINIX? Idiot.
Minix is not POSIX-compliant. Windows 2000 is.

POSIX compliance, though useful to some people, is a poor measure of whether a system is really Unixy.

If you'd seen some of the braindamage in the standard where obvious typos have become enshrined as law then you wouldn't be so keen on it either.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Why Linux?
by Lepus - Sep 20th 2002 09:20:08

Well, frankly said, I do not really understand the fanaticism surrounding Linux. GNU is a cool
operating system, and a viable UNIX solution, but it has many weak points. One of them is
the Linux kernel.
What we WOULD need is modern, scalable software technology. What we HAVE is something
huge and monstrous thawed from a prehistorical slab of ice, and then decorated with bells
and whistles beyond recognition. Has anybody wondered why hardware comes with factory
drivers for Windows and MacOS, sometimes even for various *NIX flavors, but almost NEVER
for Linux? Do they know that Linux DOESN'T HAVE a unified interface for binary, user-space
drivers? It's not like the hardware manufacturers stroke some infernal deal with BSA to rid
the earth of Open Source... They simply don't want to give their technology out, and as
things stand now, they don't have the RIGHT by LAW to supply closed source drivers for
Linux - if we step beyond the all too obvious technical problems with this.
Also, have a look at WHAT exactly runs in kernel space? Well, more than half of it could as
well run in user space, providing more stability and scalability. Linux was already an outdated
example of proto-unices when it was a mere idea in the head of Linus. Now it's a dinosaur,
trampling great projects like HURD under its feet. "Everybody uses Linux, why work on
anything else?"
Sure, it has nuclear breath and can wreck Tokyo in less than an hour... But what if I want it
to fly? :D

I believe what the UNIX community and the platform itself needs is a new breed of unices,
based on new ideas but maintaining compatibility to old technologies. Things like TRUE i18n
with universal use of Unicode with conversion routines for backward compatibility,
microkernel architectures, a modern device namespace with compatibility fixes, a unified
hardware device driver interface put down in a core standard for POSIX systems, and so on.
MacOS/X is a great new step in this direction. I will be cheering for it, even from the back of
my Linux system. Probably this new wave will reach the Open Source community too, and
hopefully it won't turn its back...

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Why Linux?
by Eugene Trotsan - Sep 23rd 2002 09:31:48

You're talking out of your ass. I have never seen a piece of hardware that comes with drivers for commercieal Unixes. Take NVidia, for example, do you see drivers for SCO, Irix, or any other obscure platforms? No. Even some $7 Taiwanese ethernet card I bought the other day had drivers for Linux.


> Well, frankly said, I do not really
> understand the fanaticism surrounding
> Linux. GNU is a cool
> operating system, and a viable UNIX
> solution, but it has many weak points.
> One of them is
> the Linux kernel.
> What we WOULD need is modern, scalable
> software technology. What we HAVE is
> something
> huge and monstrous thawed from a
> prehistorical slab of ice, and then
> decorated with bells
> and whistles beyond recognition. Has
> anybody wondered why hardware comes with
> factory
> drivers for Windows and MacOS, sometimes
> even for various *NIX flavors, but
> almost NEVER
> for Linux? Do they know that Linux
> DOESN'T HAVE a unified interface for
> binary, user-space
> drivers? It's not like the hardware
> manufacturers stroke some infernal deal
> with BSA to rid
> the earth of Open Source... They simply
> don't want to give their technology out,
> and as
> things stand now, they don't have the
> RIGHT by LAW to supply closed source
> drivers for
> Linux - if we step beyond the all too
> obvious technical problems with this.
> Also, have a look at WHAT exactly runs
> in kernel space? Well, more than half of
> it could as
> well run in user space, providing more
> stability and scalability. Linux was
> already an outdated
> example of proto-unices when it was a
> mere idea in the head of Linus. Now it's
> a dinosaur,
> trampling great projects like HURD under
> its feet. "Everybody uses Linux,
> why work on
> anything else?"
> Sure, it has nuclear breath and can
> wreck Tokyo in less than an hour... But
> what if I want it
> to fly? :D
>
> I believe what the UNIX community and
> the platform itself needs is a new breed
> of unices,
> based on new ideas but maintaining
> compatibility to old technologies.
> Things like TRUE i18n
> with universal use of Unicode with
> conversion routines for backward
> compatibility,
> microkernel architectures, a modern
> device namespace with compatibility
> fixes, a unified
> hardware device driver interface put
> down in a core standard for POSIX
> systems, and so on.
> MacOS/X is a great new step in this
> direction. I will be cheering for it,
> even from the back of
> my Linux system. Probably this new wave
> will reach the Open Source community
> too, and
> hopefully it won't turn its back...
>


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Why Linux?
by ninthwave - Oct 1st 2002 08:54:24

Well of course nVidia wouldn't write drivers for Unix. Unix is viewed as a server environment and most workstations that run graphically intesive applications have proprietary video cards. SGI for example. But hardware that would be seen going into a Unix system does have unix drives take scsi controlles. My cheap Intio scsi card came with windows, dos and unix drivers. The state of scsi support in Linux needs some help. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/4416/1/ Not one OS system really offers a balance of User Interface and Open Configuration. POSIX compliance is a start but I believe with the original poster, a rethink of the current Kernel model and some change in design is needed. Just a clean up of the directory structure and layout would be a big leap forward. I prefer FreeBsd as a server, I prefer Linux as a desktop system. I truly want to afford DEC Alpha true 64 platform but again it is all personal tast plus what you are use to using. But if this Open Community is to move forward some standardisation and some consideration for the non tech heads needs to be designed into the current operating systems.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Why Linux?
by Reagen Ward - Dec 31st 2002 10:34:37


> I have
> never seen a piece of hardware that
> comes with drivers for commercieal
> Unixes.
Hmmn. How about AMI RAID cards? Mine shipped with SCO and Solaris/x86 drivers and tools on the CD.

NVidia has Linux and FreeBSD drivers for download, but that isn't quite the same as shipping on the CD.



[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Why Linux?
by Matthew Mondor - Oct 27th 2002 11:44:39


> Well, frankly said, I do not really

> understand the fanaticism surrounding

> Linux. GNU is a cool

> operating system, and a viable UNIX

> solution, but it has many weak points.

> One of them is

> the Linux kernel.
> [ and glibc ]
> What we WOULD need is modern, scalable

> software technology. What we HAVE is

> something

> [...]

> Linux - if we step beyond the all too

> obvious technical problems with this.

> Also, have a look at WHAT exactly runs

> in kernel space? Well, more than half of

> it could as

> well run in user space, providing more

> stability and scalability. Linux was

> already an outdated

> example of proto-unices when it was a

> mere idea in the head of Linus. Now it's

> [...]
> I believe what the UNIX community and

> the platform itself needs is a new breed

> of unices,

> based on new ideas but maintaining

> compatibility to old technologies.

> [...]
>


I fully agree, although currently my favorite OS is NetBSD, new things will eventually evolve from old and new concepts. QNX is another cool example of a POSIX IPC-based realtime microkernel, which unfortunately does not have I license I particularly like. But it borrowed old ideas, and brought in new ones, assembled them, to produce a cool system (which of course still needs some work).



This may not belong in this thread, but KDE imho is unfortunately a badly designed system from the ground up (internals), and I'm personally happy to not be obliged to work with GUIs much, but that's me. I was quite surprised when I noticed that kdeinit was preventing 512M of ram from being used for other applications, and starting something like openoffice would take far more time than for instance, under icewm, where most of RAM is available to load large applications in a few seconds without swapping. It also runs way too many processes for the functionality it provides.



This said, in the GUI area as well can be innovations. A thing which can slow this progress is the need for solid working systems, (NetBSD in my case) which we naturally stick to, it "just works". But research is important too, which eventually leads to other "working" systems, which may suit better future needs as well.

Matt

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Can't we all just be friends?
by Mike - Sep 17th 2002 00:23:14

OS X is a pretty and easy to use desktop OS, and its support of lots of UNIX tools is great. But Apple would be foolish to target open source users. Apple clearly can't go it alone, otherwise OS X wouldn't incorporate so much open source software--they need a vibrant open source community.

Apple also doesn't have the goods. People use open source software because openness is important to them. No matter what the technical merits of systems like Cocoa may be, the closed source portions of OS X are, well, closed. They don't even conform to open standards.

Throwing out the challenge to Linux developers "you can't make a desktop as nice as this" is also quite dangerous--Apple may find out quickly that they are very wrong. The only reason Apple hasn't been seriously targeted for open source cloning is because, so far, they have neither been a threat to Linux nor a big factor in the market. And the open source community has a lot more resources and people than Apple.

Apple should focus on recruiting current Windows users--that's where their market is, that's where their expertise is, and they have more than enough technical work on their plate. Apple: don't get sidetracked or foolish.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Can't we all just be friends?
by OreoCookie - Sep 28th 2002 15:21:25


> OS X is a pretty and easy to use desktop
> OS, and its support of lots of UNIX
> tools is great. But Apple would be
> foolish to target open source users.
> Apple clearly can't go it alone,
> otherwise OS X wouldn't incorporate so
> much open source software--they need a
> vibrant open source community.
>
> Apple also doesn't have the goods.
> People use open source software because
> openness is important to them. No
> matter what the technical merits of
> systems like Cocoa may be, the closed
> source portions of OS X are, well,
> closed. They don't even conform to open
> standards.
>
> Throwing out the challenge to Linux
> developers "you can't make a
> desktop as nice as this" is also
> quite dangerous--Apple may find out
> quickly that they are very wrong. The
> only reason Apple hasn't been seriously
> targeted for open source cloning is
> because, so far, they have neither been
>