Slashdot Mirror

Could WIndows and Mac ever become fully compatible with Linux software?

There's a lot of unix software which will "configure - make - sudo make install" just fine on Mac. For other stuff that's more complicated, projects like Fink or Brew or MacPorts can often help. And, even if these projects don't offer the software you're looking for, those tools can probably provide the underlying libraries your software requires for building.

(although I have yet to manage to get mlocate installed on my Mac)

I think this fork will be fairly insignificant, and, further, that it will increasingly run into problems as desktops and other packages depend more and more on systemd components (that trend was one of the major factors in the Debian decision to adopt it).

Right! Lord knows open source software is known for its hard dependencies on system-specific interfaces, and for its contempt for cross-platform standards such as POSIX.

I mean, if you're on Windows, you're totally SOL if you want to use anything from Linux-land. Likewise, Mac users are totally f*ed if they want to make use of their OS's Unix roots to run Linux-oriented software.

Oh, and BSD users who want to run anything outside the system core? Out of luck. No one's going to bother taking all that Linux-specific code, which never pays attention to POSIX and uses syscall() into the Linux kernel everywhere, for such a fringe distro!

I guess we'll just stay in the world we are now, where everything on SourceForge is hooked directly into the Linux kernel, and the de-jure standards like POSIX and de-facto ones like GLIB are used as toilet paper for the Linux devs' asses.

Everyone knows almost all OSS software only runs on Linux right now anyway. Now it'll just be more of the same, but with SystemD dependencies built in, too! ...

Hmm, I think the LSD has worn off now. Ok, I have another opinion:

OSS software tends to follow portability best practices, where hard dependencies are eschewed when possible. A few corrupt, blinkered projects such as GNOME might decide to build in hard dependencies to SystemD. Most other software won't, because they'd lose portability to every platform other than Linux with SystemD. And most OSS software cares about that.

HAND.

I was fine with Unity and Gnome 3, liked them both. But I'm in the same boat as you -- compiz would crash and disrupt my workflow. Switched to KDE and I now have a different set of gripes and crashes, but not at the WM level. Better, but...sigh...when will it all work and have a nice integrated desktop?

Get a Mac if you want it to work. And if you want, some of the same software that runs in Linux can run in OS X too. It does come with X11. Fink installs .deb, Macports, .rpm, and Homebrew installs other packages. Apple also supports open source developers.

Falcon

No, I don't think you're the only one. In fact yours in one of the few reasonable and sane posts. I think the worry is that the Linux Desktop will fade away unless it keeps up.

What is sad is that I really don't care anymore. I used to keep up with Linux and FOSS using Fink on OSX. And, sitting there, with them side by side, made is so clear how I didn't want to keep using FOSS. I could go on about how this or that sucked. Maybe they did or maybe they didn't. The point is, when I wanted to do something, I didn't choose FOSS.

Define "exists". Yes, MacOS X does have a UNIX base, comes with full GNU toolchain and pretty much any properly written UNIX program tool should build and run on it. But I really wonder how much effort it takes to find, build and use third party CLI tools. For example ImageMagick, SoX, MKVTools or Mencoder (part of Mplayer package). Most Linux distros provide tools to easily create a package for your program that will seamlessly integrate with the system and a HUGE database of packages ready to install and use. I can imagine that MacOS provides tons of GUI software but I don't believe that Apple would put that much effort into providing CLI tools beyond the bare minimum required for a UNIX system.

Apple advertises macports via the Mac OS Forge which offers a ports collection for OS X, a directly competing project without Apple endorsement would be fink.

If you want to use Linux fine.

I think your comments regarding iOS like features are a bit overblown. Nothing is changing too much for "real work". But if you want a Unixy GUI under OSX, OSX ships with X.app and you can run a different GUI. Just go to http://www.macports.org/ or http://www.finkproject.org/ and install the GUI you want.

> I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac.

Reliable file sharing.

I quite easily share files between OSX and Ubuntu. And though I haven't installed them yet I'm getting ready to install both Ubuntu 10.04 and 11.10 to triple-boot my Mac. When I do I'll be using the same partition for users in all OSes.

Media playback. You end up falling back to "Linux tools" in order to get a reasonably complete solution.

Apple's Final Cut Pro, which is the video industry's leading video editing software burns Blu-Ray disks. What's that? A video of of someone burning a Blu-Ray movie with Final Cut Pro 7? However you can still run Linux tools on a Mac. OSX includes X11. With Fink you can install software that uses the Debian tools dpkg and apt-get. Or Mac Ports to install .rpm packages. Then there's Homebrew for those who Mac Port drives to drinking.

Keeping your crayon inside the lines (like office software) is not the problem.

AH, you're right. The problem is people not knowing the truth, or not admitting to it. Fact is is a Mac can run Linux, OSX, and Windows software. Which is within what I said above, "I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac."

Falcon

You can get pre-built binaries of virtually every OSS server software for MacOS, and certainly for every remotely popular OSS server software. Fink is good, and I like it because I've used it a lot over the years. MacPorts seems to be more popular these days though. Since OSX is essentially just a POSIX compliant Unix variant with a fancy GUI, ports are extremely trivial to make. I will warn you that X-windows based software from these sources are a bit flaky sometimes, mostly becasue Apple's X overlay for Cocoa is a piece of crap; but the command line and server tools are dead solid.

Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

Using the internets? You fail it.

P.S. I haven't even touched OSX in years...

Fink page says that the X11 server that comes with Mac OS X defaults to the quartz-wm window manager, which puts the window controls in the same place as the host window system's window controls. And if you switch your window manager in .xinitrc, it'll only affect X11 apps, not Mac apps.

How about working libraries ? A decent package manager actually containing most of the libraries I use (like all debian variants have, and, to a slightly lesser degree, all redhat variants have too).

You mean package manager like Fink, Macports or Homebrew ? They are useful for installing FOSS stuff. Personally I can't stand package managers the way they work on Linux, nothing like having to update half your DE because you install a new package and it requires a dot update of some library. You don't see that insanity on any other Unix.

Installing such trivialities as NumPy on Mac OS X is about as easy as it is on Windows. It's not that hard (unless there are conflicts), but removing something you installed is all but impossible.

That's really the fault of the person who created the package for not providing an uninstall script, and a bit like complaining doing a "configure; make ; make install" makes it hard to uninstall stuff.

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink, MacPorts and Homebrew.

And they all suck balls.

You mean like Fink and MacPorts

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink, MacPorts and Homebrew.

There's a ton of Open-Source app distribution systems aside from Apple's nice GUI one.

Fink
DarwinPorts
The list goes further on...

This is Apple's store and they can determine which products go into their store. They have determined that they are not using a Debian or Ubuntu style repository for their store. However, if users wanted to use such a system, they can; it just won't be an Apple system. Being Unix, users can run apt-get system called Fink.

Wow, you get the award for the most ignorant post I've ever seen from someone with such a low UID.

It's certainly not a "Unix".

You're right, It's not a Unix. It's a certified UNIX, since May 18, 2007.

The shiny GUI apps are very not-Unix and have a sort of Apple NIH syndrome

Uh, you know that Apple ships X11 for OS X, right?
You know you can run OS X without the shiny GUI, or if you're really hard core, compile Darwin from source to do so, right?
You know there's plenty of more UNIX-y stuff available from MacPorts and Fink, right?

~Philly

There's a fair amount of confusion as to the various ports systems on Mac.

http://darwinports.com/ claims to be the "original" Darwin Ports.

http://www.macports.org/ claims the above is an imposter. But the thing is, darwinports.com has a really nice command summary for every individual package. (I.e., go to terminal, type "sudo port install bzr ", etc.) This is better than MacPorts which only has a generic help for all apps.

And then there's Fink, http://www.finkproject.org/.

Anybody want to comment on the best/recommended system?

There's several variations on this reply, so I'll address yours and hope the others read it. Put simply there's no business case for doing what you suggest. Consider: apt-get and yum are designed for developers and users by developers and users. It's in the interest of the developers to make the system work with multiple repositories because it's likely to make their lives easier too. This system is designed by a for profit company. What you're asking them to do is not simply be "open" you're asking them to give their competitors a leg up to compete with them.

You're asking then not merely to allow competition with their app store, but essentially say to potential competitors: "Hey look, we did most of the work for you. All the API's are there and you can hook into them. Just get some cheap bandwidth, hook up a repo and charge a fraction of what we are, kay?" It would be suicidal.

They're already allowing competing repo systems to exist. There's at least two that I'm aware of Fink (which is a more or less standard Free software repo system based on apt-get) and Steam (a direct commercial competitor, albeit narrowly focused). I know there's a couple more Free apt-get style systems to, though I don't know names. There's nothing stopping another company from building yet another system if they want. Just don't expect Apple to hand over the keys.

Please note that I no point have I argued that this system is better than, or even as good as, Linux repo systems. I'm sure it will have better aspects (Apple rarely releases something that's not pretty polished), but it will also be more limited in same ways. That's fine. If I want to use something like apt-get I'll use Fink. If I need a commercial app, I'll check this store. Just because it's not just like apt-get doesn't make it evil.

OK, this is try number three after tries one and two were eaten by /. It's already ported Fink is apt-get for Macs. It's mostly console and X-11 stuff, to my knowledge there no native Aqua apps. I don't think this is because of any technical limitations of the port... The maintainers are just focused on "traditional" Unix apps.

OK, this is try number three after tries one and two were eaten by /. It's already ported Fink is apt-get for Macs. It's mostly console and X-11 stuff, to my knowledge there no native Aqua apps. I don't think this is because of any technical limitations of the port... The maintainers are just focused on "traditional" Unix apps.

a port of Debian's APT to Mac OS X would help.

What, you mean this? Or maybe this? Apt has been on OS X for ages, I mean ages! As an Apple/linux/unix user, I've liked Apple because they go out of their way to provide compatability with other unixes (hello, X11.app!). I haven't looked into this new app store in any way shape or form, because I'm far too happy with the current state of affairs. Hell, the text editor I use last released a version in 2004! Pardon me if I'm skeptical of claims that Apple is locking down OS X and shutting others out...

OK, this is try number three after tries one and two were eaten by /. It's already ported Fink is apt-get for Macs. It's mostly console and X-11 stuff, to my knowledge there no native Aqua apps. I don't think this is because of any technical limitations of the port... The maintainers are just focused on "traditional" Unix apps.

It's already ported. Fink is essentially apt-get for Macs. It's mostly console and X windows apps, I'm not aware of any native Aqua apps... But I don't see any technical reason why there couldn't be. I think it's just a choice on the part of the maintainers to focus on "traditional" Unix apps.

MacPorts
Fink

Apple has and always will be a company that prioritizes looks and simplicity over function.

I got my MacBook Pro because of functionality and price not because it looks better. Hell, other than the Apple logo on the cover it looks the same as laptops from other companies. And yes I included "price" above. Before I bought my MBP I compared the prices of a few laptops from different companies at the price of the MBP was only $50 higher than the cheapest laptop but much lower than other prices.

It's the same reason their products have almost no user options.

What user options? Like the option to run X11 and apps for it? Like the option of installing .rpm and apt-get or .deb packages? Like running MS Windows? Though I currently only run Leopard on my Mac when I install Snow Leopard I also plan to install Ubuntu and dualboot. If I wanted to I could install MS Windows as well. BUT I DO NOT!!! And guess what else... I'm typing this in a Firefox tab, I run Thunderbird as my email client, for my office suite I have NeoOiffce, the native Mac port of OpenOffice.org. And while I have XCode installed I also use Eclipse for development.

Falcon

...and only with programs that they want you to use...

Wait, what?! How do you people not get modded down for this blatant misinformation? There are absolutely no restrictions on what applications you can run on OSX, as evidenced by the vast selection of free and open source software available for it, much of it competing directly with apple products.

Yep, every single thing costs money.

And there's absolutely no compatibility with any linux software at all.

You're 100% correct.

(The latter aren't awful, and I don't mean to disparage the people working on this, but it's nothing like just having yum or apt-get already there and just waiting to install thousands of excellent free packages.)
No, having to run one of two double click installers, and then having ports or apt-get ready there and just waiting to install thousands of excellent free packages is nothing like that.

Wow, go-go-gadget misinformation. Mac OS X Server is BSD based, and I've had great success installing any open source project that I needed, using ports, fink, gems, or CPAN if what came with operating system didn't do what I needed.

Also, the vast majority of services available on OS X Server are open source, which Apple does contribute back. So if you don't like how the Server Admin tool works, you can be a r3@l l33t h4xx0r and edit the config files in vi or emacs and do it yourself.

As for the submitter's original question, there are a number of useful tools available for mass deployments of Macs across a network. Tools like radmind, LanRev, Apple's PackageMaker, InstaDMG, and Casper Suite all have varying degrees of management of machine images, image distribution, etc. Also consider at least downloading the PDFs Apple provides for their built in services to learn the ins and outs of their tools allow you to do and not do. You can even modify existing services to use more recent versions of projects that come with OS X if you're missing something or need to upgrade to a newer version for some reason (although this will likely make you have to freeze your OS version in place, or else future updates will probably overwrite your changes.)

Administration of a network of Macs falls somewhere in between an Active Directory environment and a roll your own Linux/BSD network. The client administration is great, but not as comprehensive as Active Directory. However, you still have the freedom to tinker with the services that come with OS X Server and borrow and add capabilities from open source. There are also many other forums out there that have a much lower troll count than what you'll find here, with many knowledgeable and helpful folks who will actually attempt to address and answer your question.

Because seriously, why go to Slashdot if not for the trolling?

OS X *IS* Unix

Nope, OS X is Darwin, and for the last ten years or so, Linux has defined the main stream of Unix. Sure, Darwin has -- through its lineage -- a better connection to the origins of Unix, but c'mon, pedigree doesn't matter if it's not relevant.

Apple has done a fine job of building a decent platform around Mach and BSD, and I like using my Mac. A lot. But I do 90% of my "real" WORK at the command line, and with its BSD-style commands, the Mac kinda sucks in this dept. If I want to get WORK DONE, then I either ssh to a Linux machine, or I install a bunch of packages from Fink on the Mac so that I can have "normal", Linux-style commands at my disposal.

BSD commands are just strange. In the words of that immortal Unix guru Willie Nelson: That shit ain't right.

I don't guarantee anything but, as Leopard which you boo boo is a Unix 03 compliant operating system with entire toolchain to support open source software, Fink Project and Macports did considerable amount of work to make automated package management.

I know Fink and it has some Palm related software but I have never,ever saw a Palm in my life to begin with so I can't guarantee anything.

http://www.finkproject.org/ (official site)
http://pdb.finkproject.org/ (Package Database web interface)

So, no need to go Linux just to have Palm support. While people buy OS X, they also buy UNIX.

I know one way or another, you can get Sync support under snow leopard but let me tell you something. If I was a Palm owner, I would be having very nice and polite communication with Palm Inc. over this. They should spend money to hire couple of Cocoa/OS X developers rather than renting some astroturfers and shady blogs.

I don't guarantee anything but, as Leopard which you boo boo is a Unix 03 compliant operating system with entire toolchain to support open source software, Fink Project and Macports did considerable amount of work to make automated package management.

I know Fink and it has some Palm related software but I have never,ever saw a Palm in my life to begin with so I can't guarantee anything.

http://www.finkproject.org/ (official site)
http://pdb.finkproject.org/ (Package Database web interface)

So, no need to go Linux just to have Palm support. While people buy OS X, they also buy UNIX.

I know one way or another, you can get Sync support under snow leopard but let me tell you something. If I was a Palm owner, I would be having very nice and polite communication with Palm Inc. over this. They should spend money to hire couple of Cocoa/OS X developers rather than renting some astroturfers and shady blogs.

Are not available yet.... :(

http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/pidgin

Like which software? 99% of Linux software runs happily on OS X.

I tried to install and use CinePaint and Fink. I was unable to use either one. Sure some get them to work but I'm no genus or hacker. With Ubuntu Studio CinePaint comes with it and I don't need Fink. Or DarwinPorts or MacPorts to install apt-get, .deb, or .rpm packages. I also have Eclipse installed but I get errors when I run it in my user account, then when I try to quit it it won't. Even Force Quit will not stop Eclipse, the only I can kill it is by shutting down though logging out may work, I haven't tried it. Yet I installed the Mac version of it, and it works fine in an admin account but not a user account.

Falcon

of OS X:

X11
kde
e17
For everything else there's fink and darwin ports.

I've got X11 installed and tried to install CinePaint and Fink but couldn't get either one to run. I could try MacPorts but it doesn't have CinePaint. So I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu Studio.

Falcon

Just a brief list of linux stuff that runs on top of OS X:

X11
kde
e17
For everything else there's fink and darwin ports.

In fact, darwin itself is open source, meaning if you really, really have a hard on to run just linux apps, you could run the core OS with the drivers and all with X11 on top of it. Beeslebob's point is spot on, there's no reason to take a perfectly good unix that has drivers custom written for it to replace it with a one-size fits all OS like linux (as awesome as linux is, hardware drivers are its Achilles' Heel because the hardware is often propietary).

Prior art:

http://www.finkproject.org/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/fink/

Registered : 2000-12-27 22:07

Its good to hear Novell has caught up to the open source world of 2000, unfortunately for them, today is June 9th 2009.

Well, KDE 4 with Qt 4 is installed to my OS X, running as native application, using OS X frameworks although it needs some testing. I suspect it is same deal on KDE/4 Windows too.

OS X one: http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/browse.php?summary=kde4

KDE 4 has made such a revolution with possible future of running in embedded systems, phones and anything you can imagine. What did Vista or 7 achieve?

I don't know about Windows, but there is a version of it for Mac OS X.

Steam games

Okay, games are a weakness for Macs though there are a lot that run on them. What I find ironic is that I run into people who think Macs are only good for games.

Decent Amateur radio software and no, the software listed on http://www.machamradio.com/ is not good enough.

What about the DXZone? Things may of changed since then but years ago I knew hams who swore by Macs. I wanted to get my license myself but I had a hard tyme with Morse Code.

x11 that supports drag and drop properly, so I can use x11 applications as they should be used.

I've tried two X11 apps, CinePaint and Fink or MacPorts but I couldn't get either one to work. I may install Ubuntu on my Mac, in which case I can run CinePaint in it and use Synaptic as well as other methods to install software.

Have you checked out CNR, ClickNRun?

Stuff like fink, macports which isn't hopelessly broken

Did you try both at the same tyme? I read where you should use one OR the other as they don't play well together.

Falcon

You could help fix that problem by participating with projects such as Fink , MacPorts or OSXPM.

Umm, what about Fink?

http://www.finkproject.org/

It would be nice if desktop OSes had an easy way to find and install new programs as well. Oh wait ... BSD and Linux do have such a place! How has Apple not jumped on that?

You do have MacOSX repositories as well - macports and fink. They are not integrated into the OS in any way though.

While I agree with you that this is a nuisance, what's wrong with 3rd party software? As a OS X developer I don't feel my work is inherently inferior to Apple's. There are many examples where 3rd party software is way superior to Apple's own equivalent, e.g. The Finder.

What replaces the Finder that's better than it is? Having asked that, I prefer Windows Explorer, about the only thing I prefer Windows over OSX about. On another hand, I want to learn how to use Fink and Macports.

Falcon

Well, there's FreeMacWare.com, OpenSourceMac.org, Fink, MacPorts, and even VersionTracker lets you sort by license.

On OS X, if you have Fink (unstable) installed, you can install Amarok 1.x stable right now. It does a damn good job too.

Links:
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/browse.php?summary=amarok

Only thing is, you will run it through X11. As Leopard's X11 issues are over with the recent updates, it is not a issue. No issues on Tiger too.

Of course, Amarok.app and the rest of KDE 4 running natively is a big deal.

I think a lot of the anti-Apple sentiment comes from people like me who would like the opportunity to use OS X, if only Apple would deign to take our money. It generates a lot of frustration and disagreement between people who don't really have any substantive differences.

For me, the Mac tax really hits hard and that makes Apple hardware a non-option. I bought a Core Duo laptop for $500 a few years ago, and only use it as a portable. I put together a quad core desktop together about a year ago for $1,200.

If I'd bought Macs, I'd have had to buy a MacBook Pro (13" is too small for me), and the closest thing Apple offers to my desktop is $3,100. (Full disclosure: Apple gouges Canadians for an extra couple hundred.)

I'd be happy to give them a couple hundred dollars for an OS X license, but not a 100% plus "Mac tax".

Even if the prices were comparable and the configurations suited me, I still wouldn't want to tie myself inextricably to a single hardware vendor.

As for presentations on Linux, it works fine, provided you've made sure to set X up to handle the VGA output. I use Gentoo though, a more user friendly distro like Ubuntu might handle more automatically.

OS X (with fink) would probably be more suitable for my laptop (and maybe my desktop). It drives me nuts that Apple won't let me have it. I've been happily cheering Psystar on from the sidelines :P

I will try it out soon, triple booting Ubuntu XP and OSX sounds great fun!

I can, though I won't, do that on my Mac.

Apple should implement apt-get, then it would be definite!

If you have a Mac try Fink, it can install Debian packages apt-get, .deb, dpkg, and dselect. To install Redhat .rpm packages try MacPorts.

Falcon

Now if only they would release something like that for Linux, then it would be the year of Linux on the desktop!

Apple used to have a version of Linux, MkLinux. Since the switch to OS X I don't see much of a reason to run Linux on a Mac. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and before I got it I was thinking about setting it up as a dualboot, with Ubuntu. However after installing MacPorts and Fink I see no reason to. Between the two I can install Debian apt-get and .deb and Redhat .rpm packages.

As far as a "Year of Linux", I doubt there ever will be one. Yes, Linux will be seen on more and more desktops but I don't think there will be a single year that can be pointed to and have said that was the year Linux became the king of the desktop. What matters is that people can do what they need to do, whatever the OS or platform.

Falcon