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)

It's trivial to install Samba on OS X.
Step 1. Install Xcode
Step 2. Install MacPorts
Step 3. sudo port install samba3 or sudo port install samba4

Apple can't include Samba out of the box with OS X due to issues linking to GPL v3 libraries and issues due to foregoing patent lawsuits if using GPL v3 code, but there's nothing stopping you from adding it yourself.

sudo port install git
echo "export PATH=/opt/local/bin:\$PATH" >> ~/.bashrc

Oh! The humanity!

(Requires https://www.macports.org/insta...)

As an aside, it's possible to override SIP, but it's a bit of a PITA.

For those OSX users who have MacPorts, the new htop is already available.

No means no. stop being a persistent ass preaching where it is unwanted. Seriously, try reading what he said, god some advocates are just blind and deaf.

Maybe you, or he, should try reading what he originally said.

It's the best solution to the original question he asked. It's BSD-derived, and it easily and natively supports every single one of the applications and tools he originally said he wants. Done and Done.

Now, he comes back and says Apple "kind of represents" something something mumble flexibility choice Do Not Want. Sure, fine, whatever. Maybe he feels that Tim Cook's star sign creates negative harmony with his personal aura. I can't argue him about that, but really, who gives a fuck.

He said what he wants, and what he wants is pretty much a Mac. It's a BSD-derived system that gives him the flexibility and choice to run every one of the applications he said he needs (or even wants) to run. (Yes, even XFCE)

Maybe what he really wants is to live like RMS and eat his own toe jam, but that's not what he said.

My team has already stopped supporting Mavericks because it apparently does not support GDB.

You can get GDB (and pretty much every other open source dev tool) from https://www.macports.org/

https://stackoverflow.com/ques...

I don't have a Mac so my opinion probably doesn't weigh much, but don't they have MacPorts for that? Are the offerings not adequate enough for your solutions?

The UNIX side of OS X has been just fine in the recent releases. The problems with OS X are:

1. It doesn't have a real package management system.

It's called "drag and drop"; properly written applications are self-contained in directories represented by the application icon. If you follow the Mac model, and don't try to install your files all over from hell to breakfast, there's no issue. This is why a lot of demo machines in stores now have epoxy in their USB ports (e.g. the ones at Fry's), since people were stealing already activated copies of Microsoft Office by plugging in their iPod shuffle or other thumb-drive and just dragging it over.

If you want to install all over from hell to breakfast, there's always http://www.macports.org/ or you can make a 5 line change to the FreeBSD ports management system to use "${MAKE}" instead of "make", and deal with two "echo" compatibility issues which are fixed by using "printf" instead, and almost all of the FreeBSD ports system "just works". I gave those patches back to FreeBSD (via Jordan Hubbard); not sure if they made them in.

Note that another benefit of the Mac model is that you can have different applications requiring different versions of libraries, and nobody cares except people already short on disk space. Duplicate block coalescing can fix that, but only works for ZFS, which is an add-on.

2. Long turnaround time for security patches. They should stop this insane "we have to wait until 10.x.y until we ship this patch even though it's ready." A proper package management system would certainly help there.

This is an issue for security problems in the kernel; otherwise, Apple ships regular security patches for all user space components; leave Software Update turned on, and it's automatic, and will pop up and bug you to install updates, since they usually mean an application or system restart (depending on what layer the installs happen).

For the kernel, this is really a management/resources/security-guys-do-not-push-hard-enough problem; the current development model for the Mac OS X kernel is "Scrum", which is good if you want to keep an organ bank of coders around to throw at the next iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad problem, and less good if you actually want to make substantive changes or progress in kernel technology, so it's mostly on managements back. I agree this is a problem.

Lots of people spend $200 on their hobbies. I have yet to meet someone for whom the $100 / yr is what is stopping them for OSX This seems like a theoretical issue more than a practical one.

Now if you are talking fully cross platform where there is nothing uniquely OSX about the application than just release it at the darwin level. http://www.macports.org/ is distribution and that doesn't require certification. A binary distributed to the masses would require an Apple developer. Most likely a developer associated with the Macports project would use his binary packager and sign it for him.

And I've read that joining requires first turning 18. I have a cousin who is learning to program. So how is a developer still in high school supposed to distribute his application to the public? Or is he supposed to show no one until his 18th birthday?

He's not. Children unassisted are not supposed to be distributing software to the broad public. Public distribution of software is supposed to be under some adult's supervision and an adult who is involved in the Apple developer community. Teen and college developers can be a creative source of software. But Apple wants more polish for their platform.

But not being able to distribute to the broad public is not the same as not being able to distribute to the narrower community. Apple would be enthusiastic about the under 18 developer getting integrated into the developer community, a community of practice and support. That community is setup to handle the problems of a 15 year old, making the kinds of mistakes 15 year olds make. The broader community is not.

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

This might kick the crap out of your browser: but sure.

Yeah? Is there a list of what works with it?

Might be easier to list what doesn't, but here are the 16075 packages that work with MacPorts out of the box: http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=all

Seriously, MacOS X is a certified UNIX, so this stuff is easy.

Is the blurry fonts issue fixed yet?

https://trac.macports.org/ticket/36410

The applications using Qt (all KDE apps) are not rendering correctly on a MacBookPro with Retina screen. The text is blurry like if it was upsized with a very bad filter

Because nothing beats Linux for package management. Miss not having a repo of open source at my disposal; the App Store will never touch it.

You mean you miss something like MacPorts?

If you are a Mac user, as a drinker of the Kool-Aid you have no choice.

Really? I have no choice of staying with the previous release of the OS that I'm already happy with? I have no choice to install another OS? I have no choice in running KDE or GNOME?

Seems to me I have a lot of options. Probably more than you do.

Yaz

Ok, that's nice. So how much effort does it take to install those ports and how many average Mac users know about this stuff?

Its a wonderully implemented source based package manager that is ridiculously easy to install and use. On Snow Leopard, for example, after installing XCode, there's a few ways to install macports, either with a packaged binary installer (install it like any other installable package or application with the OS X Installer app, using the GUI and mouse/trackpad), or command line binary installer, or you can even download the source and build it using the command line:

curl -O http://distfiles.macports.org/MacPorts/MacPorts-1.8.2.tar.gz
tar xzvf MacPorts-1.8.2.tar.gz
cd MacPorts-1.8.2/
./configure
make
sudo make install

Once installed, there is a small learning curve but not if you've ever used command line for anything, and if you wish to use CLI as little as possible, there are graphical frontends available.

If you're looking to install something, like, say, virtualbox, and your $PATH is set up, typing:

port search virtualbox

will return

virtualbox @4.1.14 (emulators)
open source virtualization technology from Oracle

Found 1 ports.

Installing it is pretty easy...

sudo port install virtualbox

and macports determines dependencies and installs the port. There are switches you can use to force ports to build everything from source, or use binaries when available, or you can stick with the default without switches. Its a fairly decent and easy to use package management system, and all open source. Support is available on the web or on irc.freenode.net at #macports.
Fast service! Highly recommended! A++++++++++

Ok, that's nice. So how much effort does it take to install those ports and how many average Mac users know about this stuff?

Its a wonderully implemented source based package manager that is ridiculously easy to install and use. On Snow Leopard, for example, after installing XCode, there's a few ways to install macports, either with a packaged binary installer (install it like any other installable package or application with the OS X Installer app, using the GUI and mouse/trackpad), or command line binary installer, or you can even download the source and build it using the command line:

curl -O http://distfiles.macports.org/MacPorts/MacPorts-1.8.2.tar.gz
tar xzvf MacPorts-1.8.2.tar.gz
cd MacPorts-1.8.2/
./configure
make
sudo make install

Once installed, there is a small learning curve but not if you've ever used command line for anything, and if you wish to use CLI as little as possible, there are graphical frontends available.

If you're looking to install something, like, say, virtualbox, and your $PATH is set up, typing:

port search virtualbox

will return

virtualbox @4.1.14 (emulators)
open source virtualization technology from Oracle

Found 1 ports.

Installing it is pretty easy...

sudo port install virtualbox

and macports determines dependencies and installs the port. There are switches you can use to force ports to build everything from source, or use binaries when available, or you can stick with the default without switches. Its a fairly decent and easy to use package management system, and all open source. Support is available on the web or on irc.freenode.net at #macports.
Fast service! Highly recommended! A++++++++++

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=ImageMagick

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=sox

http://www.emmgunn.com/mkvtools/mkvtoolsdownload.html

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=mplayer

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=ImageMagick

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=sox

http://www.emmgunn.com/mkvtools/mkvtoolsdownload.html

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=mplayer

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=ImageMagick

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=sox

http://www.emmgunn.com/mkvtools/mkvtoolsdownload.html

http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=mplayer

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

It's not prebuilt but Macports has ports for samba 3.2.15 and samba 4.0.0tp5. Installing from Macports isn't difficult for anyone with a modicum of unix savvy.

Again, I bet anyone with a modicum of unix savvy will steer well away from Apple servers and back in their unix domain.

It's not prebuilt but Macports has ports for samba 3.2.15 and samba 4.0.0tp5. Installing from Macports isn't difficult for anyone with a modicum of unix savvy.

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.

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.

The word key only appears twice. Once is a reference to things like encrypted which we both agree isn't happening in Apple's case the other is:

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

Basically all you have to do ensure that a person can execute modified code and they do. If you can compile and code for iOS you can install and execute modified code.

As for $1T compiler, there is a concept in law when you price something so as not to sell, i.e. its not "reasonable terms" or it "onerous terms". Which obviously doesn't apply in the case of the iOS SDK as 350,000 applications show (about 13x the number in Debian). Every single one of those apps was written by somebody with the iOS SDK so the terms are clearly not onerous, and not meant to prohibit development. Heck I'm not even an iOS developer but if were to pick up the iPhone I'd want to pick up the SDK to be able to install what I want on my system. So I'm either jail breaking or getting the SDK. Heck this is becoming so standard that Macports which is the semi official (see whois entry) open source interface for Mac is bring out an automatic iOS conversion tool so you can just compile list of apps.

Even the GPL itself allows you to charge a margin fee for transferring source code. Back in the early 90's the FSF itself charged $200 for a tape of their sources. There is a difference between $99 and $1T dollars in terms of intent.

Fedora and Debian both provide a core repository and non-core repositories. I'm not familiar with Ubuntu.

The Debian and Fedora repositories are huge.

OpenBSD does the same, and my memory is that freeBSD does, as well. The difference is primarily one of scale. openBSD, for instance intentionally keeps the core repository much smaller than most other distributions, and not just because the team is (intentionally) small.

The base OpenBSD and FreeBSD distributions (without ports) are designed to be an operating system to themselves (usually with all of the source for this core checked into the same repository), similar to what passed for a commercial UNIX system two decades ago. They both happen to provide "ports" systems on top of this. Linux distributions are generally build scripts/SPEC files/whatever used to patch, compile, and package source from upstream in a certain way, and most distributions (RHEL/SLE excluded) seem to have no problem adding lots and lots of packages.

The problem with the Mac, and it's a real problem, is that there is no official repository. Well, wasn't.

Now there is, but it's neither free nor open, as near as I can tell from the outside. (I'm not interested in being on the inside right now, so I'm judging it by the reports.)

The App Store works quite well for end-user facing applications, most of which are written specifically for Mac OS X.

But the app store still doesn't solve the underlying problem of dependency.

The dependency for programs in the App Store is Mac OS X. Generally, the core libraries in Mac OS X are rich enough that applications written for OS X don't need dependencies.

Apple really let us down when they dropped the ball on this one. They have enough money, they could be supporting all three unofficial distros, so that you aren't as restricted by which package manager you've loaded a package by. And they could be encouraging, with financial encouragement, those guys to learn interoperability.

Apple does support one: MacPorts, which is hosted by Apple at MacOSforge. The packages in these distributions are almost all for developer/UNIX power user use, and serve a completely different purpose than the Mac App Store.

Ummm... There's macvim for a standalone, GUI-based vim. Or you can install macports and get vim for terminal. For that matter, you can use any of the package managers mentioned in the article to get vim on a mac.

There is a code-signing facility in Mac OS X.

It's optional for 3rd-party applications, but many of the system components make use of it. If people want to run Samba on Mac OS X, there is this thing called MacPorts where you can find its port of Samba, plus lots and lots and lots of other GPLv3 software, and none of it requires an Apple code signature to run.

That may or may not be what you want. Choose wisely.

And what application is that?

An editor (and yes, I'm being elusive because you're rubbing me the wrong way).

Is it something used by a large number of Mac users?

A good chunk of users use it, yes.

If so, can you tell me: why did your app fail, when most other *nix apps can be compiled and run on the Mac?

This is a missleading question, most other *nix applications require modifications to work properly under OS X while they work fine on other Unix and Linux systems, see the extensive modifications done in darwin ports and mac ports. In fact, you will find some of the ported tools even ran into the exact same problem I mentioned. Yet even still, there are issues even now with the software packages due to the lack of POSIX compliance.

What did they do that you did not?

They didn't bite on Slashdot.

There is also MacPorts' port application if you want to compile from source. Though the success rate of that varies wildly...

How about making a GUI to Macports available in the Apple application store for free. =)
Or maybe Apple won't let you put free software and/or software that download other software on their application store... Haven't read up on the details surrounding it. =/

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?

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...

MacPorts
Fink

I've never installed anything via the App Store other than iPhone apps like Carcassonne. Did you know you can also install via disk images (.dmg) files? And then there is also macports
As for Lion, it's all speculation right now it seems. Kind of does remind me of Microsoft a little. Companies do this, see what kind of reaction they get from their leading edge fans, then adjust accordingly.

Mac has a LOT of catching up to do before their package management is as nice as that of Ubuntu et al. Granted, it's better than the one on Windows, but that's not saying much.

Actually, for OS X, there is macports. Personally, I like things like apt-get, but since that steers you towards downloading binaries, and macports compiles the source, you get an application built exactly for your system. Anyway, main point is that, while I do believe that, I think it was Red Hat first with the RPM standard, Linux and other distros (SuSE) have pushed the envelope on making it easier to install software, I would say it's just as easy on the Mac. But golly, with this "deprecated" business, I'm just as cautious as everybody else here. At the very least, Apple should *communicate* things of this nature, so you don't have a bunch of /.s postulating various theories about what they are doing, so we have theories ranging from

This is because they don't want people developing Android apps on OS X

to

No worries, this is just that Apple's work is done, they've contributed everything back to the Sun/Oracle JVM, and we will all happily run the Oracle JVM when it comes out

... Also, even after several years, it still bothers me that closing a window on a Mac doesn't terminate the application. I can understand the philosophical rationale (for what it's worth) behind this, but it seems unnecessary and wasteful.

It's funny, but I actually like the differentiation between closing a window and an application. But I do a lot via the keyboard, not the mouse, so when I want to close a window I use Command-W and know that the application will still be in memory to use Command-O or Command-N rather than having to relaunch the app. If I want to quit then I use Command-Q. I was actually a bit annoyed when they changed "single window/document/view" type applications to exit when their window was closed (though I get the rational.)

I also launch everything from Spotlight rather than spelunking around the Finder. One of the funniest things to me is how people (not saying you) assume that Mac OS X is not for power users and is mouse centric. But if you enable "All Controls" in System Preferences->Keyboard Shortcuts, have Spotlight enabled and know the difference between Command-Tab and Command-`, you can do most driving from the keyboard. Add the Automater's Save As Service, the consistent Service interface, applescript and the ability to assign global, application and context sensitive keyboard shortcuts and for me Mac OS X is a power user's dream. All right out of the box. For instance, using the Application's Shortcuts I've bound Command-. to bring up the System Preferences and by creating a "Finder Application.app" in the automator I can use Spotlight to jump right to the finder rather than tabbing through 20 apps or mousing around in expose. Plus Shift-Command-G in virtually any file dialog and Finder and you can type in a path rather than click up and down folder hierarchies.

While I'm in fanboy mode, I'll mention what I love most is the consistency. All (non-MS) application's text edit areas support the basic emacs-like ^a, ^d ^e, and ^k functionality. I'm an old emacs/bash guy, so I'm happy, even if it makes no sense to young-uns. Also, once you know about property lists, you can figure out where prefs are for 99% of applications. And if you can find to the right docs, you can tweak away. It almost sucks that there is no uninstaller, but it rarely matters and if you care - once again the consistency tells you exactly where to look for any left over files. I think that the "application bundle" is a great way to deal with managing all the files related to a program.

Apologies for the fanboyism. I also came from years of Linux experience, which I loved. But for some reason Mac OS X just "clicked" for me.

If you don't have it, I highly recommend TinkerTool which is free "as in beer" to explore some level of system/UI tweaking. Also, Lingon

is a pretty decent open source tool for navigating all the system and user startup services provided by launchd. It's no longer under development, but it's an Apache licensed program and pretty useful so maybe someone will pick it up. I install Lingon via MacPorts (though the git based HomeBrew" is intriguing...)

OK, I'll go away now...

OS X includes Apache and Python. I can't remember if gcc and emacs are in the default install or if you have to install XCode (free and included on the install DVD that comes with new macs, also available from Apple's website) to get it. As for TeX/LaTeX and PostgreSQL, those can be installed with little effort. And if you want to be able to install and upgrade *nix software easily you can use MacPorts which is basically the FreeBSD ports system but for OS X.

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

If I wanted a computer that no software ran on, I'd buy a mac.

What now?

1999 called, it wants its criticism back.

Look into macports. Just 'sudo port install texlive' (e.g. latex package) and away you go! (tip: try 'sudo port install texlive_base +no_x11' first to avoid large dependencies on motif for the xdvi viewer... I just use pdflatex and then view the pdfs, so xdvi seems superfluous.)

We use a lot of Linux too for robotics, but I find Linux and Mac play very well together. (Linux to run on the custom hardware and Mac to run my interface and development machine)

...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.