Slashdot Mirror
BSD to Leapfrog Linux?
photozz writes "New from ZDNet about the coming of OSX and how some people see this as the rise of BSD, perhaps passing up Linux in numbers of users. " I'm still excited about OSX. I still am considering buying a mac to play with OSX... I mean, I can always install LinuxPPC if OSX sucks goat.
- Macs are a popular consumer PC. They've been one of the bestselling boxes for the past two years after a long decline.
- Macs are popular in the publishing, design, & graphics professionial communities. They offer features (color matching etc.) that are required to those communities.
- Linux is still not a consumer product. The skills required to install & maintain a Linux box still exceed those of MS WinX or Apple MacOS.
- Linux applications are much more un-integrated then comparable WinX or MacOS applications. It's trivial to cut-'n-paste something between apps on those platforms (esp. in the Mac) without concern - not so on Linux.
- Consumer-oriented applications for the Mac far exceed those for Linux. Ranging from MS Office 2001 to genealogy, personal-finance & cross-stitch applications Macs offer more choices that are more easily availiable/installed then Linux ones.
- Mac OS X is more then "just another Unix" or even "another BSD". It is backwards compatiable with the existing large installed base of Mac applications and has the support of those software developers.
- Mac OS X does offer some features that differ it from other Unixes.
- Mac OS X has the Display PDF system replacing X Window.
- Mac OS X has Apple's new Aqua GUI.
- Mac OS X has a standardized configuration system that is easily the 'friendliest' in the industry.
- Mac OS X is based on the well-proven, widely respected OpenStep technologies.
- Mac OS X's core is the first major consumer OS to be open-sourced (Darwin.)
- And as noted before, Mac OS X has the ability to run existing Mac OS applications.
- Mac OS X is due out in a few weeks from Apple as a shipping product. Many of the same features Mac OS X has are in development on other platforms but few are as advanced as Mac OS X offers and are from a patchwork of vendors.
Nick, you're right, Apple's Mac OS X may offer you nothing personally or professionially. On the other hand a large set of persons (equal to a large percentage of the existing unix userbase) are poised to start using Unix, many of them folks who've never been in this space before. All other apects aside that is very interesting and very relevant.I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
In embedded devices, I'd bet. Does that matter? If OSX is BSD based, but Joe Average mac user barely knows about it, does that matter? What can Apple's involvement do to help proliferation of BSD? Apple isn't known for SMP, server market, scalability, etc, and on the desktop side, all the eye candy is being kept proprietary. So, other than a talking point, I can't see Apple aiding the BSD cause all that much.
Yes, streaming media services may be nice, but I am looking for something that could really cause heightened BSD deployments.
ostiguy, openbsd firewall user
MacOSX = Rhapsody 5.7+ Rhapsody = OPENSTEP for Mach (product code name change as of Apple buyout) OPENSTEP for Mach = NeXTSTEP (product name change as of Sun-NeXT co-released OpenStep spec.)
therefore (transitive property)
MacOSX = NeXTSTEP
The series, each of which is comprised of some version of Mach, BSD, Display Postscript, and Objective-C Frameworks:
NeXTSTEP 1.x
-BSD4.4-lite
-Mach 2.5
-DPS
-Objective-C + Appkit Framework
NeXTSTEP 2.x
-BSD4.4-lite
-Mach 2.5 + extensions
-DPS
-Objective-C + Appkit Framework
NeXTSTEP 3.0..3.3
-BSD4.4-lite
-Mach 2.5 + more extensions
-DPS
-Obj-C + Appkit + Foundation Kit (early kit)
OPENSTEP 4.0..4.2
-BSD4.4-lite
-Mach 2.5 + more extensions
-DPS
-Obj-C + New OpenStep frameworks + EOF
Rhapsody 5.x (Early Apple prototype)
-BSD4.4-lite
-Mach 2.5 + blah blah
-DPS
-Obj-C + OpenStep core frameworks (Codenamed Yellowbox) + extensions + EOF
MacOSX Server 1.x (Rhapsody 5.7) same as the above, but stabler.
MacOSX 1.x (Rhapsody 5.x [where x    -BSD4.4-lite
   -Mach 3 + fidly bits
   -DisplayPDF (Quartz)
   -Obj-C + enhanced OpenStep frameworks (Now called Cocoa) + EOF
BSD bits were taken from NetBSD and FreeBSD, with (I thought) some userland from OpenBSD.
EOF = Enterprise Object Framework - an Object-to-Relational Database adapter layer (very very good.)
I just can't imagine a Mac user:
- Editing and customizing System and app resources.
- Overclocking his Mac.
- Building a cross-platform network.
- Running traceroutes.
- Still remembering the file copy command from CP/M. (PIP, of all things)
- Reading and posting to Slashdot.
Oh, wait. I can imagine. That would be me. (And I know I'm one of many.)Oh well. Nevermind.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I've never seriously used it, but BSD: lacks a journaled file system
... but they've actually lost some utility in memory management that is more relevant for workstation users. So you could argue linux is now really good for big iron tasks, but the BSDs have really clean memory management that allows them to be heavily loaded and perform well.
But has soft updates, which are a substantial improvement over ext2 with respect to recovery from crashes. More seriously, what advantage does journalling have over soft (atomic) updates, and what advantages do soft updates have over journalling ?? I think reasonable arguments can be made that soft updates are faster, and at least as crash tolerant as journalling, and a heck of a lot easier to program and maintain wrt the VFS layer.
only recently migrated to the ELF format
So???
still uses Bind 4 (OpenBSD specifically)
And this one is really relevant for those 0.01% of machines begin used as name servers.
Does BSD have a multi-threaded IP stack? How does BSD perform on Mindcraft? Linux has been playing catch-up in this space for some time, and may have a big lead.
Actually, *BSD does much better with their IP stack than linux 2.2.* and 2.0.*. *BSD also does much better under heavy loads because it has a more mature memory management scheme. Linux is supposed to work on this in the next devel series now that more fine grained SMP locking is present.
But seriously, how much advantage do you reckon a multi-threaded IP stack makes on a single processor machine ??
The free BSDs are a very fine choice for a kernel and base utilities. There are some areas in which linux is better, and others in which the BSDs are better. Generally common server tasks work out better for *BSD than linux, and application availability and marketing are stronger for linux.
Linux's big recent push has largely oriented around big hardware - SMP, multiple NICs,
OK, I'm about to find out if the points I've already given out in a thread get trashed now that I'm posting in it. (Note: If they do, then I apologise to the only person who's said anything
/.:
/., and they know (at least the good ones do) where the different systems shine. If you're nodding along with this, you know what I mean. If you're going, "but I'm not like that--he's an asshole!" then you're quite possibly _exactly_ who I'm talking about.
worthwhile so far on this article.) I just can't ignore this stupidity any longer.
Here's what I hear most of the time on
"I am a unix guru. I work with Linux linux linux linux linux linux linux (solaris) linux and linux.
I tried to install BSD once, but it didn't work so it sucks. I know, because I am a unix guru."
Most of you haven't even touched Unix as a field--you've played with different distros of a _single_ variant of Unix (which very pedantically isn't even Unix at all), which is about as significant as playing with the different versions of Win95. THERE'S A WHOLE SHITLOAD MORE OUT THERE, and almost NONE of you posters have even seen it, let alone know enough to comment intelligently about it.
Anyone played with HP-UX? How about AIX (eek!)?
Tru64 is kinda different too. Then there's SCO Unix (if you can afford it), IRIX, and so on.
It comes down to this: I'm sick of evangelists who Know the One True Path to Enlightenment, and feel that sullying themselves with broader knowledge (not to mention history) would be Blasphemy. Or maybe they're just scared to find out that Linux (or BSD, or even Solaris or ANY single OS) isn't the perfect, magic, foolproof solution to everything.
Naturally, there _are_ true Unix professionals on
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
OS X Workstation will be nice. But it really is a "Mac" approach to BSD. OS X Server on the otherhand, is what most of us think of when we compare NetBSD, FreeBSD, etc. to OS X.
We have an OS X Server (Rhapsody) here, supporting the networked filesystems. At first glance it seems pretty cool. But the SCSI drivcers (for a very popular PCI SCSI card, probably the most popular) are really alpha quality. They don't even support disconnect, which causes a kernel panic when you remove a tape from the tape drive, in use or not. And the only tape backup solution for OS X Server was pulled off of the shelves for legal problems. Even with that removed, under loads the computer randomly crashes, even without third party software (of which there exists little). To get a compiler for Rhapsody, you have to shell out tons for a developer's kit and membership. Linux is soon replacing that OS X Server here.
For Apple to propel OS X (and thus BSD) beyond Linux, they need to devote more attention to OS X Server than they have before. I understand Apple plans to do this when OS X Workstation is released, to make OS X Server more compatable with the workstation product, and therefor more useable. But I don't hold my breath- last I heard they were delaying it. Hopefully Apple will see the potential and avoid ignoring the Server product.
As to price, OS X should run comfortably on the MSRP US$799 'Indigo' IMacs. While you may not have that cash laying around it's not a bad price for the hardware one gets (15" Sony monitor, PowerPC, fast Ethernet, Modem, etc.)
As to Intel x86 support, no one has yet to describe a viable way for Apple to sell this & not cut their own throat. 1000th repetition: Apple is a hardware company - they make their money on hardware - they couldn't survive as an OS house. OS X may well exist on x86 (& Alpha) but until there's profit in it don't look for it to come out of the labs.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
- popularity
- availability of a rich suite of apps
- whether the platform is stable (doesn't crash)
- speed/efficiency
- cost
At this point, Linux is way ahead of the other UNIX-like siblings on popularity, and also leads in app availability.I'm an old UNIX and BSD hacker and bigot (since the '70's), and I personally think that BSD is a better, more robust, more secure, slicker software distribution than Linux, but I understand that Linux has the upper hand in the market just because of more effective hype.
It might sound sensible to say "Why can't we all just get along?" or even "Why can't these Linux kids give UNIX/BSD their props?" but that matter is no more objective than OS preference.
Actually, there is quite a difference between
"UNIXalikes" maybe at the command line they are all similar, but even then there are significant differences by default. I'll just compare Solaris and standard GNU/Linux distros. The shell of choice in solaris is ksh, which behaves differently somewhat from bash, the linux favorite. Also, linux usually ships with GNU fileutils, while solaris does not. Just use ps on both and you'll realize that there are some fundamental differences in the way they interface.
In the GUI front, solaris still sticks by CDE, while Redhat tends to like to use GNOME, and mandrake uses kde.. Also, under solaris you basically get no VCs, which is also quite a large diff.
From the standpoint of development, the systems have really different behaving environments. Just try to use dlopen() under both and you'll see. Also, try to write a multi-threaded X app in Solaris and then port it to linux. Chances are, in linux, you'll get tons of async replies before you add mutexes, semaphores, and special X calls for threading. Solaris X environment is *much* more thread safe than XFree86.
No matter how you look at it, while "UNIXalikes" may be very similar, there are many fundamental differences that distinguish them and cause preferences one way or the other. All in all, things are probably about equal, just some prefer one style over another...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The differences between UNIXalikes are not worth quibbling about. From a user perspective and a programmer perspective, they are just about the same beast. It's like arguing about the radical differences between driving Ford Explorer and a Chevy Blazer (hint: there are none).
The only trouble here is that some people have religiously latched onto Linux and don't want to hear that it is 95% of something called UNIX, which has been around for nearly 30 years. They want Linux to be some kind of l33t inside secret. But in truth BSD and Linux are identical twins with different hobbies. That's not a put down of either system--or any of the other UNIXalikes such as Solaris--just a suggestion that this shouldn't be a feud.
Well, linux has already outnumbered *BSDs and OSX combined.
But that is largely irrelevant. With the introduction of autoconf, the open source components of these technologies will complement each other. Openssh was taken from openbsd to *BSD and linux. GNOME and KDE are largely linux developed, but work fine on *BSD.
The largest linux companies look at big business UNIX and Microsoft as the competition for different markets. *BSD and linux will both continue to grow at the expense of Microsoft and mainframe Unices. The market dynamics may have a few people going from linux to *BSD (and fewer going the other direction), but the changes in user base for linux and *BSD are coming not from each other but from Microsoft and mainframe Unix.
The media loves to play up battles, like KDE/GNOME, Redhat/Mandrake... but the reality is that KDE and GNOME help each other more than they hurt each other through competition. The same is true of Mandrake and Redhat. Any improvements made by open source companies in software lead to strengthening of all open source companies' software.