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.

Comments

Re:x86 version required?

[maggard]

ER, the 128 MB RAM etc. system requirements were for the beta version. Like most other OS's (Linux included) the final Mac OS X release will be smaller, faster, and with less of a footprint then the development versions. This has already been shown in the releases subsequent to beta 1. This isn't Apple boosterism, it's just how development versions are untuned and final ones are polished.

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.

Re:This is a battle that should not exist

[trb]

I agree that UNIX, BSD, and Linux are essentially the same. But there is a difference between the three, and that's in market perception. While this doesn't mean much to the hacker, it is important to the market, because OS's (without apps) aren't very interesting to the general public by themselves, for them, OS's only serve as application platforms. Important factors for an app platform are (most important first):

1. popularity
2. availability of a rich suite of apps
3. whether the platform is stable (doesn't crash)
4. speed/efficiency
5. 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.

Re:This is a battle that should not exist

[Junta]

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...

This is a battle that should not exist

[Junks Jerzey]

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.

Not a battle, not worth discussion

[blakestah]

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.