Slashdot Mirror
A Linux User At MacWorld
usermilk writes "Linux Journal just posted a pretty cool article, A Penguin Angle on the Ox: Day One at Macworld. It features a Linux user's perspective on MacWorld, OS X, Darwin, and how all these things play together. Most interestingly, he comments on the large number of open-source-Unix bigwigs who are now on Apple's payroll. There's also a pretty concise description of the difference between Apple building off of BSD compared to Microsoft trying to also reap the benefits of open source." Doc Searls' perspective makes a great companion to the report from the floor (and part II) that chrisd posted.
The Mac always looked a bit like toys for me, but they are most of the time pretty. (Yes, that is a selling point for me!) They also have a stimga of being computers for people that don't want to know about computers. However, prettyness and curiosity about OSX got me buying one. Now, I am not desoriented at all using OSX. It really rocks! Command line open and it's all there: it's often more useful than wading through config screens which you are unfamiliar with. I know, stating something like that is very un-Mac, but the point is: you come from a Linux world (or *BSD) and your Mac will feel at home. If you come from a Windows background, I'm pretty sure you will feel at home too (and enjoy a prettier desktop *grin*),
One people get a bit more open-minded on computers and operating systems, and are willing to give a Mac a a try....then I'm sure the Mac will have a very bright future.
(A bit offtopic: even from my hardcore PC users co-workers, I only had positive reactions on the design of the new iMac)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I'd tried to install linux on a new macintosh but because the hardware is closed and each model only comes with one type of graphics card and hard drive (and all except the TiBook have the same motherboard throughout the model line) I had trouble trying to have a hard time finding the right drivers. Could somebody install some weird hardware on my machine so I could futz with it some a lot more before it works right. I miss PCs.
There was also that NFStest stuff that Avi gave to the BSD guys which they are using to "fix" NFS which is pretty borken!
I don't think they care about getting into "good books" any more than providing a machine that works. No-one is saying dump Linux, they are saying that when using screen and mutt, use a Mac OS X Terminal window...
Well, we recently had a Mac user in our area have his HD crash and burn. While I was swapping out the HD he was complaining about how often it crashed, etc, etc. So on a whim I installed OS 10.1 for him. All I can say is wow - what an amazing OS. Not from a "look Ma, a bash prompt" and not necessarily for me - I like my Gnome desktop. But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.
No its not perfect. but Apple really managed to finally create a non-technical user desktop and OS built around a stable fast core. Good for them, I hope it really works out for them. I'll stick with Linux case its fun, but my wife, anotehr Mac user at work complains about usign Windows to do stuff at home - maybe she'll get an iMac for her birthday with OS X - nah - the new ones are too ugly :) Don't want people to think my LCD screen took a dump on my desk :)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I am all against Apple trying to take on M$ (I'm not saying they could). I think M$ as bigger teeth and claws, and Apple would be shredded in 5 secs. What a Machead like me really wants is Apple going on making it's 5% market share every year and earning enough money to invest enough back in R&D to still make the best hardware/software combination out there in the future. Plus I think the breakthroughs Apple makes would not be possible if they targeted commodity hardware, where you have to support everybody and his cousins graphic card, motherboard,... If Apple is a luxury brand (and it is), I'm fine with it, I'm ready to pay, and that as long as it is still worth it. Apple going for commodity hardware and big market share would have to scale back its innovation factories and would kill itself in the process.
I don't have much to add.
>I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
Well, if I remember, OS X has been recognized POSIX-compliant, and as such, is probably as close to the Unix throne as Linux is. It is amusing that talking about computer we should hear such arguments as "original source code" and "traditional architecture". If being Unix is running on 30 years old computers, I guess Mac OS X is far from it. But as far as I'm concerned, Mas OS X is as Unix as it gets, if only because any developer used to any Unix variant out there will master Mac OS X internals in 5 minutes time.
But I think you're right about Apple PR having completely changed its stance on Unix, and most of this change was brought by Copland's complete failure, prompting Apple to buy NeXT to get a memory-protected operating system.
I don't have much to add.
Apple's been bragging for some months now about their being the first company to put "the power and stability" of Unix in the hands of the average user and it seems that's what they did. What I'm wondering now is if this kind of stability put in the homes of millions of people will not change everybody's standard of stability. Five years ago, the standards of stability were Win95 and Mac OS 8 (I'm trying to speak for the general public there,OK? No flame, please). Neither was very stable (although I still remember 95 as being a true nightmare, whereas OS 8 was acceptable, as long as you didn't try anything fancy, such as developing on it), but since nobody had a better example, people were happy with it. Now we've got millions of mac users let loose among their friends and saying their computer (almost) never has to reboot! This could change the acceptable standards of stability, not only for Operating Systems, but also for the whole software industry.
Most people thought computers had to crash, because that's what they always did. If some start to be STABLE, where is the world going?
I don't have much to add.
I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.
Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Actually, Apple has been selling unix based servers for years, well before OS X Server.
They used to sell some Apple-badged AIX boxes, which admittedly weren't really macs, but prior to that (back in the early nineties) they actually had their own version of unix, A/UX. It was truly bizarre, an Apple desktop (circa system 6 or so) with a terminal window in it to actually get at the system.
I used to admin a couple of these things, they were unusual, but they worked. The weirdest things were the manuals - all standard Apple typesetting, but detailing how to use "ls" and "cd"...
Time and time again, /.ers complain that Apple takes but does not give back to Open source. If you believe that the only way to contribute to the Open Source Movement is by releasing all your intellectual property under the GPL license then by your estimations then it has taken and not given back. However, you are then being just as blindly bigotted and dogmatic as those who would only want software released under strict licenses at considerable expense and lack of freedom to the enduser (i.e. MS).
Apple has contribute to Open Source in several small, but significant ways. For a start, there are currently six open source projects at Apple that it is providing funding for under the APSL:
1) Darwin (the foundation of Mac OS X)
2) Quicktime streaming server.
3) Common Data Security Architecture (CDSA).
4) Open play - a cross platform network abstraction layer.
5) Headerdoc.
6) Documentation.
Apple gave back all this stuff away despite the fact that the BSD license doesn't force them too (in the case of Darwin).
Furthemore, Apple provides employment for Open Source programers, such as Jordan Hubbard (FreeBSD) and Guy 'Bud' Tribble (ex-Eazel) - although admittedly since Eazel went tits up because it couldn't make a profit from a GPL product, I don't think Dr. Tribble will be doing as much work on GPL software for a while.
Apple is really only going to expand if it can start making software for PCs...
This is the constant advice Apple gets and fortunately Apple wisely disregards it. Apple is very successful when considered as a hardware company. It's marketshare is comperable to it's hardware competitors. It has better gross profit margins, and far better customer loyalty. It has been expanding while it's hardware competitors are laying people off. And considering it's share of the overall market if they can convince just 5 more consumers out of 100 to buy macs they will double in size. Apple is a large, profitable hardware company with a lot of room to grow.
When considered purely as an OS vendor they do horrible with only 3% worldwide marketshare and pitifully small percent of their revenue coming from OS licenses.
When considered more broadly as a software company Apple does OK with several successful software titles in a wide variety of markets - A multimedia file standard and authoring software (Quicktime), Office productivity (Appleworks), Video editting (Final Cut Pro), DVD Authoring (DVD Studio Pro), Web Application Server (Web Objects) and database software (FileMaker) as well as a bunch of applications they give away for free to spur hardware sales. Still with all of their success in software it accounts for less than 1/6th of their revenue. The Year 2000 number I found had software revenue of $966 million out of total revenues of $6.135 billion.
Why would a company severely undermine a hardware business that brings in $5.168 billion dollars ion revenue to pursue a software business that only brings in $966 million? Yes they could start selling the software they currently give away for free and maybe expand MacOS marketshare - lets be generous and say that despite the enormous risks and costs they TRIPLE their software revenues by the time the completely transition from a hardware company to a software company - they would still by only HALF the size they currently are. It just doesn't seem worth the risk especially when the current business plan of using the software business to enhance the hardware business has proven to be quite profitable even in a recession.
and it has little of the traditional UNIX architecture
..
.DS_Store
.vol
/mach.sym
Not a Unix? Excuse me, but what part of...
[cty197:~] fuy% cd /
[cty197:/] fuy% ls -al
total 1228649
drwxrwxr-t 35 root admin 1146 Jan 11 08:58 .
drwxrwxr-t 35 root admin 1146 Jan 11 08:58
-rw-rw-rw- 1 fuy admin 8196 Jan 3 17:03
dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 128 Jan 11 08:58
drwxrwxr-x 28 root admin 908 Jan 7 17:07 Applications
drwxrwxr-x 11 root admin 330 Nov 15 22:59 Developer
drwxrwxr-x 27 root admin 874 Dec 20 19:16 Library
drwxr-xr-x 6 root wheel 264 Nov 9 23:23 Network
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 264 Dec 10 17:45 System
drwxr-xr-x 2 fuy unknown 264 Nov 12 08:54 Trash
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 92 Nov 9 22:29 Users
drwxrwxrwt 3 root wheel 264 Jan 11 08:59 Volumes
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 512 Jan 11 11:08 automount
drwxr-xr-x 33 root wheel 1078 Dec 21 20:00 bin
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 13 Jan 11 08:58 cores -> private/cores
dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Jan 11 08:58 dev
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 etc -> private/etc
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 9 Jan 11 08:58 mach ->
-r--r--r-- 1 root admin 563484 Jan 11 08:58 mach.sym
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3152156 Dec 8 00:40 mach_kernel
drwxr-xr-x 7 root wheel 264 Jan 11 08:59 private
drwxr-xr-x 59 root wheel 1962 Dec 21 20:01 sbin
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 tmp -> private/tmp
drwxr-xr-x 10 root wheel 296 Dec 22 20:40 usr
lrwxrwxr-t 1 root admin 11 Jan 11 08:58 var -> private/var
...don't you understand?
Can you live with only one button, sure, but its easier with 3 , I honestly belive most mac users adhere to the use of one button mice for two reasons, Mac users are adverse to change, 2 they feel as most mac people they are unique a one button mouse is a seperation from the norm somehow make them special, individuals rather than part of some drummed up MS conspiracy crap.
My own observations as a fairly biased mac user: It is largely a matter of what you are used to. I find two button mice to be no great advantage when I use them. I suppose for a one handed person (or perhaps someone who's other hand is 'busy') a two-button mouse is a great increase in functionality and ease. But for two handed computing it is a step down in functionality (if not in ease) since now a mouse click is only modified by one other button rather than by the four modifier buttons a mac user is accustomed to (Command, option, control and shift). To gain the equivalent functionality that a mac user is accustomed to having at their left hand while their right hand manages the mouse you would need a 5-button mouse which seems like it would be unweildy and awkward (how would you move the thing with all five fingers up on the surface of it pushing buttons?).
A scroll wheel on the other hand is a huge advantage and something I wish Apple would either adopt or create a reasonable (or better) subsitute for. Of course their is no reason I couldn't get a mouse with more buttons and a scroll wheel.
Currently, under Mac OSX the output is limited to 1024x768 (even though the video card supports much more.) Yuck.
If you can only get 1024x768 under Linux, that would indicate that it's actually a hardware limitation.
If you can get more, however, that might indicate that there is hope for a BSD/Linux driver to be used as the basis for a new OSX driver that would unlock the capability of the hardware that Apple took away.
The difference between Microsoft making everything including the kitchen sink part of their operating system and Apple's behavior is that Apple is enclosing applications on their machines, not making them part of the system. Microsoft made IE an un-removable part of their OS... Apple lets you throw out iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto, and you can replace them with whatever you like. With my powerbook, iMovie didn't even come on the same CD as the OS any more. I installed it because I thought I might play with it sometime, but I haven't, so I'll probably just delete it.
There actually *are* commercial apps that do the things these apps do, in some cases better, and unlike in cases of Microsoft melding their apps into their system, on the Mac you can throw out the apple software (quickly, easily, and painlessly) and use fully functional alternatives. On Windows, you try making Netscape your browser for everything. IE will still come up regularly like it or not. On the Mac, IE is also the default browser but it took me about a minute to switch completely to Netscape once I'd configured my network. Most of that minute was remembering which control panel to make the change in. I threw IE out.
Apple can be accused of bundling software. (Whether they meet the legal definition of having done so or not, I have no idea, but I think we can agree that they give enough of the appearance of having done so that they could be accused of it.) However, they haven't displayed the heinous behavior of forcing you to *use* it.
It also doesn't hurt that Apple's software is usually easy to use and actually works.