Slashdot Mirror
How Unix-like is MacOS X?
prospective_user asks: "I
am a heavy user of Unix, spend most of my time running Linux and am
considering getting myself an iBook, after seeing a considerable
amount of exposure Macs/Apple have in both Slashdot and the O'Reilly
Network. Given that MacOS X is based on FreeBSD/Mach, I suppose that the usual
Unix libraries and environments (like ncurses and tcl/tk) are
available in MacOS X (which I hope is true, for text-based
applications). In fact, I'm concerned about the Unix side of MacOS X
and also plan on running Debian/PPC on it, but I plan to primarily use
MacOS X. So, before having an (uncertain) investment in a new platform, it
would be reasonable to have a bit more of background on it and thus,
the questions: how well does MacOS X support traditional Unix
applications? For instance, how do the following applications run
under MacOS X (which I use the most): teTeX, GNU Emacs, mutt and
fetchmail?" Note that the submittor isn't asking if OSX is or is
not a Unix; we've fielded
that question already. No, the question here is where does OSX
differ from the other unicies.
"Also regarding the investment in a new platform and coming from the
x86 world, I'm a bit interested about the PowerPC performance in
comparison to what I could get with a x86 notebook. I've read some
articles and pages that suggest that PowerPCs may not be fast (or, in
fact, may be quite slower than their x86 counterparts):
Some of the sources I've read are:
these
pages, from
D. J. Bernsteins's website, and
this article on
processor performance from the
GMP website.
Also, as some later questions, can the portable Macs be plugged to
non-mac monitors? And does MacOS X feature a packet filter like Linux
or other BSDs do?
Any comments and experiences with these machines are welcome.
Thanks."
The concept of a system registry is fantastic in theory; in practice, on Microsoft's operating systems, it is a trainwreck. Why must Apple's attempt immediately be classified as such, as well? Do you honestly think managing 100 different little config files in /etc, each with its own syntax and gotchas, is somehow more elegant than a registry-based solution?
Plain text files are good. You can view them with just about any utility (cat, less, more), you can grep from them easily, you can echo >> them, etc. Plain text is sort of a universal interface that is easy to manipulate, and easy to write your own tools to manipulate (using PERL, for example).
Now, taking that away in order to have a binary registry that has exactly one painful tool to manipulate is like highway robbery. No remote admin, not easy write your own utils, etc. Just crap.
Plain text configs are just plain easy to learn and to admin. Putting them all in the same file doesn't change much - making them binary and forcing you to use the RegEdit program of your OS provider is crippling to an admin.
If you were starting a computer company now..and you wanted to capitalize on the most vocal, intelligent base of people in existense on the planet, then your choices (IMHO), are either the open source community of linux/unix people or the fringe community who protested at the world trade organization when they last met in Seattle. So, was putting out a unix box more than just a marketting decision on the part of Apple?