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."
I'm afraid all of MacOS X's vaunted Unixness is little more than FUD.
OS X is based on Darwin, which is a full-fledged Unix kernel that complies with every relevant standard: POSIX, XPG, you name it. Because of this fact, software written within those standards compiles and runs with no problems.
Just this morning I wanted to download some big ISOs to my iMac at home while I was away; why waste that expensive DSL line just 'cause I'm not at home? So I logged in to my iMac with SSH and used NcFTP to download the source code for GNU Screen from the GNU FTP site. Then it was "configure && make && sudo make install." At that point, I was able to run "screen" and use a detached terminal session from the office to download my ISOs.
If that's not pretty damn Unix-like, I don't know what is.
Of course, that doesn't mean OS X is just like Solaris, or HP-UX, or IRIX, or FreeBSD, or Linux any more than those OSs are all like each other. The definition of "Unix-like" is defined by a set of standards, and OS X meets 'em.
You're talking about how different OS X is from your expectations, not how it fits the definition of "Unix." They're not the same thing.
Also, I don't think "FUD" means what you think it means.
The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Finder
/etc, all I can say is THANK GOD! OS X is great for one reason only - they took Unix, dumped all the crap, and kept all the good stuff. It's Unix, how it was meant to be done. No more worrying about hundreds of apps, each with their own configuration mechanism - it all goes through Apple's (NeXT's) APIs and is stored as XML.
No they're not. There's an option - it MAY be "Show hidden files" or something to that effect, but I'm pretty sure it's not. I'm not at my OS X box right now so I can't check. It can be done, though.
Now, as for your gripes about
and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.
Try the "open" command.