Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Unix-like is MacOS X?

Posted by Cliff on from the discussing-the-core-of-the-latest-apple dept.

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."

2 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. performance, packet filtering by spike666 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    its not clear what you want to do with your computer. theres lots of things that macosX does well. theres things it doesnt.

    one thing it does, is it tries very hard to keep the mac concept of 'ease of use' - easy to just plug in a device and have it work. but this ease is defined by the types of devices. Steve Jobs wants the Mac to be a Digital Hub. that means, cameras, camcorders, mp3 players, cd burners, dvd burners - these all work well. there are some that dont, but a majority of them do. Macs have always been good at external storage - firewire drives plug in, and work. on osX, nfs, samba, appletalk file servers all are accessable.

    what exactly is a good performance number? well, if you do photoshop, you want some plugin to run fast. well, thats gonna run damn nicely on a g4. and you will pay for it, you'll pay cuz you also get a really nicely packaged piece of machinary around it. but that machinery, and its osX will also do oodles of nice things for you. you'll be able to easily suck photos from your digital camera into iPhoto, and have iPhoto zap together a nice thumbnail web gallery.

    you'll be able to create movies with iMovie and burn em to dvd with iDVD and your dvd superdrive.

    you'll be able to rip cds, shove the mp3s into your mp3 player (iPod or other) with iTunes. or, you can burn an audio cd with it too.

    thats the nice thing - it all works. sure, linux is coming along nicely, and maybe on kernel 2.6 firewire drives will work w/o kernel panics. thing is, osX does it all now.

    and for all its evils, the mac division at Microsoft does put out software that kicks ass over the Windows lines. IE works well. ('cept for a few javascript incompatibilities it works damn well in this windows IE based net of ours) Office works great.

    course, if you want to eschew microsoft, you can buy Appleworks for less than 1/4 the price of Office v.X, the only thing you dont get is PowerPoint.

    yeah, theres tonnes of issues - one of them is that the BSD its based on is old. certain packet filtering things dont work. but theres stuff that does work well. and yeah theres lots of obvious showy things like the bouncing icons and the magnifying icons that most /. readers turn off asap. but it IS a really really usable unix based system. and you dont have to go searching all over hell and gone to find the tools to do your everyday things. sure, you have to search around to build some of the unix things, and fink is a godsend for that. (everyone who knows or meets Christoph Pfisterer should buy him a beer or 10 for creating fink.)

    the reality is, if you want a really nice non microsoft os, and you want it to have nice easy tools for the consumer side of your life, but still have the stability and programability of a unix, its a good choice. sure, its different from linux, its different from solaris, but you dont really notice that after a while. you just get used to it being its own set of things.

  2. The hardware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    You can plug in a non-Apple display, in fact that'll all you can plug in; the iBook doesn't have a ADC connector just a VGA one. It uses a little widget (supplied) to make it's tiny connector into the familar VGA one.

    Apple Macs are faster at somethings slower at others, as the PowerPC chip is a totally different design that isn't much of a shock. They run PhotoShop really well (ever wonder why PhotoShop was in all those demos?) and video stuff is generally quicker. That said the iBook isn't a speed demon amongst Macs - but it is small and light (good in a laptop). Its Quake performance is okay. In general terns there is less difference between the performance of Mac laptops and Mac desktops than you'll find in the Intel world.

    Personally I'd go for the 12" iBook, it's smaller. The resolution is the same as it's bigger brother, so looks sharper. The "fat" iBook has a longer battery life, I believe. Personally I think a smaller laptop is better.

    The applications you wish to run shouldn't be a problem, Mac OS X is pretty Unix-like and is already a popular target for developers.

    If you're still unsure, why not download Darwin from Apple and try it out on an Intel box? I don't thing you'll need to put Linux PPC on it (Mac OS X should suffice) but if you do need it for some reason do check it runs on the iBook, my feeling is that Linux on the PowerPC has lost a degree of momnetum since Mac OS X, it might not be supported. (Now you see why I didn't post this with my nickname?!) Hope this helps.

    ;-)