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."

56 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. why not ask apple? by rebug · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://developer.apple.com/macosx/

    all you need to know.

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
  2. as much as you want to by Noodlenose · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as I understand, with the help of the amazing "fink" you are able to compile pretty much every *nix app to OS X. Therefor it is as much Unix as you want to.

    1. Re:as much as you want to by rebug · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know, I've never understood the need for things like that. I've built vim and tcpdump and lots of other goodies from source with no problems whatsoever. These "pre-packaged" apps may be handy for people who can't type "make && make install", but you've gotta wonder why such people would be using unix apps in the first place.

      --

      there's more than one way to do me.
    2. Re:as much as you want to by Xenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fink lives at http://fink.sourceforge.net for the record.

      Mmm, apt. Mmm, dselect.

    3. Re:as much as you want to by toast0 · · Score: 2

      pre-packaged applications are nice when you trust the 'producer' of the package to both not be putting a trojan on your box, and to compile with options you either like or are willing to put up with.

      it saves compile time, and probably download time as well (depending on the package of course.... for example linux source > 10 meg tar.gz (or bzip2 if you insist), linux compiled 1 meg (in general))

      in my opinion, open source is about having the option to compile stuff yourself, which doesn't mean you have to

  3. Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Starship+Trooper · · Score: 4, Troll
    I too looked forward to the day my iBook came when I ordered. I would no longer have to sift through the duality of Linux's raw power and Windows' ubiquity and application support: I would have the best of both worlds! When I first plugged the iBook in and eagerly opened Terminal.app, I was pleased to be greeted by the lovely '%' tcsh prompt. 'ls' worked. 'du' worked. 'ifconfig' worked. Even "find . -name *.c -exec grep -l '{}' ';'" worked!

    But as I dug deeper, the initial euphoria wore off. While MacOS X gives the impression of being a Unix, as one digs deeper into the system, it becomes more and more clear that it is anything but Unix:

    • No /etc. Well, technically, there is a /etc, but it is incredibly empty compared to what you may be used to in FreeBSD or Linux. None of the system's configuration is included in standard POSIX text files; Apple has opted to move everything into what they call a "NetInfo" registry. This is awful, to say the least. Obviously, Apple has failed to learn anything from the problems Microsoft's reliance on a central registry have propagated, and it wasn't long before I ended up having to reinstall MacOS X due to a corruption of the NetInfo database.
    • Not everything is a file. MacOS X violates this essential tenet of the Unix interface by hiding the implementation of several core functions such as keyboard and mouse I/O behind a "CoreGraphics" ObjC library. There is no /dev/mouse or /dev/kbd or any of the easy-to-use device nodes I've grown accustomed to coding for on Linux.
    • Everything above the Unix layer is proprietary. The Unix world on MacOS X is completely separate from the GUI world. The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Finder, and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console. There is none of the tight CLI-GUI integration seen in AmigaOS or BeOS or even Windows.
    If you're looking for Unix, I suggest you make room on your iBook's drive for Linux, which runs very well on Mac hardware, and is much faster than MacOS X to boot. I'm afraid all of MacOS X's vaunted Unixness is little more than FUD.
    --
    Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
    1. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by nwanua · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hear Hear. I thoroughly agree with the three bullet points in the previous post; may I add my 2 cents?

      Even after 10 months of OS X, you might be less than dissapointed if you're indeed looking for an operating environment that behaves like what you're used to (say, on BSD or Linux).

      My main gripe with OS X was when I upgraded from 10 to 10.1, all my build tools were broken, and I had to bite my lip and wait for Apple's Developer's Kit fix. That sort of thing doesn't happen while using Linux (not yet, to me anyway).

      Try writing a device driver? (can't do PCMCIA or IR yet, thanks Apple). On a _unixy_ system,
      write a file or two, include library headers and functions, toss a compiler in, you're all set. Under OS X, it's such a curcuituous wild goose chase.

      My conclusion: OS X has pretty graphics, apps, and a generally useful programming environment (I mean editor, command line, cc, ld; not that ProjectBuilder); but if you really want to do something other than puttering around in the command line, you will be less than impressed. (I don't know much about Solaris, so I can't say anything about being able to fiddle with it the way you can Linux, ?BSD?, Minix, et al.

    2. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you can open up GUI apps from the console.

      try "man open" at the command prompt.

      and from what the guy was asking originally, i've had no problems running GNU software. I got BASH to compile and set it up as default shell, i've gotten VI to compile, and GNU Emacs seems to run just fine (even m-x tetris is available).

      The CLI is a different world from the GUI, but you can turn on all most options to allow the finder to see hidden directories, the whole nine yards. Check out some Mac tip and trick sites...Admittedly it's not default in the OS and you have to peek around, but come on, y'all like UNIX, so why get lazy about learning the tricks of this system.

    3. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Finder

      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 /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.

      and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.

      Try the "open" command.

    5. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No /etc. Well, technically, there is a /etc, but it is incredibly empty compared to what you may be used to in FreeBSD or Linux. None of the system's configuration is included in standard POSIX text files; Apple has opted to move everything into what they call a "NetInfo" registry. This is awful, to say the least.

      Why is this a bad idea? 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? The registry is something I wish some Linux distro would get around to doing, to be honest, and one of the few good ideas Microsoft has ever had.

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    6. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Cadre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Find

      This is an option. You can turn the hiding of the Unix directories on and off. It's off by default.

      likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.

      This is just plain wrong. There exists a utility called open (/usr/bin/open). To open something, simply run it with the path to whatever you want to run.

      ie: open ./iTunes.app

      There is none of the tight CLI-GUI integration seen in AmigaOS or BeOS or even Windows.

      Bah, just look at the consumer Apple is marketing to. They don't even want to see the CLI. Apple is attempting to make it possible for people to use the environment efficiently without a person ever having to use a shell.

      --
      All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    7. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by helixblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No /etc? There are 72 files in my MacOS X 10.1.2's /etc. Why so little? /etc/rc.* was moved to a new structure in /System/Library/StartupItems (and 3rd party in /Library..), which has 380 files.

      As far as NetInfo goes, it's just like the NIS your familiar with on other UNIX's. (and can be hooked into NIS or LDAP). In fact, everything in NetInfo, except for maybe printers, is found in NIS. And if you don't think NIS is UNIX-like, you've never ran more than 3 machines.

      As far as the other two, others have countered that.

    8. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you. For that matter, AIX (which is a UNIX for all intents and purposes....) does something similar with it's implementation of UNIX. All AIX config is done in SMITTY or SMIT (both GUI and a ASCII terminal driven) and all config is stored in the ODM Database. Sure, you can make changes and changes that work to the standard /etc text files, but those changes are lost when you reboot/IPL. I believe IBM still calls a reboot an IPL even under AIX....amazing how many mainframish like things are throughout AIX....program fixes are called PTF's in both AIX, OS/390 (or whatever MVS is now called) and DOS/VSE. In any case, who gives a crap where thigns are stored/configged? I mean even the Linux guys can't all decide on where to store what. Desktops do they go in /usr or /opt? GRUB stores it's config in /boot/grub/menu.lst .....LILO stores it's info in /etc/lilo.conf. Grub you can make a change and reboot. Lilo you must run lilo after updating a kernel or get lilililiii. The things that makes a machine UNIX like, to me, is how you interface with it and not how close to a "standard" which doesn't really seem to exist between even true UNIX machines. Can you SSH into a OSX based machine and run tcsh/bash/ksh or whatever and then run a text based FTP client and download source, compile it, then do whetever and as another poster already said, run it. You can. You can download just abut any Linux source code and get it to compile (well, that's what I have heard anyway.....). Sure, a Carbonized or Cocoa app looks great and may not be a true "UNIX" type of app, but what about a GNOME or KDE app? Are they more UNIXy? I think not.

      --

      Gorkman

    9. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by kilrogg · · Score: 2
      Depends, for system wide configs, having /etc/ entries makes backups for individual services/programs much easier, though I guess most people don't need that, in which case a registry is ok.

      Using a registry for user setting, though, is a PITA, IMHO. Nothing beats the unix method of '.' files/directories in the users home directory interms of KISS-ness. You can very easy backup your settings, copy them to a different machine, or try out a friends settings, etc, all on a per program basis. A registry (esp Windows registry), makes it very difficult to do such a thing.

      For example, I've been using the same .emacs file now for 5+ years now on a ton of different machines (solaris, linux, HP-Ux - at school, home and work). In the same time, I've had to reconfigure Office to my liking a countless number of times.

    10. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Thatman311 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are API's on the Windows's plateform for all of this. You can even all these aPI's from Perl if you want to. Get a clue before you complain.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
    11. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by OSSMKitty · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Actually, not only can you connect to remote machines (more or less--the domain) using the graphical tool provided from another workstation, you can ssh into the machine you want to admin, and use command line tools (dwrite and friends) to change NI. Also, the API is available (or at least it used to be) so you can write your own tools.

    12. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Cadre · · Score: 2

      Now if only Mac apps took flags...



      The functionality is there, but it is rarely used (unfortunately). Only utility that comes to mind that takes flags is the OSXVnc server which is configurable via the CLI and the GUI.

      --
      All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    13. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by blakestah · · Score: 2

      That doesn't take away from my point.

      Plain text ALREADY has enormous sets of tools available to modify it, including every text editor, parser, etc. There is not one tool that is critical (and in this case you can note the tool is the Windows library to access the Registry).

      Sort of a least common denominator. You can spill the text file into a console with cat, view it and edit it with Notepad, or vi, or Word, or whatever you like to use to edit text. You can do this all remotely with ease.

      Certainly all of this can be done with a binary registry IF the OS provides you the tools. But you still lose a lot of common function by migrating away from plain text, and it remans to be seen what gain, if any, comes from not having a plain text registry. I think the only real change is that the OS provider CONTROLS EXACTLY how you can interact with the Registry, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your opinion.

    14. Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. by Lazaru5 · · Score: 2

      I don't know what /etc you're looking at:

      ls /etc | wc -l returns 67 items. That's less than my FreeBSD machine, but the latter has many .bak/.orig files any a few I've added since install. Additionally, though some files you may expect to find under MacOSX aren't there, you can create them to suit your needs (For example, tcpd, the TCP Wrapper is present, but /etc/hosts.allow is not by default.)

      There's no /dev/mouse or /dev/kdb. Yes it "violates a tenet", but the mouse and keybard haven't suddently become difficult to use because of it (which you claim.)

      Yes, everything above the kernel is propreitary. I don't see the connection between openness and level of integration. Carbon/Cocoa/Quartz/Aqua could be GPL and still not have a lick of integration. That was a poor choice of words on your part.

      Windows hardley has CLI-GUI integration. What does that even mean? Just because you can start something with a command? Again, poor choice of words...but as someone pointed out, you _can_ open apps (or files even) from the CLI. The "open" command performs the equivalent of a double-click (or Command-O in the Finder). 'open Mail.app" opens Mail, and 'open foo.mp3' opens foo.mp3 in iTunes.

      Lastly, you misuse FUD. Not only is MacOSX's Unixness just as is vaunted, but even if it weren't, the words "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" would not in anyway describe the situation. Misleading Commercial Hype maybe. But it's moot. It's perfectly Unixy.

      --

      --
      My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
  4. It helps to think of it as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mac OS X is just as unix-ish as the NeXT OSes it's based on -- NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. True, in many ways it doesn't look like a traditional unix, especially regarding filesystem layout and the use of NetInfo. Like NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, it has its quarks, but for the most part, things work. It's Unix, but it's a funky Unix. And if you don't want to pay for it, you can run the bare guts, the opensource non-GUI version, Darwin. (even on x86)

    Here are three better URLs:
    http://developer.apple.com/unix/index.html

    http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

    http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/

    1. Re:It helps to think of it as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP by Howie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, it has its quarks,

      But not a native one though...

      --
      "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
  5. The difference between MacOS X and Linux by Adrian+Voinea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Linux is great for what it is. Linux is a swiss army knife. It is most things to most people. There's nothing it wont do if you're willing to put forth the effort to use what's there. In itself that's a wonderful design philosophy. I've been using Linux for a long time and it amazes me what it can do when people put their minds to it. Gearheads love this sort of OS, and love to demonstrate it's ability to perform any function no matter how arcane or bizarre the procedure to get there is. The people who build Linux are pragmatists. Soured by years of lofty goals, but failed implementations, they work to make a system that solves all the problems, even if they have to compromise usability, simplicity, or advanced design. Efficiency is stressed at the system level. I've never encountered a general purpose computing task that could not be solved by Linux.

    MacOS X on the other hand is more like a perfectly ergonomic, intuitivley simple yet surprisingly flexible single bladed knife. It doesn't have a corkscrew or scissors, But the handle grip doubles as a file and it is perfectly balanced along every axis. Ninjas use it for throwing, Butchers use it for cutting meat. Carpenters use it to score material and Master chefs use it to prepare dishes, but you wont be able to open a wine bottle, it wont loosen most phillips screws and you'll just make a mess if you try to open a can of peas or bottle of beer with it. It also wont fit in your pocket. However, if there was ever a knife that was a perfect balance of asthetics, utility, and well executed engineering, this is it. Again, a wonderful design philosophy.

    1. Re:The difference between MacOS X and Linux by laserjet · · Score: 2

      Minor correction... it's Ron Popeil (I have watches his infomercials more than I would care to admit... I don't always sleep very well.).

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
  6. make sure the dev tools are installed by green+pizza · · Score: 2

    The local CompUSA here has several modern Macs running Mac OS X. I pulled up the console (terminal.app) and poked around a bit. It's very much like the NeXT unix machines I've used in the past. Even pico was installed by default, heh.

    However...

    CompUSA didn't have the developer tools (gcc, gdb, libs, the awesome GUI debugger and IDE, etc) installed. Have the manager fetch the CD or bring in your own:

    http://developer.apple.com/tools/macosxtools.html

  7. "Mac Monitors" by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple's desktops have offered a generic, common, plain SVGA HD-15 connector since the first blue&white G3's several years ago. Almost every single PC monitor will work on a blue&white G3 or silver/graphite G4 without any sort of adapter.

    However, older macs used a DB-15 (two rows of pins rather than three rows) connector for the monitor. These require a $10 - $30 adapter to offer the proper connector and pin routing if a PC monitor is to be used.

    All current Apple monitors use ADC, the Apple Display Connector... a single cable that carries power, signal, and usb to the montior. ADC is based on some obscure standard that nobody else adopted. Macs with ADC have a second alternate connector for SVGA HD15, but only one connector can be used at a time.

    The PowerBook G4 has a SVGA HD15 monitor connector.

    The iBook has a funky monitor connector, but a SVGA HD15 adapter is included.

    Current desktop Macs have both SVGA HD15 and ADC connectors on their gfx cards. An ADC -> DVI adapter is included for use with a DVI flat panel. (Should you choose not to buy an Apple flat panel). THough, I have been told by more than one person that they had to buy the ADC -> DVI adapter as it's not included with all new G4s. Go figure.

    Hope this helps.

    1. Re:"Mac Monitors" by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Better monitors will come with the HD-15/DB-15 adapter so you can jam them on older Macs. My Samsung SyncMaster 900p I got in 99' came with such an adapter though I didn't need it to hook up to my PowerBook. As for the ADC it is just a normal DVI connection with extra pins for USB and power. Not only can you get adapters to run DVI displays from ADC equipped towers but you can also get DVI versions of both Studio and Cinema display flat panels from Apple. They cost the same IIRC but require a special order. AFAIK the GeForce cards have two ports (one VGA and one ADC) but only the Twin View GF2MX uses both at once.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  8. yes, yes. by nwanua · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just put my PB to sleep, plugged in a monitor into the VGA port, woke it up and boom: I was typing this message in a window displayed on that monitor.

    So... yes. Absolutely (at least on a PB Ti)

  9. Yes, it's a unix by zhobson · · Score: 5, Informative
    I am a long-time unix user (first Linux, then FreeBSD) who recently decided to buy my first Mac, a low-end iBook. I'm running Mac OS X on it exclusively (I despise the old Mac OS).

    It runs nearly all of my favorite open source unix apps, including the X applications. I am personally using mutt, gvim (that's vim with the GTK frontend), nethack and a few others. I like the new operating system very much, and even though bits of it don't look like unix, that's usually because they're NeXTish instead.

    It's also probably reelevant to mention that the GNUstep libraries are mostly source-compatible with Apple's Cocoa API, so you can compile GNUstep apps and they'll work just like "native" OS X apps. Plus the development tools are all completely free (unlike the other major commercial desktop OS).

  10. Same complaints, 12 years later. by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Informative

    These are the exact same complaints aired in 1988 when the first NeXT machines shipped with NeXTstep 1.0. I agree with everything you've said. But keep in mind, Mac OS X is its own funky flavor of unix for a reason. I just wish NetInfo was optional. NI is a dream on a large NI network (I used to help admin 320 NeXTstations across our Math department), but it's a pain for someone that doesn't need its offerings.

    Ignorance or Evolution? It's hard to say. But I can tell you I've been happy with Mac OS X thus far. Final Cut Pro 3.0 works perfectly. My digital cameras (USB still photo and FireWire MiniDV) integrate fine. OmniWeb 4.1 is looking to be a great new browser (plans for 4.2/5.0 are sounding awesome). And yet I can still run all of the goodies I'm accustom to on my Sun and my Linux box.

    That said, OS X is not for someone who wants Linux in the first place. If you want the X Window System, if you want GTK or Qt, if you want GNOME/KDE/etc... do yourself a favor and build a Linux box. Running these under OS X is possible, but a kluge.

    Mac OS X is a whole new world. Learn its ways and tools, compute with peace.

    Hope this helps.

  11. Check /usr/include by imrdkl · · Score: 2

    I haven't actually worked with the toolbox since Sys7, and I haven't seen OSX at all, but, perhaps see how much of the Macintosh functionality has been made available (quicktime.h, quickdraw.h, etc) to compilable apps. If you find that some of the toolbox actually has been made available, then it's more than BSD-style unix, otherwise, yes, it's something equal or "less".

  12. Very happy Mac OS X user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm very happy with Mac OS X for two reasons:

    1) I previously worked for a large Linux and Solaris based ISP. I'm still able to work with all of my favorite command line utilities and perl scripts.

    2) It's boss friendly, It's geek friendly. -- I can compile and run the stuff I want. My boss can run Microsoft Office v.X. It's a "commercial, supported OS", whatever the hell that means (important to some people I guess). And the full, complete developer environment is free....
    http://developer.apple.com/tools/macosxtools.htm l

  13. Re:Better yet, how useful and stable is it? by RAVasquez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take this with a grain of salt. Andrew Orlowski is a long-time Mac user, some of whom (myself excluded) dislike the departures from the traditional Mac UI. If you're coming from a *nix background, you'll feel more comfortable, since you won't have to unlearn anything.

    --

    --- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith

  14. These questions are getting old... by pyite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uhm, I mean seriously. Did you really need an Ask Slashdot to figure this out? Apple has a website. I'll leave finding it as an exercise to the reader. Look up about MacOS X, you'll find its core is Darwin. Darwin is BSD based. What more do you want? Go to [insert chain computer store here] and play with a machine. Stop asking stupid questions you're too lazy to figure out on your own.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    1. Re:These questions are getting old... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Give people the benefit of the doubt, okay? I've never written an Ask Slashdot without thoroughly checking out all the other resources I can find, and there's no reason to believe that other posters don't do the same. The whole idea of Ask Slashdot is for users to benefit from the knowledge of the community -- which is supposed to be one of Unix's strengths. The "RTFM" attitude is helpful to nobody. Remember, what goes around, comes around.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:These questions are getting old... by Lazaru5 · · Score: 2

      There is _every_ reason to believe that other posters don't do the same, because it happens A L L T H E T I M E. It is exactly these users that the 'RTFM' attitude is for.

      --

      --
      My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
  15. Re:Better yet, how useful and stable is it? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but that was because it was too little like classic MacOS and not because it wasn't Unixy.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  16. Yes, there are bonuses. by mkoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you are willing to run Xwindows in addition to MacOS X you can get almost anything working... as other have suggested look into the fink project.

    Pluses to Apple Hardware:
    Fairly nice power management, I have not done the comparison, but I get decent (2.5 hours on a battery) off an old walstreet powerbook in OS X.
    Nice wireless, Airport is a just another standard wireless card, but it works well out of the box.
    I have had no problems attaching PBs to a number of external monitor and projectors.
    In general they make nice hardware.

  17. Whether OS X seems like Unix or not depends on you by alangmead · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whether you call it Unix at all depends on your definition. Depending
    on whether you look at OSX from a kernel perspective, as a development
    platform, a unix user, or a unix administrator, it can vary between
    being a "true unix" to something very foreign.

    It most looks like unix if look at a system call interface (aka
    section 2 of the man pages. Things like open, read, write, close,
    fork, and exec). The user commands (section 1 of the man pages. Things
    like ls,cp, and rm) exist but all of /bin, /sbin, and /usr are
    entirely hidden from the GUI. For actual user commands, they are in
    some ways rather spartan (traditional BSD versions, not all-singing,
    all-dancing GNU versions.) but there are some rather interesting
    additions (emacs, tcsh, pico, gcc, autoconf, and gnu tar.)

    Standard Unix system libraries (section 3 of the man pages
    fopen,fread,printf,system,and popen) exist as a "non-preferred"
    interface. The command line utilities are built against them, but
    building an arbitrary tarball developed under linux might show some
    compatiblity quirks. (those same quirks might exist trying to port to
    FreeBSD) Most of the file and process oriented tasks can be done in
    the OS X specific libraries with an API entirely unlike the POSIX ones
    in libc. (This isn't anything new really, these OS X libraries are the
    updated versions of what came with the first NextStations in 1987.)
    Shared libraries are somewhat different than what probably currently
    exists in FreeBSD. I bet it started because NeXT implemented shared
    libraries before the became standard in BSD, but they need to continue
    their own system because it hooks into the object oriented IPC
    framework that is much of what the makes the system interesting.

    From a system administrators standpoint (I guess to keep my analogies,
    section 4 (device files) and section 5 (configuration files)) things
    are radically different. /etc/passwd is essentially a stub. There is
    no /etc/inittab. There are few useful things in /usr/lib, /usr/share,
    /var, or /etc, but /Library and /System/Library are full of goodies
    (like /System/Library/Perl and /System/Library/OpenSSL). There is no
    /home, instead there is /Users (which through some automount magic
    merges /Network/Users with the local /Users) Again, this system is
    inherited from NeXT.

    As a user, its a modern mouse and windows type of system. Its slightly
    more interapplication oriented, less monolithic application oriented.

    Like my friends who used NeXT systems in the past, there seem to be
    two ways to deal with the system peculiarities. The first is to assume
    that the system is a very stripped down Unix system, ignore whats in
    /Library and /System/Library and build your own
    /usr/local/{bin,lib,share}. The other way is to buy into its
    weirdness.

  18. Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) by helixblue · · Score: 4, Informative

    As far as the ADC based on some obscure standard. All ADC is DVI+USB+power. You buy a splitter if you need one.

    I myself have a 22" Apple Cinema Display DVI model.. so I bought a combiner that takes the DVI+USB+Power and makes it into ADC.

    I'll admit, ADC isn't the norm (though you can buy PC video cards with ADC connectors).. but it's not a half bad idea to take the 3 connections from the monitor and combine it.

    It's just nothing wildly proprietary.

  19. The answer is "yes" by seth · · Score: 2, Informative

    To answer the question asked, yes.

    I'm currently using OSX running on a G4 Cube at home and a G4 Black and White in my office for most of my writing and research programming (my laptop still run linux and sees a good deal of use).

    I do all of writing in LaTeX (using teTeX) and occasionally use mutt. OSX comes with GNU emacs installed, but I've started to use bbedit as my text editor of choice. X11 will run rootless in OSX, so you can use the X-enabled GNU emacs and xemacs if you want (and I have). All my documents end up in CVS, and transitioning them from one machine to another requires no changes what-so-ever.

    I haven't touched mutt or fetchmail, my home mail server is still a linux box, which I ssh into, and the same in my office. I assume they work, however. I'm pretty sure there are fink packages available.

    OSX isn't Linux, it is based on NeXT, and, therefore, does have a number of quirks. Besides one issue with the GUI [1], I have not found any issues that make me want to switch back to a Linux box as a primary machine. Yes, updates are not weekly, and the debacle of OSX 10.1 being released without Developer Tools was annoying (though we were clearly warned before hand). However, none of these things are insurmountable.

    ProjectBuilder is ... interesting, and takes getting used to, but it powerful once you do spend some time in it.

    -Seth
    [1] I miss virtual workspaces that I can ctrl->right-arrow to terribly. The only current contender (a docklet called Spaces) doesn't have keyboard bindings and doesn't quite work 100%.

  20. dual monitor support built in... by spike666 · · Score: 2

    dual monitor is built in on the powerbooks, i would guess also on the iBook, but i'm speculating there.

    and this is a COOL thing. you can run the monitor as a mirror to your lcd, or have it as a separate screen that can be positioned anywhere around the powerbook's screen. great for presentations - you can move the presentation notes to the 'book's screen and have the presentation come out the svga port.

    1. Re:dual monitor support built in... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      ee cummings writes:

      dual monitor is built in on the powerbooks, i would guess also on the iBook, but i'm speculating there.

      My iBook lets me mirror the LCD on the external monitor, but that's all.

  21. Re:Unix or not... by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (Score:-1, Offtopic)

    The titanium powerbook is an awesome piece of kit. Shame on those that don't have one.

    Yes, the Ti PowerBook has a lot going for it. Yup, it's thinner than thin. Uh-huh, beautiful screen. Ooh, built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Pretty fast, too, and it comes with a combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW. Hard to beat.

    But it's not perfect. To install an AirPort card, you have to skin it completely. And the sexy titanium skin is so thin, it scratches and dents very easily. And titanium is one of the most conductive metals on the periodic table; after an hour, the bottom of the laptop gets hot enough to make your thighs and the palms of your hands really uncomfortable. The joke going around the office after we bought ours was that Apple was planning to make the next one out of copper.

    It's an awesome laptop, but in my opinion it's just a little bit too delicate. I love my iBook. I throw it in my backpack and hit the road. Over $1,000 cheaper, too.

  22. My experiences in MacOS as a Unix desktop by Panix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a long time Linux and UNIX user. I began running Linux exclusively fairly early in its life cycle, and thus I require a nice UNIX environment for my day to day life.

    About 3 weeks ago, I purchased an Apple Titanium PowerBook G4 with the intent of installing Linux on it. Since then, my experiences with OS X have made me reconsider.

    I started out quite skeptical, but was pleasantly surprised to find many of my favorite Linux/UNIX applications available. Step 1 was to install Fink. Fink is a source and binary distribution of UNIX applications and utilities for OS X. I installed it quickly, and was able to use the debian-like commands (apt-get install!) to get Python, rootless XFree86, and bash installed. Fink can be found at http://fink.sourceforge.net.

    Since then, I have grown used to the excellent environment that they have built, Its very refreshing to see such a usable and powerful desktop environment based around a standard UNIX kernel!

    Now, there are some caveats. Some of the standard locations for things don't make sense. For example, the /etc/hosts file exists, but does not appear to be used. Instead, you must use Apple's NetInfo manager. Additionally, the base compiler's supplied with Apple's developer tools have some differences that make porting a little bit interesting. Overall though, its a great UNIX environment.

    I am extremely happy with the UNIX side of Mac OS X, but I am equally impressed with the amazing usability and cool technology of Aqua and Quartz. Very cool stuff.

    If you have any questions about my experience, feel free to post them here and I will do my best to respond.

  23. as for the question of vga montors on macs by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i just recently dumped the whole x86 archetechture and went with a powerbook g4 for college next year (parents pay half as a graduation present). the powerbook supports my 17" NEC multisync monitor flawlessly. what's better is that it treats it as a dual monitor display, rather than replicating the primary display, and at resolutions up to 1600x1200 on the secondary monitor (1152x768 for the main lcd)....very nice indeed. my adivce is to skip the ibook and get a powerbook, it's a fully fledged desktop when you hook up a second monitor, and has pretty much everything your desktop has built in, cd-rw/dvd, 10/100/1000 base t eithernet, usb and firewire, plus Svideo out. the only thing you might consider is a usb video capture and usb mouse. you might say it lacks expandability, but you need to look and see that this laptop has everything required for day to day operation for the next 2 years already built in. the only thing you might ask for is counterstrike and a dvd-r.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  24. Re:Unix or not... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

    A minor nit: the Ti PowerBook has actually got an AirPort card built in already.

    Bzzt. The Ti PowerBook has an AirPort antenna built in already, just like the iBook and iMac. You can purchase PowerBooks from Apple that have the AirPort installed at the factory, but that's not the same as built-in.

  25. Re:Unix or not... by dr00g911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing to be aware of when purchasing a Mac (I use MacOS X/9.x exclusively -- X exclusively once Photoshop/Flash/Director run natively):

    The "consumer" level models do, in fact, offer VGA out -- however it's mirrored video of the main display ONLY. This includes the iBook and iMac series.

    The "pro" level models (TiBook, G4 tower) allow you to tile displays, and the TiBook also allows for s-video out (which can also be had on the consumer models via USB converters).

    If you're worried about the overhead of the GUI/Aqua, you'll be happy to know that you can launch into "single-user mode" -- command line only, if you'd like. That said, the 10.1.2 version of the Finder, etc. does a great job of being friendly to CPU cycles.

    As mentioned above, OS X is a "real" unix -- but several directories (etc, bin ad nauseum) are hidden from the Finder (hidden from Grandma, actually -- who'd throw them away on accident if given the opportunity). You can make them visible with an indispensible little piece of shareware called Tinkertool which can also customize (or turn off) several extraneous features of the Aqua interface.

    You still have access to those directories via the command-line/Terminal, though.

    My first week under OS X, I was able to download and compile all the latest versions of Apache, PHP, mySQL, SSH with minimal problems.

    Today, most of the popular packages are available as double-clickable installs, FWIW.

    If you're an Apache user who is considering to move to OS X, do yourself a favor and check out Tenon's iTools.

    That allows for full customization of the httpd.conf from the GUI, with a few extra goodies thrown in.

    --dr00g

  26. Re:Unix or not... by ameoba · · Score: 2

    I would have picked up an Apple notebook some time ago if ONLY it came with a second mouse button.

    I know that MacOS apps don't need that 2nd button, but WTF are you supposed to do if you want to run Linux or run *nix apps on OSX? It's bad enough working with -only- two buttons, going to one button would destroy functionality.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  27. Re:Unix or not... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

    I know that MacOS apps don't need that 2nd button, but WTF are you supposed to do if you want to run Linux or run *nix apps on OSX?

    The right-mouse-button click is emulated by holding down the "control" key and clicking. (Actually, it's the other way around. The right mouse button sends the computer a control-click.) So for OS X apps, do a control-click instead of a right-click.

    XDarwin takes it one step further, offering mappable keyboard-mouse combos for X button event emulation. Go to the XDarwin screenshots page and look at the second screenshot.

    And, of course, there is the favorite option of one-button-basher-haters: spend the $30 and buy a f*cking external three-button USB mouse.

  28. Powerbook vs ibook & PPC vs x86 processors by arete · · Score: 2

    My processor rule of thumb goes like this:

    AMD's "1800+" type labels, while cheesy, are essentially accurate in comparing in to the latest P4 generation. I normally give G4 hardware about a 2x advantage clock-for-clock to a P4 - so an 800 Mhz G4 ~ AMD 1600+ ~ P4 1.6 Ghz. I don't have a handle on Transmeta. PIIIs and G3s seem to not be significantly clock-for-clock worse than the newer generations, but the G4 and P4 achieved much higher clocks.

    Is this perfectly accurate? No. Could you spend hours listing things that affect speed? Yes. Are various bus and interface speeds probably more important than the CPU? Yes, especially if one of them is slow, because the bottleneck has the most prominent effect.

    The upshot is that the fastest x86 chips are faster these days, and cheaper. OTOH, raw CPU is probably not your bottleneck.

    Laptop wise, you should be aware the PPC chips are fairly power friendly, and x86 chips are hogs. iBooks have ludicrious battery life, and that's good. Also, "SpeedStep" is tricky: SpeedStep does NOT reduce the power consumption of the CPU by idling it when it's not being maxed - it reduces the power consumption AND the clock rate WHENEVER the laptop is unplugged. There might be a way to supress this, but it would make your battery work even less time than they start with.

    I'd certainly get a Powerbook G4 before I'd get an iBook, if I could afford it. The flexibility is awesome. But I'd be able to afford an iBook sooner...

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  29. Unix perf sucks & there is a packet filter by GrumpyOldMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least for micro benchmarks, the unix performance really, really sucks. See
    http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-kernel/2001 /Dec/2.html
    Toward the bottom there's lmbench output indicating that Darwin is roughly an order of magnitude slower than Linux or NetBSD on the same hardware for things like syscalls, context switch, file creation, etc.

    There is a packet filter (as well as a bpf):
    ~>uname -a
    Darwin g4 1.4 Darwin Kernel Version 1.4: Sun Sep 9 15:39:59 PDT 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
    ~>sudo kmodstat | grep Firewall
    59 0 0x15053000 0x4000 0x3000 com.apple.nke.IPFirewall (1.1)
    ~>sudo ipfw list
    65535 allow ip from any to any

    ~>sudo tcpdump -i en0
    tcpdump: listening on en0
    13:15:13.707607 g4.22 > thunder.1357: P 2129343678:2129343722(44) ack 994474742 win 33304 (DF) [tos 0x10]

  30. Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) by bignendian · · Score: 2, Informative

    ADC is, I believe, EVC. EVC is also used on HP Visualize PA-RISC systems. It was actually designed to be a single connector for all the items on your desktop: Firewire, USB, Video IN and out, audio in and out. Its an interesting concept that unfortunately never took off. Pinouts are here:
    http://www.volex.com/products/ind_evc.html

  31. Re:Unix or not... by ameoba · · Score: 2

    Granted, most laptop pointing devices suck, but still, I don't want a machine that -needs- an external mouse to work correctly.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  32. Re:try it out by megaduck · · Score: 2

    I'm a webmaster that uses OS X for my desktop, and I love it. For Java/Web development, OS X is fantastic. It has java, perl, and all of your unix tools built in by default. Apache comes standard as well, but you'll probably want to compile your own flavor to match your production environment. If you're doing design work, you get the benefit of the Macintosh graphics apps like Photoshop and Illustrator.


    I can't really speak for C++, since I use Apple's Cocoa dev environment which is built for Java or Objective C. However gcc comes with the free developer's tools, so I imagine you can do all your C++ stuff with the standard unix tools. For my purposes, I've found OS X to easily match Linux for dev work once you get used to the idiosyncracies.

    --
    This .sig for rent.
  33. Re:Unix or not... by Lazaru5 · · Score: 2

    Your original post acknowledged that MacOS apps don't "need" a second mouse. Now you've changed your mind? What gives?

    As was pointed out, not only do you not NEED an external mouse to get the same functionality, but ctrl-click gives you contextual menus and XFree86 (XDarwin) lets you do add additional mappings.

    He told you that if you really wanted to 'right click' that you should go fucking buy one.

    --

    --
    My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.