Penguin2Apple

Dark Paladin writes: "What happens when a Linux lover takes the plunge into a Mac for the first time in his life? Turns out he falls in love, to the point of abandoning Linux and taking up OS X full time. Read about the conversion in Penguin2Apple. And pray for mercy on his soul."

Comments

Big deal.

[Psiren]

And pray for mercy on his soul.

I know this was meant as a joke, but really, whats the big deal here? He tried something else and prefers it to Linux. Good for him. Whatever floats your boat. Live and let live, etc etc.

Just as we accept the fact that we have people moving from other OSes to Linux, we'll also have to accept the fact that there may well be return traffic.

Re:Big deal.

[KFury]

"I know this was meant as a joke, but really, whats the big deal here? He tried something else and prefers it to Linux. Good for him. Whatever floats your boat. Live and let live, etc etc."

The astute reader will notice that the "pray for mercy on his soul" comment was written by the story submittor "Dark Paladin" and "Dark Paladin" is also the author and subject of the article.

He's talking about himself in the third-person in an amusingly self-deprecating way. If we can't make fun of ourselves, who else is left?

I did this...

[Dimwit]

Actually, I've used nothing but Solaris on my Ultra10 at home for years. But, then when I had to move overseas, I sold everything, and bought a laptop. My friend works at Apple, and got me a good deal on an iBook. This things rock.

OSX really is the nicest Unix I've ever used. I can play The Sims and CivII, and with the adddition of Fink, you even get nice things like apt-get! It's great.

So, just for the record, I'm a old-skool-Unix-to-MacOS X boy, and it really does rock my socks. I recommend it to anyone. It's extremely Unix-y, but with a great frontend.

Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison.

[Lethyos]

First of all, "Linux" in this case is vastly a misnomer, but bear with it for the moment. Linux is an operating system that is trying to fill many niches in many markets. Developers work hard to give it a wide range of hardware support and a wide range of functionality (everything in the range of a variety of desktops to a variety of servers configurations). However, the overall Linux experience is the result of a tremendous amount of contributions from many directions in a community.

Mac OS X, exclusive to the Macintosh and suitable for limited roles, on the other hand, is different but same. Beneath that stunning, pretty Aqua interface, you have a set of powerful core API's that essentially make up widget sets and abstraction layers. Beneath that however, is a traditional unix architecture (Darwin). When you look at Linux, BSD, Solaris, or whatever versus Darwin, you see pretty much the same thing.

So what's my beef with the comparison? Mac OS X is more appropriately pitted against KDE, GNOME, or [insert favorite desktop environment here]. Apple is focused on offering a user experience which is much different from offering an operating system and a million and one tools to make it useful. Linux offers an operating system and a huge suite of software for doing a lot of things. OS X from the perspective of comparison, is a very well polished UI.

I am certain that if all OSS developers turned their attention to making a Quartz for Linux, it could be done. But, that's not the case because we're dealing with two different offerings altogether. So, it's stupid to run out and say "Mac OS X is going to beat down Linux" or just that "it's better" and people should "move over to it". No. No. NO. NO!

Two completely different animals with their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. This whole "Penguin2Apple" thing is just stupid. You're moving from an operating system to a machine with a different processor. Pfft.

It all depends on your reason ...

[ssklar]

... for using Linux. If you are using Linux because of an irrational devotion to the "open source - free speech and free beer" ideology, then moving to Mac OS X would be a violation of your principles.

If you are using Linux because you have evaluated the alternatives, and it provides the best bang/buck ratio for the application(s) that you are using or deploying, then using Mac OS X would also be wrong.

But if your goal is to have the power and flexibility of a Unix-like operating system and the device support, smooth, consistent GUI, and application support of a commercial mass-market operating system, then it would be illogical to just discount Mac OS X as a viable option.

Here's the article

[W2k]

Slashdot effect hit the site, here's the article:

After 2.5 years of Linux, I've finally found joy in a Unix operating system. And I found it when I purchased a Macintosh - the first one I have ever owned. What could turn an Open Source junkie into a Mac-head? Click Read More and find out.

The Garden

How the Best Site on the Internet looks from OS X. Back in the '80's, I spent a lot of time doing many things that kids do. I played a little Dungeons and Dragons with my friends (until my parents, certain I would become a Satan worshiping pervert, brought an end to that one. Ha! Jokes on them - I became a Satan worshipper anyway.) I played ball with my friends, rode my bike around the neighborhood, caught a glimpse of Stacy Baker's 6th grade breasts when she showed them to me (I was in the 6th grade myself, and trust me, that fueled almost a year of fantasies) -

And I played some computer games. On an Apple II computer system.

That was really my first experience with computers. Playing games like Ultima III and Ultima IV (both bootleg copies, before I knew what "warez" was and that I should be avoiding it). I played text based games (most of them were never finished as I couldn't get the game to accept commands like "put egg in lake" or "drop egg in lake" or "slam egg into the damn lake you stupid computer!"

I went straight from the world of Apple II right into DOS. My father got a IBM computer, and I learned how to use Wordperfect 5.1 (which was the best word processor ever. I wrote the worst 12 year old 120 page book in the history of 12 year old books with that program.)

And then, one day, my father got Windows. I didn't get what the big deal was. Evidently you were suppose to be able to run multiple programs at once. I could never figure that out. Whenever I clicked on Wordperfect, the same DOS program filled the entire screen. (This was before I discovered the magic of the alt-tab command.) Right click, or click and hold down, and you can see the contents of folders you've put in the Dock.

When I left home, my father game me two gifts. Luggage, and a broken computer. From the broken computer I learned what is now my trade, moving into the world of Windows 95 and Wing Commander III.

But there was a problem. All the magic promised by Windows 95 never came. Maybe because every six months, I had to reformat the system and rebuild it. Oh, sure, Windows NT 4.0 was better - more stable, but you just couldn't run as many games on it. (I'm personally convinced that Microsoft never ported DirectX 5.0 to NT 4.0 just to get people to upgrade to Windows 2000. That, and because the company is composed of pricks.)

Even today with Windows 2000 and my development work, usually my day proceeds along "Work, work, crash. Reboot. Wait. Computer won't reboot. Shut down power. Work. Hang. Reboot. Boot into Linux for a few hours. Get some work done. Forced to reboot into Windows for some program. Crash." Dealing with Microsoft operating systems is like having the school president as your best friend. Yeah, he's pretty popular. But when you realize that you're just in high school, you realize he doesn't have the ability to do shit.

So I've suffered with Windows through the years, dealing with it because, well, that's all I had.

And then, I discovered Linux.

Want to run Xwindows programs in OS X? Get XDarwin.

A whole new world was opened to me. GNU/Linux, the Open Source operating system wonder. It seemed that this was the computing answer that I was looking for. People raged about how well it played Quake.

After trial and error, and learning my way through the system, I had a computer with Linux on it. And...it was good. I could do so many things. I learned how to use Fetchmail to get all of the mail from all of my mail accounts, and download it to the local box. I learned how to use IMAP so I could get my mail from anywhere in the world.

The mysteries of Perl became known to me, and I started to learn how I could edit files in gigantic sweeps, or how to tie it into Image Magick so I could edit the files on The Gamers Press at once instead of laboriously opening them all with The Gimp (which would take, literally, hours, as I resized, pasted logos, made thumbnails, and saved it all).

I learned the magic of the FTP server and SSH, or how I could plug my Linux box into the Internet and telnet into it from work so I could run programs and scripts. It was like magic. It didn't crash - even the day that the hard drive died, and the operating system kept running so that when I came home, I could repair the damage. I once made the mistake of accidently trying to open 500 1MB JPEG images at once in The Gimp - and the system didn't crash.

But...I still wasn't happy. Part of it was because I just couldn't get my Linux box do everything that I wanted. For one thing, no matter what I tried, I just couldn't get many games to run on it. I bought different video cards, purchased the Linux version of Quake, and Quake II, and other games. Who needs $400 for Photoshop when you can get the Gimp for, um, nothing?

For all of the instructions, I couldn't get my ATI TV-Wonder card, which I use to capture screen shots and movies from video games I'm reviewing, to work under Linux. People wrote about how I had to install patches into the Linux kernel, and recompile it.

You have to understand, the idea of recompiling a kernel is a terrifying idea to me. I've done it a few times, and each times my insides twist around like I'm 12 years old and about to see a girl's breasts for the first time. And even after all of that, obeying strange, cryptic comments like I was an alchemist trying to follow the instructions for turning lead into gold, still I couldn't get the ATI card to run under Linux.

And there were the other little things. As much as I love the Mozilla, the Open Source browser that Netscape is built on, I love it's stability, it's tabs (once you try tabs, you can't go back), there were still things that just didn't work right. Like the Java plug in. I tried to install that so many times, and it just wouldn't work. Or the ability to watch Quicktime videos from Linux. Or when people would send me Microsoft Word documents that StarOffice couldn't quite translate.

But the worst, the truly worst part, was cut 'n paste. Using Linux, I would tend to use Emacs, a wonderful text editor that takes me back to the Wordperfect days. Emacs is powerful, quick, does just about whatever I want. It also doesn't let me simply cut and paste text from itself into a Mozilla browser, which is how I post articles on The Gamers Press. I tried using different text programs in Linux. Staroffice wouldn't work, because it stubbornly tried to WYSIWYG all HTML encoded files, even if those files were labeled text. And for something like myself who likes to edit HTML directly, it was annoying to have anything between myself and the actual code. The KDE clipboard didn't always hold text from one program to the next. At one point, I got annoyed that it kept trying to open Konqueror every time I cut text with a web link inside, so I tried to edit the clipboard program to make it stop. Afterwards, I couldn't cut and paste links at all.

But there was so much to like, like GCC, a C/C++ compiler so I could build my own programs. Or my beloved Perl.

Linux was a lot like a girl named Allison that I used to date. She was a hot redhead with large, firm breasts in most of my honors classes. She was smart, she was cute - and she was totally crazy. I could only deal with her strange behavior for so long, no matter how much I loved the rest of her.

But what else could I do? My Windows machine was now only for games and my ATI-TV card, and the few times I needed a Windows only program. My Linux box did everything else, it did it with brutal effectiveness, but it just wasn't cuddly. It was a bulldog with hairs made of needles. It never let me down, but I could never get close to it. I was resigned to simply living with this.

Enter the Serpent

And then...I started hearing about OS X. It took about an hour to rip all 17 disks from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to 128 bit MP3 format. It took about 3 minutes to transfer them to my iPod. My iPod is the second sexiest thing that fits in my palm.

I first caught word of OS X through Slashdot. I had never used a Macintosh, well, unless you count a few days in high school. But it just wasn't for me.

But there was something that called to me. A Unix core...with the Apple GUI? What would happen with the power of Unix was combined with Apple's legendary GUI interface?

I started looking up all of the information I could. I read through the Ars Techana review from the point of view of a Macintosh lover, who both praised and criticized the operating system. Or the writings of Tales of a BeOS Refugee, which was from the point of view of a BeOS user going to Apple's new operating system. I even devoured The Register's comments about how much they didn't like OS X.

But there was something in common with so many of these articles. They were written from the point of view of people who had been using the Macintosh operating system for years, who had become use to its quirks and oddities, of its inability to handle virtual memory (though how you can have a decent operating system without virtual memory, I just don't know). These had good things to say about OS X, then mentioned all of their problems with the operating systems interface compared to the old OS 9 system.

But at the same time, I wasn't like any of them. I hadn't used a Macintosh before. (In fact, before today, I hadn't met anyone who had used a Mac for a long period of time. But more on that later.) I was coming from a perspective of an almost pure Unix user moving to Mac, not from a Mac user moving to a more Unix based system.

It was time for me to upgrade my Linux machine anyway. My two computers - the Pentium III 800 machine which ran Windows, and thus my games, and the Pentium II 450 which housed my Linux machine - were getting a little behind. The original plan was to purchase a new computer, keep Windows on it, and make the Pentium 800 into my new Linux box.

But still, the call of OS X kept coming to me. Since there's no Apple stores in Utah, I could stop by CompUSA and try out the Macintosh machines there. And it...just felt right.

There was something about OS X that just felt right to my fingers. I liked The Dock, the Start Menu/Program Launching system. I learned how to move folders and program icons in and out of the Dock, or how to navigate the file system. Use the iPod as an MP3 player, or as a disk drive. I nearly installed OS X on it just to boot from it - but then realized I didn't have a reason to do that.

And the terminal. Oh, the terminal. The command prompt that all Unix heads are used to. It's the mother's tit, the place where everything starts. Why cut and paste files, when a simple "mv" command words wonders? Or tab completion. Instead of typing "ren thefileiwanttochange.txt", a true Unix head knows they can type "ren thefile[TAB]" and the operating system would type in the rest fo the file name. Or typing "cd ~" to go back to your "home" directory.

And in OS X, it was all right there, and even smarter than what I was used to in the Linux command line. When I typed "cd dir[tab]", the computer didn't try to fill in the file "directly", but know that since I was using the "cd" command, I wanted to go to the directory called "directory". Or if I mistyped a command, typing in "emcs", the system would ask "emacs?", and I could just type Y and go on, comfortable that my finger fumbling would be caught.

I finally caved in, deciding that, if worse came to worse, I could always install a PowerPC version of Linux on the box. I wouldn't be any worse off, and I planned to spend the money anyway, so what would it matter if I turned out not to like OS X, since I would just have Linux back on it.

I ordered my machine, a PowerPC 933 system with 512 MB RAM and an 80 Gig hard drive. I agonized over that decision until I had the system perfect, then ordered it.

And then my real experiences began.

The Conversion During the time that I waited for my Power mac, pieces of it came in the mail. First was the software (BBedit and Office X), then the iPod. I played with the iPod for a few days, showing it to my friends even though I didn't have any music on it.

It was hard not to. It's just cool. It's small, and so user friendly, I didn't have to crack open the manual to figure out how to use it. I must have spent a few hours just rolling through the different options, hearing the little "clicking" noise it made just because I could. I even went so far as to rebuild an old Sony laptop computer that used to have Linux on it back to Windows 98 to try out a software program that's suppose to make the iPod work with Windows. (But since the laptop's rescue CD didn't only had Windows 98, not Windows 98 SE, that cut that endeavor short). iDisk - Apple's free, online storage/email/web page system. I haven't had a reason to use it. Yet.

When my Power mac finally arrived in the mail, I took it into work and set it up there. Right upon taking it out of the box, it just seemed so...pretty. I guess that's the only way to put it. The grey/silver looking package has rounded curves and a handle that makes it easy to carry around. I opened up the side just because I could - one flick of the lever, and I was peering at the guts of my new system.

I decided to use my old trusty optical Intellimouse instead of the standard mouse Apple sends with it, and plugged the system into my monitor, plugged in the clear Apple speakers I had ordered (and discovered with some chagrin that they only work with a new Apple computer), and turned it on.

The first thing I noticed was the sound through the speakers, then the little smily face Mac computer in the middle of my monitor. A few seconds later, and I was at a registration page. No entering in serial numbers or cryptic commands - it simply wanted to know who I was to register the computer, and then proceeded to launch into OS X.

The next thing I noticed is just how sharp everything looked. Using the same monitor for my Windows 2000/Linux machine at work, and my Linux/Windows 98 setup at home, the OS X just looks sharper. The images look a little cleaner and brighter, and the text - I've never understood the big deal about "anti-aliasing" until I read web pages under the Mac. The text, which was readable before, was nearly perfect here. Under Linux, I usually had to enlarge the font to 150% to read pages at CNN. Under OS X, I could leave the pages just as they were, and they were even more readable. Maybe it's because the system uses Adobe PDF rendering at the core to delivery almost page-like displays. Or all the Aqua pieces that Apple talks about to give the cool transparency. Whatever it is, OS X just makes things look good. Disk images. Like zip files - only better.

OS X is probably the easiest system I've ever had to use. There's so Start Menu, but something called the Dock, which holds all of your currently running programs (well, not all, but more on that in a moment), as well as holding your minimized windows.

Sounds like just the one you'd see in Windows 95/95/2000/XP, right? Well, yes and no. The biggest difference is that the Dock is a dynamic system. You see, it is possible to drag programs directly into the Dock, so you can launch them later with one click of a button. Running programs have a small black triangle underneath them, so it's easy to tell what's running and what's not.

But it holds more than just programs. It can also hold folders or files, which go on the right side. In my case, I have three folders - a link to my Home directory, one to a folder with shortcuts to programs I usually run, and one more to the main Applications folder. A single click brings up the folder, holding down the mouse button brings up a menu of all that the folder holds.

It's something that just makes sense. And OS X really gets the idea. It has to, the way that it's programs are installed.

When I first went to install Microsoft Office X, there was something that surprised me about the installation procedure. Basically, it was "copy this folder into your Applications directory". Or Omniweb, a competing web browser. It's just one file.

Well, not really. It's called a "package", where that one file, like a zip file, contains other files. Instead of an executable surrounded by dll's, it simply has all the dependancies it needs right inside itself. Again, simple. Elegant.

Coming from a place where to install a program on Red Hat can involve using a RPM (and I'm sorry, I've never figured out how to uninstall a RPM file), having the entire program contents in one file is just a wonder. Want to get rid of the file? I don't have to go wandering through directories to find all the files I have to delete, or worry about an uninstall program that can't seem to get all of the necessary parts out of the directories and registries. If I want to uninstall, I just drag one file to the Trash.

And thanks to the Unix bits of OS X, program stability is a snap. For those who are used to Linux, the command "ps" is a standard - it shows the "processes", or running programs. Have a program that's out of line? Just start up the old "Process Listing" program, and give it a little "kill" command. Program stops running. No messages about "I can't shut down the program" like you'd see in Windows. It dies. The end. It's something I've grown used to in Linux, and having it in OS X is just natural.

All of the other weird bits

You can't just close the windows to end a program - you actually have to tell it "Quit". There is a lot to like about OS X, including the parts that are both convenient and a little weird. If you want to eject a CD-ROM, you can either press the eject button the keyboard (no, the computer doesn't have an eject button), or you can drag the CD-ROM icon on your desktop to the trash.

Copying programs is much like Windows - select a file, and either drag it to another directory, or select Edit->Copy. But oddly, there's no "Cut" command. A weirdness that's taken some getting used to.

Or that Finder windows, each of which have the name of the title of the directory, if you click and hold the title, you can use that to move the folder somewhere else. Rather nice, even if its different.

You can minimize a window, and it's image will show up in the Dock. The first time I did this with a terminal window, I almost had a heart attack as I noticed that the little window kept updating as the program ran, so I didn't have to check it all the time.

Or you can just "hide" a program. Since OS X does a great job with memory management, it's often best to start a program (like Mail or iTunes, the MP3 player), then just "Hide" it. The program icon still stays in the Dock, but the window itself just...vanishes. Click on the program icon, and it comes right back.

In fact, the whole "hiding" a program versus "closing" it is another weirdness. You can close all of the windows for a program, but that doesn't actually "exit" the program - you still need to press Apple-Q, or right click on the program in the Dock and select Quit. It would be nice to have a setting like "if all windows are closed, end the program".

Then there's the whole Metadata thing. Most of us who have used Windows or Linux are used to have file extensions tied to a program. We all know that if a file ends in MP3, and we double click on it, XMMS or WinAmp will launch.

Under OS X...it depends. I've only seen a little bit of it, and for the most part it's been fine, and a little annoying at other times. Take a .jpg image. If the image was downloaded from the Internet, odds are, the standard "Preview" program will work. But if that program was made with Image Converter, then the next time you click on that particular .jpg file, Image Converter will launch, since that was the program the file "Created With". I've only had one program running an old Groupwise program (which runs in Classic, which is really an OS 9 emulator), and it thinks it owns a Word document someone emailed me.

I've been using Internet Explorer since I moved onto the Mac, and I haven't decided if I'm going to reinstall Mozilla. I'm planning on playing with it soon, since IE has some weird quirks of its own. Sometimes when I click on a bookmark, it wants me to rename it instead of jumping to the site. I haven't figured out if it's the way I click it , or something else.

Update: Since this writing, I've dumped Internet Explorer after it wouldn't let me paste this entire article into the text window. Seems it has a space limit on how large an amount of text you can paste into a window. Mozilla doesn't have that problem. And it has tabs. I missed my tabs.

And cut and pasting. It just works flawlessly. I can cut from terminal and paste into a browser window. I can copy from BBEdit, the text-based HTML editor, and paste it into an email. And it's even easier than cutting and pasting in Windows. (Every tried to cut and paste text from the Windows 2000 telnet program? Somebody decided to change all the cut and paste keys to piss of the users, I'm sure.)

The Games of the X

To get rid of a disk image, just eject it. Oh, and Cardcaptors is so cute. Ah, yes. The games. This was something that I was worried about. I do have a few games that run on both Windows and Mac, like Diablo, the Myth games, or the Myst games. And I've ordered some other games, like the Bungie Mac Action Sack which holds the old Marathon series of games. And Baldur's Gate, that RPG modern classic.

All of these games were made for OS 9 and below, which really means it's going to run in Classic, the OS 9 emulator that runs in OS X. It's like running a DOS program in Windows XP. Only...it actually works. Most gamers know that under the newer Windows operating systems, often old games just refuse to run (like Ultima VII, for example, unless you're using the Exult, which doesn't count since it's a rewrite anyway).

I haven't had an old Mac program fail to run. I've had some odd quirks, like Baldur's Gate running a little quick, or times I need to shut down the Classic environment and restart it, but otherwise, the programs run just fine. I've noticed that 3D acceleration doesn't quite work for Classic programs running under OS X, but since the only game I've tried it Myth: The Fallen Lords, I can't answer whether other older Mac games will work. (Like Alice, or Red Faction. I'll have to try those later and see what happens.) In order to get 3d acceleration to work, I've had to actually reboot into OS 9 - an experience I usually avoid when I can. No Unix there.

Enter our friend Unix

Of all of the reasons why I went to OS X, this was the biggest one. If I couldn't run my mail server, Fetchmail, Perl scripts, and all the rest, I might just as well format the system and install Yellow Dog Linux. Switchpic - allowing people to manage huge collections of desktop backgrounds everywhere. (The new Version 2.0 lets you handle them in iTunes like collections. Very snazzy.)

Not only did all of my Unix programs install just fine under OS X and run like they've always done, but the OS X developers crowd have even ported many of them over just for OS X. Installing Samba was a breeze - I just downloaded the OS X specific binaries and installed. Getting The Gimp was simple after installing XDarwin, a rootless XWindows system. Even Image Magick came up perfectly. And I didn't even have to change any of my Perl scripts. I just copies them from my Linux box, and off they ran.

In fact, my old Linux hard drive is now a backup drive in my OS X box. I just shut it off. Why keep it on? OS X does everything it did - only prettier, easier, and with more little tricks. I don't have to worry "can I get hardware X to work?" I never have to hear "oh, just recompile your kernel, or edit the configure script before you compile".

And that's what I wanted. I'm not begrudging the folks who use Linux or FreeBSD or the other systems. I still use Linux as the web servers at my work, and have no plans on changing that. Open Source is driving the true innovation, bringing greater stability and power to computer systems.

But I'm a lazy son of a bitch, and I just want to use the programs, not fiddle with it for hours to get it to run. And that's what OS X gives me. Power, and simplicity.

And with the power of Unix comes the ability to tweak OS X just the way I like. I've already discovered how to make my Dock fully transparent (which looks pretty damn cool), or how to use Switchpic to give the same "rotate desktop backgrounds" ability I had under KDE and Linux.

Bitch like an old lady

VNC - lets me take control of my OS X box from work over the Internet. No, I'm not telling you the IP address. Or the password. Or where I keep my, er, my daughter's copy of Beach Playmates Romp. If there is one gripe about OS X itself, it's about the way to open files. Apple-O opens a file/runs a program. Pressing Enter on a file renames it. If there isn't a more counterintuitive method of doing it, I don't know what is. When I look at a directory and type "Tales of the" to jump to "Tales of the Sword Coast", then hit Enter, I mean "Launch Tales of the Sword Coast". If there was a way to edit this key combination (or if someone could tell me how to change those keys), I'd be a little happier.

That said, I do still have some gripes about OS X. But the gripes aren't about the operating system itself, but the support, or lack of it, from other vendors.

Novell, let's start with you. I took my Power mac into my day job because I was tired of booting between Linux and Windows 2000 all day long. Novell, I realize that over the last few years, your primary goal has been to lose market share as fast as possible. This is why there's no novell administrator, unless you run Windows (what moron thought up that idea?), why you haven't come out with an OS X client for Groupwise, or even a Novell client for OS X. What do I fucking have to kill to get someone to make an OS X program that will let me mount some Novell volumes on my machine here?

ATI - personally, I think your cards are the bomb. I love my ATI TV-Wonder, and I've been eyeing those 8500 All-in-Wonder DV cards. So why aren't you spreading the OS X love? You have a TV USB device for Mac, but there's no OS X drivers. And where are the All-in-Wonder cards? You'd think that was a no-brainer on the Mac. I want that screen-capturing, straight to Quicktime movie ability that I know you can give me.

I like OS X a lot, and I'm now a fully converted Mac user. It has all the power I remember in Linux, but it's easier to use, and far prettier. It has all of the editing abilities of my Windows machine, without all of the crashes. (I haven't had OS X crash once since I've run it.) And if the other vendors can just get off their asses and realize that OS X is the future of Apple, and maybe they should be writing their drivers and apps to that system, then I wouldn't have anything to gripe about.

For now, I'm just a guy who started loving a penguin, then discovered true love with an Apple.

As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.

Re:Free2TwoGrand

[mgkimsal2]

Does OS X cost $2000? I dunno, but I suspect not. Was his previous Linux box completely free of cost? Again, I suspect not.

I'm not pointing the finger at you necessarily, but the computer itself isn't free. People who routinely spend hundreds on speakers, sound cards, 3d whatzamajigger graphics boards, etc. bitch and moan about the cost of an OS. Yes, 'free' as in speech is good, and 'free' as in beer is good too, but don't bitch about the 'beer' one if you've got a system that costs more than a few hundred bucks, please.

So?

[Pope Slackman]

What's there for a UNIX hacker not to love?
OSX just rocks.
From the BSD-ish UNIX underneath, to the amazing display layer and NextStep app framework,
to the commercial app support (can you say "Photoshop"[1]?) it's just super cool.

There's even source for the core OS for you open source freaks.

About the only thing that could be considered a disadvantage is that it only runs on Mac hardware.
(Which, granted, is a lot nicer and more elegant than PC hardware, but that doesn't help those of us that that have tons of PC hardware lying around.)

C-X C-S
[1] I'll reiterate once more: Gimp is nice, but doesn't come close to Photoshop.

Hmmm

[NiftyNews]

"She was a hot redhead with large, firm breasts in most of my honors classes."

I think the real story here is about where this girl's breasts were the rest of the day. Did they take different classes? Did they work as a hall monitor?

They'll never get me

[Permission Denied]

So I'm the hardcore unix type and I tried this (a full conversion to OS X). Of course, nobody wants to hear that OS X has some very real problems, but here goes...

The window management is so far inferior to anything you'll find in X, it's not funny. About a month ago, one slashdot poster was complaining about how it's difficult to run more than ten programs because it's hard to find the right one in the dock. Excuse me!? You're limiting yourself to two or three programs because you can't find the one you need immediately?

Consider this: OS X comes with an alt-tab action, but it cycles through all windows in a circular list, rather than using a stack like Windows or most X11 window managers. Why does it do this? Is the circular list "more intuitive" than a stack? No, it most certainly is not. There's a reason most window managers use a stack for the alt-tab list. When you use a stack, the most recently-used programs migrate toward the top of the stack. If you have seven programs running and you're continually switching between two of them, a switch takes two keystrokes with a stack, but seven kestrokes with a circular list. With the circular list, you have to actually look to see which program you're switching to. Result? it takes at least one second to switch between two programs on a moderately-loaded system. I am not going to remove my hands from the keyboard just to switch between two programs.

In addition, using the dock or alt-tab to switch applications only switches applications not windows. Look at IE or Terminal.app - these both have their own internal window management and it works differently in each. In Terminal.app, you hit cmd-1 or cmd-2 to switch between running windows, in IE it's something else.

I can hear you saying right now that this isn't a big deal. It is a HUGE deal. In my X system, I can run 15 different applications and (using workspaces and a proper alt-tab) I can get to any application in a few hundred milliseconds. I don't need to take my hands away from the keyboard just to go from typing into my browser to typing into a terminal.

What if I actually want to use OS X as a real unix system? For example, what if I need to add a user? Well, there are a number of ways to do this:

1. Physically go to the machine and use the little gui tool. Not an option when the server is inaccessible, as is usually the case with a regular unix server.
   
2. VNC into it. OS X doesn't use X, so the only way I can run these GUI tools from my FreeBSD laptop is to use VNC. Try this yourself - it does not work properly.
   
3. SSH into the box and use niutil, etc. You then have to walk through the netinfo tree to see exactly how a user environment is supposed to be set up. The first time you do this, it will take a half hour.
   
4. Download some perl script that works like "useradd."
   

The last two are the only real viable options. In any case, the first time I need to add a user, I have to waste a half hour for this most basic administration task.

So what does it have to make it more enticing than a real unix system? Well, it has all the pretty pictures. It has a decent web browser. It has those "office" applications.

I honestly don't care for the pretty gel pictures. I'll admit that the first time I used OS X, I wasted a good half hour just looking at it (it is quite impressive). However, this gets old quick.

Linux now has some decent browsers (konqueror, mozilla), although this wasn't the case a couple of years ago.

I don't use "office" applications. Word? LaTeX. Excel? Awk and perl. Outlook? Mutt. Powerpoint? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn. I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Re:They'll never get me

[Anonymous Coward]

3. SSH into the box and use niutil, etc. You then have to walk through the netinfo tree to see exactly how a user environment is supposed to be set up. The first time you do this, it will take a half hour.
---
Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn. I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Eh? You spent years learning unix administration and you are upset that adding a user the first time under OS X took you 1/2 hr?

Sounds like you're willing to spend the time to learn unix but not to spend the same time learning OS X.

Re:They'll never get me

[Sentry21]

I don't use "office" applications. Word? LaTeX. Excel? Awk and perl. Outlook? Mutt. Powerpoint? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn.

This strikes me as remarkably similar to someone complaining about how a Geo Metro is 'flawed' because it can't haul 60 cinder blocks around, can't haul a ton of gravel, etc. That's not what it's meant for.

Me, I'd rather use my computer than learn my computer. LaTeX? Sure, I could use it, but why would I want to waste my time marking something up in LaTeX when I can open Word, type it out, spend four seconds formatting it the way I need, and then save it to any of five dozen file formats (most importantly, Word).

As for Awk and Perl as replacements, you'd have to do a lot more work to do 90% of what I do in Excel in awk and perl. Takes me ten seconds to make a graph out of a set of data, I can move cells around drag 'n' drop, I can add styling and so on if I'm sharing my .xls file, I can put graphs and tables into Word or Powerpoint. Awk and Perl for this are cheap hacks. Sure, it can all be done, but it's still a cheap hack.

I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Fine, then don't use OS X, and don't whine about it. It's not meant for every task under the sun, it's meant for people who want what it offers. If it doesn't offer you what you want, then use something else, and don't complain, but some of us are glad that we can point, click, and have new user accounts added everywhere it counts.

I had fun with Linux, but eventually I got tired of managing my computer, and wanted just to use it. OS X gives me this, but still gives me the power I need to run things like perl, vim, and so forth. If you don't want this, then don't use OS X, and we'll all get along fine.

--Dan

Re:They'll never get me

[SmittyTheBold]

Know what? This is absolute FUD on both parts. At least you're both ill-informed. These complaints apply to OS X, yes - but that's the client OS. Buy the Server and get the server tools. It's very easy to do pretty much everything remotely, through a Apple-provided GUI tool.

If I wanted to add a user to one of our OS X servers right now, I could. Remotely. Through a GUI. Without VNC. If people would look into using a "Server" as a server, people would be much happier.

Re:hey

[larkost]

As both a MacOS X user, and someone who has hitchhiked in a Trabant, I think you are wrong here.

I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about in your UI rant, but I guess that it has something to do with the users/groups permission idea. If this is what is bothering you, then you need to realize that this sort of thing is required in a multi-user system in order to make things work. Just because you are unfamiliar with it does not make it bad... And if you think that Window's doesn't have the same complications... then you are right until you move onto an NT kernel, and then you are right back in the think of things. It does it a bit differently, but it is the same idea wrapped in a different cloak.

And I have been using MacOS since before version 1 (0.9.4 if memory serves), and feel that MacOS X is in the line of progression from that venerable OS. It is about as big a jump as 6 to 7 was in many ways. People complained then, as they do now, but it is all for the best.

NeXT, and it's OS failed because of market and pricing issues, not technical or ascetic ones, and I am not sure what there is to compare to NetInfo on MacOS 9 or Windows, unless you want to talk about Macintosh Manager or Active Directory, but those are just as arcane as NetInfo, and are not what "users are used to these days". I think you were trying something above your head, and feeling dumb because of it.

And Apple was trying things on their own, it was called Rhapsody (and Pink before that), and never went anywhere. Whithout Steve Jobs (or someone with equal vision) to hold the whip the project was going no-where, as was Apple in general. In buying NeXT apple got a injection of new talent, code, and vision.

I am not sure what it is you want in a UI.. and I think neither do you, but I am happy with where MacOS X is now, and happy with where is see it going.

Look, BS. Never thought you'd find *that* on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the UI in OS X, and by this I mean the interface as it runs to the core of the machine, including multiuser model, security, filesystem, etc. and not merely GUI, is inherently flawed and, I think, impossible to fix.

Nice of you to not give any specifics. The multiuser model is straight Unix. The security model is pretty dang good. And MacOS X can use a variety of filesystems in a modular fashion. Don't like HFS+ for some bizarre reason? Okay, switch to UFS. Whatever.

The UI concepts that were the heart and soul of the Mac since '84 should never have been cast aside, and the development of progressively better UI should never have been allowed to stagnate since the early 90's.

Interesting of you to provide two contradictory phrases in the same statement. No specifics again I see.

OS X is little more than a reheated version of NextStep, an OS that flopped dramatically. Was it always said to have a great UI? Sure... but again, only as far as Unix went. (e.g. NetInfo is vastly better than the equivalent tools on Unix, and a total POS compared to what most Mac and Windows users are used to these days)

Ah, I see. Someone who has never used NeXTSTEP. But that wouldn't keep you from ragging on it, would it?

NeXTSTEP had a wonderful interface. For its time, it introduced an astounding number of things which we now take for granted (and some we still don't):

• 3D widgets
• Drag and drop beyond just icons: images, colors, etc.
• A good graphics model (in this case, PostScript)
• Alpha compositing
• Non-modal dialogs
• Miller-column browsers
• System-level outline fonts
• System-level internationalization
• Unified printing architecture
• ....

...It goes on for quite a while. I'll cut short there. As to NetInfo, I've used Mac systems for a long time, and NetInfo is far superior to Timbuktu and other hacked up nonsense attempts at wide-system management. Windows mechanisms are rather worse than that still.

What NeXTSTEP's crown jewel was was its development environment. Heck, it introduced the concept of a UI builder, and astonishingly, InterfaceBuilder.app is *still* a better design for large-scale work than the current forms-based crap that is foisted on us by Java and C++ and Delphi etc. NeXTSTEP's API was OOP througout, highly dynamic, and very well thought out. It had a small set of very powerful, elegant classes, rather than (Java-style) a massive array of junk masquerading as a library. Even today it is matched by few as a UI development environment. Apple was damn lucky to get the opportunity to encorporate it into Cocoa.

another Linux user's experiences with OSX

[tom7ca]

I use Linux for most of my work, but recently bought a Mac running OSX (and, yes, I also have a Windows XP machine). I think, overall, Apple did a good job. But, in my view, Linux still compares quite well.

What's good about OSX?

• It installs and works easily. Part of that is that there is only one hardware vendor.
• It seems like a well-tested and a pretty stable platform to deliver code on.
• Device drivers really do install dynamically (with Linux, you usually end up having to recompile the kernel at some point).
• It has great Java support out of the box.
• Things like automatic network location selection work out of the box.
• There is a reasonable amount of polished, commercial software available for it.
• Both the hardware and the software looks very stylish and pretty.
• It comes with a complete set of BSD tools.
• It comes with standard networking tools and protocols like ssh, NFS, and lpr.
• You can download a complete development environment from Apple, including GUI designer.
• Applications like iTunes and iPhoto are really well designed. They do less than their KDE and Gnome equivalents and that is good. Apple has thought carefully about what you need and what you don't need.
• Standard GUI aplications are scriptable using OSA (although it's a bit messy).
• Mach allows user-level device drivers.
• You get X11, as well as the Debian package tools and packages (fink.sourceforge.net).
• Apple is somewhat less nagging about "download this" and "sign up for that" than Microsoft.

What's not so good about OSX?

• Driver availability: there are very few drivers available (some of the ones that are are ports of Linux drivers); this will presumably get fixed over the next 6-12 months.
• The UI is enormously resource intensive and slow. The kernel is no speed daemon either on things like disk I/O. On a 600MHz G3 iMac running OSX 10.1.2, applications are annoyingly sluggish. It's mostly the GUI; X11 applications running on the same screen and hardware are much faster.
• It isn't quite as stable as Linux.
• There are some usability bloopers in the UI (as there are in previous versions of MacOS); I guess if you have a 15 year history, you need to accomodate some historical idiosyncracies.
• Software installation is a mess. Some applications come with installers, some come as archives that you need to drag somewhere, some come as loopback mountable disk images. Linux is much better in this area, and even Windows XP seems a little better.
• There are almost no books available (BN doesn't even have a Mac section anymore, while their Linux and open source section is quite large).
• Cocoa/Objective-C are nice, but somewhat aging technology. It's not clear to me what Apple's future vision is.
• Device access is inconsistent. For example, audio and video have no device nodes; the APIs for accessing are messy.
• Keyboard access and editing keys are pretty primitive.
• No "strace" (the kernel isn't compiled for it).

If OSX were a Linux distribution, people would probably debate endlessly whether it was really ready for the desktop. I think overall OSX is neither better nor worse than Gnome or KDE on Linux. What it lacks in performance and consistency, it makes up in commercial support and simplicity.

The biggest advantages of OSX are that it's supported by a big brand-name. You can get MS Office for it. If a piece of hardware doesn't work, you take it back to the store and say "I plugged it in and it doesn't work; sorry--it says it's MacOS compatible". Presumably, there will be books around for it, and they will all document the one, standard version. And APIs and functionality change less rapidly than on Linux (which can be good or bad).

OSX is an operating system that a UNIX user can live with. I think it's good on a laptop, for PowerPoint presentations, as an iTunes jukebox, or to recommend to one's parents or manager. But it's no Linux killer.

OSX is just so much better than Windows XP. The OSX software architecture is much cleaner and the toolset you get with it is so much better. And the OSX UI is incomparably more consistent and easy to use than what Windows XP has.

Apple needs to address their performance issues (or release dual 2GHz iMacs :-), and they need to communicate a more coherent software strategy.

What the Linux community should do is study Apple's approach carefully and copy the good parts of it. KISS not only saves programming effort, it results in better software as well. A GUI with the simplicity of OSX but without the performance problems and OS9 compatibility would be great, and it would be less work to develop than the feature-laden KDE or Gnome desktops.

So, where I would grudgingly use Windows right now, I will probably now gladly use Macintosh. While OSX is no substitute for Linux, it brings a good, usable version of a UNIX-derivative into the mainstream, and that's good.

Re:Free2TwoGrand (try $1488 to $1499)

[petard]

Suppose he buys a comparably equipped PC from a reputable manufacturer. Let's say Dell, for the sake of argument.

• 
  Dell Dimension 2100:
  
• 1100 MHz Celeron Processor
• 256MB RAM
• 40GB HD
• 15" LCD Display
• Integrated Intel 3D Graphics
• NO IEEE 1394 (firewire) port
• Harmon-Kardon HK195 Speakers
• DVD-ROM/CD-RW combo drive
• 1 year warranty

Total cost: $1488

• 
  Apple iMac:
  
  
• 700 MHz PowerPC G4 Processor
• 256MB RAM
• 40GB HD
• 15" LCD Display
• nVidia GeForce 2 MX 32MB DDR
• Apple Pro (also Harmon-Kardon) speakers
• Firewire interface
• DVD-ROM/CD-RW Combo drive
• 1 year warranty

Total Cost: $1499

So if he didn't want firewire, it'd be more like $1488 to $1499 (Or Free2ElevenDollars, as you put it). If he wanted firewire, add $70 for an Adaptec firewire board. If he wanted a better video card, add $60 for the one included in the iMac. In this case, it'd be $1608 for the PC setup to match the iMac, and the package still isn't as nice :-)

So maybe an even better subject would be "Free2OneHundredNineDollarRebate"

Re:No, GNU/Linux and MacOS are not UNIX

[Dahan]

Well, according to this, the Open Group considers Apple to be one of the "platform vendors supporting the Single UNIX Specification."

Not that it matters to the majority of Linux or MacOS X users.

Re:Well

[Gorobei]

Unix? I thought the article was about pre-teen girl's breasts:

I played ball with my friends, rode my bike around the neighborhood, caught a glimpse of Stacy Baker's 6th grade breasts when she showed them to me

my insides twist around like I'm 12 years old and about to see a girl's breasts for the first time.

Linux was a lot like a girl named Allison that I used to date. She was a hot redhead with large, firm breasts in most of my honors classes.

Another Linux Deskop User Convert to OSX

[xtal]

I'm not sure why I'm writing this, since it will undoubtedly get flamed. I've run desktop linux since about 1998? Or so.. Back then, linux was a toy and I used NT for work. Linux was moving so fast, I had lots of time to develop and tweak code then - in university - and life was good. I was lucky in that when I graduated, I could run linux desktops at work for the most part, and I enjoyed it. I still use linux daily for compiling applications and in server roles. Solaris is another work companion, running high-end design tools for analog electronics. I also use Win2k daily as many of the prototyping boards I use for FPGA work are win-only, along with other embedded tools.

However, 8 months ago, one of the guys I worked with got a new toy - a Apple Titanium Powerbook. This thing is the sexiest piece of hardware I've ever seen. Hell, real live women have complimented me on it. Imagine that. I needed to get a notebook, looked around, and got a Tibook myself. At the time, I had every intention of blowing linux away and installing Yellow Dog linux. Honest! However, I decided I'd give OSX a fair shake, and I wanted to learn the OS anyhow. Learnign new things is never a bad thing from techie perspective, anyhow. I give it the quick test - is there a terminal? I'll be damned. "Hey, this thing is based on BSD", I think to myself. So I type in the magic two letter command that's inspired more flame wars than Bill Gates and Osama Bin Laden put together: "vi". F*ck me. It's there.

So, I start poking around on the Apple web site, and it's the best-organized thing I've ever seen. "why can't redhat do this", I ask myself. I click on developer, and gosh-be-damned, there's links to all this open source code I'm framiliar with - even a port of my ever-so-framilar BASH. So, I go looking for some developer tools and documentation, and get the shock of my life - not only are the APIs clearly documented, but there's example code for everying from Cocoa to Firewire right there - AND, there's a free IDE to tie all the development tools together. F*ck me. This jobs guy seems to be on to something, I think. 30 minutes after being exposed to this OS, I have OpenGL example programs compiling and running, hardware accellerated even. Wow.

Fast forward to six months later. I'm amazed every day at how well the mac works. It's has never crashed on me.. the GUI can be a little sluggish, but that doesn't bother me too much, as I'm a console monkey myself. Loads of developer support. I can plug in my perhiprials - digital camera, rio mp3 player, JVC DV camcorder - and not only do they work with NADA fiddling around, but I'm greeted by a well thought out application that is ready to talk to the device with no drama whatsoever. Here's to thoughtful GUI design. Microsoft Office for OSX was another surprise - I'm amazed they haven't killed it yet, because unlike it's windows cousin, it's uncluttered and efficient. Office X has, however, crashed on me a few times. No shocking revalations there.

However, what OS X made me do was assess how much work I was accomplishing relative to how much tinkering and configuring I was doing running linux on the desktop. As I get older, my time is more valuable, and I don't have a whole day to reconfigure things anymore. I don't have to reconfigure anything with OS X. It just works. Gnome and KDE have come a long way here, but they're not there yet. I imagine they will be in the future - but this is now. There is a sacrifice in terms of the hardware available, but what's available works very well. Games aren't there, but there are more than were there for Linux - including the Canary, Mac-only games. I solved that problem long ago with a games-only PC anyhow - apply the best tool to each task.

Sometimes, I think to myself - The motto for this OS should be "It Works". Because it does just that, with a minimum of drama. Something, after being involved with computers since I was 8, I find refreshingly new. Apple has done what Redhat should have done, take a solid open source core, make sure it's consistant and useable, put a reputation and corporation behind it's maintenance and support, AND do so without alienating the community of users that spawned it. Support from large projects like Mozilla have resulted in a great communications platform for OSX, and hopefully the upcoming OpenOffice will find it's way to OS X in a similar way as well.

Hats off to Apple, and I invite everyone here to try it. It's not all things to all people, but it's solved my general purpose computing needs in a way that nothing previous has, and brought back some of the excitement about a hardware platform that I felt in the Amiga days. The combination of an exciting OS with suprior hardware engineering is a real winner in my opinion. "To each, their own".

How LCD make an OS "better"

[ellem]

Lowest
Common
Denominator

Simply put let me say that Dark Porkrind is a power user. He's a guru to the uniformed masses that actually USE computers. They don't compile kernals, they don't script anything, they dont ever configure, make, install. They'll be damned if AIM isn't available. Dark Raman is _their_ guy. There are a lot of Dark Paradigms in the world. Some of them are benevolent and some "know enough to be dangerous."

I give Dark Andstormynight the benifit of the doubt. I think he's a good guy. (Although he did go from Apple striaght to DOS without any AMIGA.. but I digress.) For the unwashed heathens who don't know what a regex is or how to setup mulitple IPs on their NIC card, he's who they listen to.

Now, why don't they listen to you? You know everything it is true. You really do. You can give them a million reasons to use Blah-Blah Linux over OS X. You won't though. You'll read /. and config this and tweak that. You'll say rude things like RTFM, man this, grep that.

They don't care about any of that. They just want to chat with their friends and get their mail and open funny .ppt file their friends make. They never ever want to upgrade anything, ever. They simply expect their computer to work. They want to reboot when it doesn't. They never ever want to su root, or God forbid sudo.

So while Dork Hardon writes an article about how he broke free from the MS "monopoly" you sat here on /. and pissed and moaned about what an idiot he is.

We, you, /., are the minority. Mr & Mrs AOL in Middle America are the Majority. Mr & Mrs Church Newsletter have waaay more disposable cash than you and all your CS majors combined, right now. You should be furthering your cause, not fragmenting even further.

OS X is never going to fragment. It may change entirely but it won't fragment. No one has to worry about Larry, or Miguel, or Linus, or anyone but Steve. OS X makes sense for a lot of poeple.

It's pretty.

It's fast enough.

It has advertising.

It has Office.

If Linux was OS X in 1996 we'd all be giggling about XP and OS X right now. But it wasn't/isn't.

Dark Paladin is right. He's hitting Linux with his +5 Mace Of OS Smiting and there isn't a damn thing you or your /. can do about it.

Is there?

Re:hey

[Matthew Weigel]

Unfortunately, you get one smooth GUI, and if you don't like it, you're stuck. Such are the joys of closed systems.

The alternative in a free system being, you get lots of crap GUIs, crap hardware support, crap APIs....

Hey, I like Freenix and I have been a pretty happy camper using OpenBSD as my desktop system. But I didn't even hope to do things with it that I expect to simply work under OS X.

Also, I don't know about you, but a lot of my friends who rag OS X about being proprietary absolutely insist on using qmail. My apologies if you actually eat your own dog food.

The window management and (lack of) keyboard shortcuts were, to me, impossibly clunky.

I'm curious what your problem was? Cmd-H (hide), Cmd-~ (switch window within app), and Cmd-Tab (switch app) seem to do well enough. Of course I prefer Windows-style app-switching, but Apple decided a while back (OS8?) that they didn't.

While preferences in keyboard vary, I found that the keyboard hurt my hands much more than my ThinkPad 600 or various Dell laptops

Well, Thinkpads have the best keyboards bar none; I don't much care for Dell keyboards, but I did find that the iBook has a better keyboard than the TiBook - I'm not sure why Apple let that happen, but I've seen a lot of people agree with me on that.

Re:Mac nuts Vs Linux nuts

[Johnny Mnemonic]

For the record, I'm a Mac Nut. So I hope you will admire my restraint, and in fact my sacrifice of mod points, in my response.

Although I really do feel that criticism of OS X, the Mac, and Apple in general is good and healthy, when things are simply "ain't so" I have to speak up. When you say that the opensource presence in OS X is "zip ... nada ... nothing", you are ignoring the fact that the core of OS X is Darwin, and Darwin is, in fact, Open Source.

Sure, I realize that that excludes a lot of what makes OS X attractive vis a vis Linux, including Aqua and other layers, but the sum total of Darwin is a lot more than "zip." You do have the source for the network implementation, the I/O interfaces, memory usage, etc etc, and it is fairly well documented. Further, Apple accepts submissions back to the source just like any open-license software. If the omission of open code from OS X was one of the primary things keeping you away, you might want to take another look.