Top Ten Mac OS X Tips for Unix Geeks

Lisa writes "There are big differences between Mac OS X and Unix machines. In this MacDevCenter article, Brian Jepson has assembled ten tips to help achieve a smooth transition from Unix to OS X."

Comments

Where's my...Unix?

[jukal]

I did not (and still don't?) now have anything against MacOS X but that articles makes it sounds like everything is turned up side down. Really, I had the belief that Mac OS X is just about same as everything else *nix. However, this article did good work in convincing something else.

Re:Where's my...Unix?

[chmod u s]

The article's comments about NetInfo are a little off as well. OSX has been moving to using NetInfo less and less. 10.2 tends to utilize many more traditional ways of doing things.

You will not convince me of that. They are simply trying to ease the porting of applications. Flat files *are* inherently less organized and archaic and the fact that they are supporting it is just so they can woo unix users and developers more easily.

Try to create a user using /etc/passwd, better yet try to create a *group* without using netinfo. I don't really care one way or the other, flat files are more familiar and netinfo is more elegant, but using both in conjunction is a hack.

Re:Where's my...Unix?

[stripes]

I think you'll find that the variations aren't so much variations from Unix, but from Linux. Many of the differences the article outlines are simply "hiding" the Unix from newbies (i.e. dangerous directories) and can easily be over ridden.

That's more or less true. If you ignore the fact that pretty much every Unix system that has a GUI except Apple's uses X11 the differences from "Apple's Unix" to anyone else's isn't really any bigger then the differences between any two other Unix-like systems. Sure Apple uses NetInfo, but it really isn't any different from Sun's YP or NIS. Yes, Apple has a ton of GUI admin tools that whizz all over /etc, but what is IBM's SMIT? Or HP's...er...what does HP call their admin tools again?

If you are talking about command line tools, Mac OS X is "just another Unix", period. One of the less common ones, so you may not find as many things compiling out of the box, but that isn't because OSX is more different from whatever Unixish system the author used (most likely Linux these days) then, say NetBSD or SunOS is, but just that whatever 3 random things that always seem to trip people up when going to a new platform weren't already spotted and fixed.

I remember when SunOS was king, and it was a slight pain to port stuff to Ultrix (DEC's Unix). This is no harder. Straight down to programs sometimes forgetting a htonl or the like.

Once you get to GUI's then it's a whole different thing (unless you remember when Suns came with Sun Tools, DEC had X11, AT&T had the BLiT, and everyone else had their own thing too). OSX is way different from other Unix-like systems. You could install X11 on it, but X apps will never feel like native apps, and most apps that are written for OSX that you might want to modify won't be using X. Then again, it's nice to learn a new thing once in a while, isn't it?

Although Aliases are more powerful, but most Unix tools don't recognize them

In what ways are aliases more powerful?

Re:Where's my...Unix?

[FireBreathingDog]

Aliases are backwards-compatible remnants of Mac systems dating back to OS 7.

They are kind of halfway between symlinks and hardlinks. If the target of an alias is moved, the alias still works. But if an alias is deleted, the original file itself is not deleted.

Most UNIX tools don't handle aliases properly just as most UNIX tools can't access a file's resource fork or metadata, two features of the Mac's native filesystem that UNIX doesn't understand.

For people shifting to Mac UNIX, there are scripts to convert some or all of the aliases in a given portion of the directory structure into symlinks.

Mac OS X-based UNIX-heads like me, use symlinks. Old-school Mac people can use aliases. It isn't likely that the old-school Mac guys are going to care unless they're delving into UNIX, and then they'll learn what to do soon enough anyway.

Virtual window management?

[piyamaradus]

I run entirely Solaris and Linux as my desktop environments. My wife has an iBook with OS X (not Jaguar yet). I do most of the administration on it for her, which has been fun since I hadn't used a Mac since 1989...and OS X is the most usable (for me) that I've found. I could almost use it as a workstation...except for screen real estate issues. I'm amazed that there seems to be no default way of running virtual screens in OS X -- which keeps me from being able to work effectively when I have to wade through dozens of terminal sessions on one box (and 'screen' isn't sufficient).

Short of running one of the X11 WMs described, does anyone have a native Aqua virtual window tool?

MacOSX Inconsistencies?

[roukounas]

I am not a MacOSX user, I am thinking of investing in a Powerbook though. What worries me is that there seem to be more than one ways to do certain things:

• Symbolic Links: You can make them through the GUI, but Darwin can't use them, or you can run ln -s and Darwin+Cocoa+Carbon will see them
• Hidden files: you can hide files using the ".", but you can also hide them using another file
• Something else?

Any insights by UNIX geeks that use MacOSX? Have you been bitten by these "features"?

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[Soko]

You are correct in what you're saying about Apple. Things would be a lot worse - in fact, we might not have much at all, just MacOS 7.xx on more expensive hardware. Or the PC revolution might not of happened at all. Who knows - and it's all academic anyway. Apple could not now - nor will they ever - have too much power in the PC space, so we can play with thier toys without needing to worry about feeding a monster.

That being said, OS/X is in of itself cool. It's pretty, stable, reasonably fast and it is *nix under the eye candy. Geeks like that. Being an Apple product is secondary to the fact that it's a really nice OS.

Soko

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[jericho4.0]

Well, I'm an Open Source advocate, but the reason there's so much positive stuff about OS X on /. is simple; OS X is the bomb.

IMHO, X + fink + OroborOSX is the best enviorment imaginable. Yes it's expensive, no it's not quite Unix, but wow!

Please make this stop.

[gabbarsingh]

I do not understand the obsessiveness with Apple. Have you forgotten the latest DMCA drama over iDVD? Have you forgotten how Apple eats up app developers by bundling similar features into the OS? Does that remind you of anybody else? Sure their products are slick and we must acknowledge that. But how come recently every sneeze in Cupertino becomes a fever at Slashdot?

Re:Please make this stop.

[GlassHeart]

I do not understand the obsessiveness with Apple.

The word you're looking for is "obsession". One possible reason is that Apple is actually making bold products (again). Starting from the original iMac, the G3/G4 tower, G4 Cube, iPod, Cinema Display, the new iMac, and of course MacOS X all pack powerful features in well designed packages. Their pricing might prevent some from actually buying, but geeks admire this sort of engineering adventures.

Have you forgotten the latest DMCA drama over iDVD?

Uh, why should iDVD support third party hardware? Third party vendors should write their own software, and compete with Apple hardware and iDVD as a complete hardware and software package. Now, the DMCA is a terrible law, and should be struck down, but I don't see why anybody should pay for the development of iDVD so that it helps somebody else sell hardware.

Note, however, that rigging MacOS X so third party drivers won't work, for example, would be crossing the line.

Have you forgotten how Apple eats up app developers by bundling similar features into the OS?

This does suck. However, one of MacOS X's (valid, I think) selling points over Windows is the combined power of its bundled apps. Even if Apple consciously limits the power of these apps, inevitably they will hurt competition, because the novice users will no longer purchase an e-mail app, MP3 player, and so on. Why should Watson be exempted from competition?

This is actually one thing in which I agree with Microsoft. You cannot draw a line where the OS ends and the applications begin. The ways they sought to exclude Netscape (threatening hardware manufacturers) is illegal, but the very act of improving Windows with IE is not.

Having said that, since Apple is not in Microsoft's position, they should think hard about what their apps are doing to their few but loyal developers. Microsoft can afford not to care.

But how come recently every sneeze in Cupertino becomes a fever at Slashdot?

Because nothing in the PC world is exciting at all. CPU gets faster. Bus gets faster. Big deal. About the most interesting thing happening is case modding.

My Top 10

[spoonist]

In no particular order:
* Forget tcsh and get bash, copy it to /bin, add it to /etc/shells, and change root's shell and your shell.
* Go to The Fink Package Database and snag a ton of cool Open Source apps.
* Mount /home from somewhere.
* Usually stay away from /etc 'cause most of that stuff is ignored.
* Forget sudo and enable root access (I forget how, I don't have an OS X box in front of me), then use su.
* Don't delete ~/Library, that's where all your preferences are saved.
* Load XDarwin in rootless mode and run x2x way cool.
* Get the absolute latest autoconf, automake, etc that recognize Darwin.
* Don't forget to click "Require Password" in your screen saver.
* Put your own pictures in, er, somewhere in your home directory (don't remember where) so the screen saver can display them in its slide show.

Now if only the WM had "focus follows mouse" and iTunes played Ogg Vorbis.

tell me WHY before WHAT

[axxackall]

Interesting article. It shows that *IF* I decide to move from Unix (actually from my Linux/PPC) to Mac OS X *THEN* I know where to get a help. But it doesn't help to answer to the question, which logically comes first: *WHY* should I migrate from Unix/Linux to Mac OS X.

Remember? I am a Unix geek and as such I don't buy any eye candy. Normally I deal with serious data processing stuff. And I don't buy hardware args as a reason - I've already got G4 to run Gentoo Linux.

So, is there any *REAL* serious reason?

Re:tell me WHY before WHAT

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Not every article has to include an element of advocacy. This article takes the position that there are some UNIX folks out there who are using OS X now-- this is true, of course-- and shares some tips that these folks may find useful.

For one, I really dig the way this article stayed away from advocacy.

So, is there any *REAL* serious reason?

Try it. If you like it, use it. If not, don't. If you're trying to pick a fight, try harder.

Re:tell me WHY before WHAT

[iSwitched]

Um, dude..

Let's get some perspective...You've posted argumentative and (in my case) somewhat derogatory comments to several posters who were just answering your question. In each case the poster was just saying essentially "live and let live" you either want OS X or you don't.

Oh - I get it your question was rhetorical, either that, or you forgot to preface it with "Java programmers need not reply", BTW, Over the past decade, I've programmed for Windows, Linux, Unix (Solaris), and now Mac OS X.

I'm only guilty of liking my Mac more, so sorry if that's not geeky enough for you, but it was no reason to insult me.

Re:tell me WHY before WHAT

[Macka]

You just made the classic mistake of assuming that because you, a unix geek, don't care about something, no other geek should either. Many of us do care about such things as good fonts. Just because we like the command line, doesn't mean we are prepared to put up with any old tat.

Expand your mind, and accept that other people have views just as valid as yours. If you are a true unix geek, you will appreciate the value of choice and not put down those that are different to yours. It's the desire for choice that has been the driving force behind most of geekdom for the past several years, hasn't it!

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[Moofie]

But they DON'T have MS's monopoly, and so therefore they actually innovate and improve their products. Linux, on the other hand, does a good job of scratching other people's itches. I'm not a programmer, nor do I wish to become one, and the slapdash nature of the Linux/FreeBSD/whatever UI is not appealing to me. No dis, mind you, it's just not for me.

The MS monopoly is the critical distinction. Me, I'm not a zealous open-source advocate. I think it's a good system and a good philosophy, but I am willing to pay for good quality, well designed software and hardware. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't, either.

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[Scrameustache]

OSX - a closed source operating system

Can you say "open"?

People might like to think that Apple is somehow better than Microsoft

If you work for Microsoft and are trolling /. to promote your dark overlord, please say so.

In the meantime, Apple is better than Microsoft, and not just "somehow". They have better software, better hardware (althought I am using a microsoft mouse with my mac...I love the little wheel), their stuff looks better, works better, is more innovative, etc.

I've been using Macs and PCs since the 80's, I've followed the evolution of both, I'm not some one-side zealot. I'm telling you: The only things Microsoft has over the mac are 1-Popularity (more people use it because more people use it, vicious circle), 2-Cheap ass hardware (you get what you pay for), and better CD management (but the floppy thing is lamer than a one-legged lemur). Oh, and 4-Wheely mice (although they do make mac drivers for 'em, yay!).

if they had Microsoft's monopoly, their behavior would be no better

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, I'm having trouble replying. Ok, lets see...

Many people HATE microsoft, while many people are just in love with apple. Why is that? Because of Microsoft's behaviour. The very behaviour that led them to a monopoly position. So if Apple had the same attribute as Microsoft (a lousy attitude and a monopoly), people's attitude to Apple would be the same as it is towards Microsoft. Big fat DUH.

Your FUD bothers me.

Re:The Screen Savers...

[Anonymous Coward]

And, oddly, 8 of the 10 "tricks" they suggest are in fact actually _harder_ than the normal way of doing things. I don't get techTV on my cable package, are they usually this dumb?

(in windows it'd be like: Did you know that to turn your screensaver on you can browser My Computer/Windows/something.scr and double click on it? Instead of using a hotcorner or anything, you know, sane.)

Same as ext2 & ntfs

[Pius II.]

I'd add that you can also have hard links and symlinks in ext2fs, and various types of "link files" (.lnk, .pif) plus symlinks + "junctions" on ntfs.
So this kind of design is accepted across the industry.

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[megaduck]

why the enthusiasm for encouraging people to switch to OSX - a closed source operating system made by the poster-child for locking people into overpriced hardware?

Because OS X seems to deliver on all of the promises that Linux has been making for years.

While I love open-source software, I switched to a Mac because I got sick of waiting for the open source community to start making a useable desktop. Linux and the BSDs are fantastic on servers, but whenever I used either as my primary machine I found myself wrestling with the system a lot more than I wanted to. I don't want to learn the intricacies of my Xfree86 config files. I don't want to find where Red Hat hid Apache today. I just want to fire up my Dev Tools/Word Processor/Photoshop and get to work. I got away from Windows because I was sick of fighting with my machine. Why would I want to go back to that?

OS X is the first system since BeOS that does all the unixy stuff that I want without sacrificing aesthetics or ease-of-use. Overall the system is clean, intuitive, and I don't have to wrestle with it on a daily basis. Amazingly, it doesn't seem to sacrifice any flexibility or power for its' simplicity. When Linux makes me as productive as OS X, I'll go back in a second. Until then, you can pry my iBook out of my cold dead fingers.

I just can't understand what they were thinking...

[Featureless]

They reorganized almost everything, so that everything from cp (only "ditto" copies metadata) to shutdown (not rewritten to care about Apple's replacement for /etc/init.d) to /etc/passwd (user information is now stored in "the NetInfo database") is now useless, and worse, vestigal (!), but everything new they introduced makes the previous unix "non-naming schemes" and disorganization look great by comparison. ".vol" is where trashed files go? It's ".DS_Store" rather than ".Finder Settings"? For that matter, why on earth are we still prepending periods to hide files? Or hiding /usr and /tmp at the application level rather than having a legacy emulation layer and just doing it right? Aliases don't work at the "unix level," and symbolic links work everywhere, but we're once again back to things that break when you move the target... This is the freakin 21st century here.

It may appear to work, and it may crash less than OS9, but from a design point of view, OSX is an anathema. This article just makes it clearer: OSX is, not a port of MacOS or an enhancement of Unix, but a bloody (and fatal?) collision between the two, where both lost what clarity and integrity they had by attrition to the other. A great opportunity to do a new system right was squandered by what appears to be terrifyingly sloppy-looking engineering.

Re:What in the hell are you talking about?

[khuber]

It's ironic that Mac OS X shutdown is basically like pulling the plug out of the wall on the Unix side.

Apple was an early user of soft shutdown and case buttons that interacted with the OS. Windows 3.11 and earlier didn't have software shutdown. You know, because Windows is just a DOS application anyway ;).

-Kevin

Transition?

[g4dget]

I think use of the word "transition" illustrates the pipe dream that Apple has: UNIX users will leave UNIX in droves to commit to using Mac OS X.

I don't think that's going to happen, and I think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot with that assumption. UNIX users like open systems: that come from multiple vendors and have open specifications. If they didn't, they would have moved to Windows long ago.

Sure, there are some UNIX users that really go for the OS X pretty look and are happy with a BSD-like system call interface and a C compiler. But I think for the most part, OS X enjoys popularity among UNIX users only to the degree that it is UNIX compatible. If Apple wants to be in the UNIX market in the long term, rather than just receive a brief shot in the arm from a few UNIX converts, they need to make a long-term commitment to interoperating more with UNIX systems, and they need to give up dreams of "transitioning" UNIX users to Mac OS X.

developer woes

[gol64738]

our entire development department and company backend is 100 percent linux (mostly RedHat). we just hired a new developer whose laptop is running OSX.
since he was going to be a remote user, he attempted to get his laptop up to speed with the necessary compilers, python modules and other development pieces.
after two days, he gave up in frustration, went to the nearest CompUSA, bought a new laptop and installed RedHat 8.0.

now, he is a happy, development camper.

now, i don't know much about OSX. so my question is, can OSX easily be used as a competent developer platform?

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[lemkebeth]

From The Apple Store the base price of the low end tower model (the one you used) is $1,699.00

That includes the following:

Power Mac G4 Dual 867MHz w/133MHz system bus

• 256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• 60GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
• Optical 2 - None
• NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual-display w/32MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English

That is the base model.

I would buy that base model with AppleCare added on (about $269) and get any extra drives or memory separately from a third party vender.

The price is reasonable if you don't buy Apple RAM or hard drives other than one size bigger than the base.

Re:Wow, slashdot hyping Mac OSX? What a shock.

[lemkebeth]

One correction.

The iBook is one of the few products Apple makes that costs LESS than comparable Windows laptops (the others generally will cost about the same or more, probably more).

I say comparable because any Windows laptop costing less than the iBook is last years model.

The reason this happens is that unlike desktops, you can't get away with commodifing the innards as you have to design custom parts for a lot of the pieces to fit inside that small case.

In other words laptops are tightly integrated.

Re:I hate to state the obvious but....

[rixstep]

Uh - what's wrong with enthusiasm? Last I heard, CmdrTaco and Hemos were both using OS X on PowerBooks, and Taco called OS X 'the missing piece of the puzzle'. Where's the conflict? Seems to me someone is flamebaiting, fearful that the unrevered RMS might find himself in a jam. And as for paying for stuff that works - isn't that exactly what Linus himself told RMS not too long ago?

People speaking highly of OS X usability are not fanatics or Linux Puritans - they just want to get the job done on quality hardware, and nothing does it like OS X on a Mac. End of story.

The Rixster

Re:I just can't understand what they were thinking

[Featureless]

Of course I've "*used*" it. I've spent quality time with people who are programming against it, and I've read much of the developer literature. I see a lot of ambivalence about OSX. I don't think the OS9 cruft is eliminated; I believe that it's all still there, both in the Classic emulation layer and in the APIs which (in earlier drafts I read were simple, beautiful, and well-organized, very Java-like) Adobe forced Apple to cruft up to make native ports of their software easier... and then took their sweet time with those native ports to boot.

You said: "without a lot of the cruft that other Unix systems have accumulated," but I have no idea what you mean. What unix cruft is gone? Are you talking about X11 being replaced by Aqua? From my point of view, all the bad things about Unix are still there, and worse, new unix-esque crap has been piled on top of it, often conflicting, and badly, to add to the confusion that Unix already is.

I think the ditto issue is emblematic of the entire conflict between unix and OS9; they've met, and they've been joined by a confusing and unfortunate kludge which everyone who uses the system is guaranteed to run afoul of. Copying files is about the most basic and fundamental activity you get into in an OS - that's not a little detail you overlook. Why not just modify cp to copy metadata if it exists, or make cp a link to ditto? Or the passwd file being superceded (at least in "some cases," I'm sure) by another database... My rule on this stuff is that if you're going to fsck with the password file, you'll break a lot of old code, but once you do replace it, you take the old piece out... the only thing worse than broken old code is broken old code that thinks its working.

There are more complaints I didn't even get into. The incredible performance hit of scattering metadata of various kinds in what seems like dozens of flat files, so that the UI chains up thousands of seeks all over the disk, parsing XML and doing lots of complicated crap just to show you the contents of a folder or the properties of an application... And then apparently tying everything up in the layout loop... Have you tried resizing windows? It's tragic. And then there's the fact that Apple seems to have abandoned the superior use of metadata it once had; I see gnr9ng.xyz files scattered everywhere, not legacy stuff but new stuff created by Apple, as if it's a DOS box... IOW, turning their back on one of the earliest and best ideas in the Mac: type and creator information, instead of goofy abbreviations and naming conventions that are super-easy for the user to run afoul of.

My big complaint with them is rather than boxing up traditional unix organization and features (which have no place on a desktop Mac, IMO), they made MacOS into a Unix clone, and an annoying one, because there's a bunch of important differences and gotchas and thus hassles actually porting and running unix software, since they did change quite a bit, even if they didn't fix it... meanwhile hiding /usr at the application level means that the user is guaranteed to see it at some point and be confused... I don't understand why they didn't approach unix more like they approached classic. With some containment. Seems like that would have been simpler, more much compatible, easier to use...

you're full of it

[Ender Ryan]

OS X is darwin running on top of a mach micro-kernel. Darwin is derived from BSD, which is _not_ Unix. BSD doesn't even contain any original Unix code, and it is not a certified Unix, the two things which can arguably make something a Unix.

OS X is a certified Unix, but to most people, that is absolutely meaningless.

Now where being a Unix(-like), Linux has it where it counts(and so does *BSD). GNU/Linux & BSD work and behave like you'd expect a Unix OS to, from the gui(X) down to the command-line.

So, while OS X is a certified Unix and Linux/BSD are not, Linux/BSD meet peoples' expectations of how a Unix OS should work much more than OS X.

On the other hand, I'm not saying that OS X shouldn't do things it's own way, in fact in many areas they've done a good job of making things better for most(ie. desktop users) users while at the same time keeping the system more robust that OS9 or Windows and comparable to more traditional Unix(-like) systems.

OS X Unix

[XxtraLarGe]

I work for an IT dept. for a Comm Arts. college at a major university. We have both Macs & PC's, and they are about equal in numbers, maybe slightly more Macs. The university offers classes from time to time, and my boss went to an intro Unix class so he could learn some new tricks for OS X, which we just installed in our labs over the summer. At the end of the class, the instructor asked if there were any other classes they thought the university should be teaching. My boss told him "yeah, you should teach an OS X oriented unix class". He then found out that 5 of the 12 people in the classroom were there because they were already running OS X, and another 4 were there because their dept. (I think it was one of the Biology depts.) were switching over to OS X because a lot of the old Unix apps were being ported over to OS X. So 9 out of 12 were there for OS X. I wonder if this is a trend at the university level?