Slashdot Mirror
An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?"
XCube writes: "'What is Mac OS X?' is a fascinating article over at KernelThread.com. According to Amit Singh it's a hacker-over-friendly answer to that question and a low-level taste of Apple's OS. The extensive article covers many details on Mac OS X: history, Mac firmware & boot loader, system architecture, kernel, startup, file systems, app environments, programming facilities, available software, and more. A great read if you are interested in Mac OS X, though some stuff is too technical methinks. On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in Mac OS X! The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."
I'm sorry but - there's no reason to run OS X - FreeBSD 4.x already offers everything it has for free, and FreeBSD -current far surpasses it.
One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.
If you've been under a rock and haven't read much about OS X, still view Linux as a strong desktop OS, but hate having to fight to get the latest software, hardware, or other common computer accessories working without a call to your other Linux buddies, you should get a kick out of this article.
While the author disavows the article to a degree, it may be of great use to Linux and other UNIX users who haven't a clue of the true nature of OS X beneath its GUI interface. From the kernel, to a typical Mac's boot firmware, to its BSD origins, this is probably one of the better free web-accessible summaries that Linux geeks could appreciate.
OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.
Will OS X work for you best? YMMV.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.
I agree that Gimp 1.x has a GUI designed by a masochist. Check out version 2 though -- much better IMHO.
Nevertheless, more commercial apps and a gorgeous desktop that is truly ready for grandma and grandpa, with BSD, X11, and GCC for junior. Other than being completely "free as in freedom," and games, what else could you want?
I hate X-Windows, crappy widgets and horrible fonts. As much as people criticize OS-X for being an "expensive" FreeBSD the display engine is light years ahead, its better than anything currently being used on Linux or FreeBSD.
Even NeXtstep and OPENSTEP's use of Display Postscript was excellent on low powered Intel based hardware.
How much "hacking the code" have you done on Linux? Be honest. Have you ever needed to significantly modify your operating system's source code? Do you even know how?
Are you just bitching because it isn't Free for the sake of bitching?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
i must admit that i admire apple's os x platform. for example one *can* use the command line as much as one likes but one doesnt't *have* to. i can't say that i love editing my xf86config for example. tho os x is far from perfect (it *is* after all proprietary) but it seems like an evolution of linux in ways of usability. i think however that the major OSS desktop environments aren't that far away from obtaining equally powerfull yet userfriendly operation (having only working knowledge of the gentoo distro) it's been a while since i used os x (10.1 in fact) and i must admit i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!) sometimes i've wished linux was a bit more 'it just works' although i know huge progess is being made in that field every day (ie getting alsa to work has been a major pita for me) i for one just think os x gives the user still a much smoother computer experience than linux can at the moment. i consider it to be a best of both worlds - operation system. only, personally, i think os x could do with decent skinning features as simple far from everybody likes apple's aqua interface. way to go apple
An attractive, usable, and stable GUI counts for something. FreeBSD (which I run and love) can't provide that.
Also, the iLife suite is fuckin awesome. Nothing on windows or *nix comes even close to it as far as quality and integration are concerned.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I loved some of the concepts behind linux, but I think Linux's greatest advantage is also it's greatest weakness. The fact that there is no central governing body for most projects means that you get lots of fragmentation (X11: freedesktop.org, fresco, XFree; Distros: Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) which makes it very difficult to stick to one standard. Thankfully, over time some projects fork (gcc) and wind up becoming the project that takes over. It's this fragmentation that helps linux adapt so rapidly. However because of all this, developers can't code for one toolkit api, one kernel api, etc. Mac OS X, to linux users, is like linux controlled by ONE group who says yes or no to all issues so that the complex fragmented software base can concentrate on one goal: a good consistent end user experience. I honestly would say Mac OS X couldn't exist without Linux or BSD because it wouldn't be where it was today without the OSS community. People complain that OS X is too proprietary, but i believe it is the perfect mix. On one hand you have OSS software. On the other hand you have commercial software. It's truely the best of both worlds! Isn't this what many linux users want? Linux grandma can use? Companies to write native software? Games? Gaim and KMail side by side with safari and photoshop? You don't have to wait if that's what you want. Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform. Am i saying Gnome and KDE should die off and we should all just use mac os x? of course not. But i am saying if you want a usable unix desktop now, not later, you don't have to look much further.
- tristan
I think what he is saying is:
I want someone else to be able to hack my operating system's source code. I don't want that someone to be limited to an employee for one particular company.
Why not just build the GNU tools, Apache, and postfix on an OS X machine?
Exactly right.
So, tell me again *why* Apple would want to push their elegant and easy to use OS to the jerry-rigged x86 PC platform. To cope with all the problems that prevent innovation within Linux OS development community with a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft?
I think not.
---anactofgod---
---anactofgod---
"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
So Apple only sells LCD monitors, and fancy looking wireless routers which are pricey. Big deal! Macs will work with any wireless router, and any VGA or DVI monitor, IDE hard drives (now some S-ATA), USB mice, etc. etc. They are selling high-end branded hardware. You pay for the name / bragging rights. All kinds of "high end" companies do this.
Look at BMW. They also have a strong brand as being high end. Try buying "official" BMW floormats. What's that you say? $150 for a pair of floormats? You can just as easily buy non-BMW matts at a local hardware store for about $10. They will certainly keep the dirt of the floor just as well.
Anyhow, perhaps I've borrowed too much from the car analogy, but you get the point. Apple is marketing themselves as a high end computer dealer. I won't even get into all the great included software that comes with their machines. Oh, and by the way, you can get an all-in-one eMac for about $999. Doesn't sound too outrageously priced to me.
And this is opposed to Windows users that rely "heavily on Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator, Go live, et al) and Microsoft (Office, Outlook, Messenger, Media player, el al)"? I think you over-estimate the diversity of applications on any platform. Most people don't go much further than the software that is already installed on their system for most uses (games being the biggest exception).
Of the applications currently running on my doc I have 3 from OmniGroup (Web, Outliner, and Graffle), 4 Apple apps (the Finder, Mail.app, Terminal.app, and TextEdit), and 4 other applications from other companies (a tn5250 emulator, Comcastic, Chicken of the VNC, and NetNewsWire Lite).
And I think you need to do some research before saying "profound cost of owning an Apple". Make sure you know what you are talking about before you say that again.
"So, OS X is useless, unless you need Photoshop."
There's actually some truth to that. Macs are great for artists in both the 2D and 3D space. Since OSX is built on top of BSD, it gives studios a platform to really build upon. (Sorry Microsoft.) The interface is far more friendly to those who are more right brained and visually oriented. On top of all that, it just works, no real tinkering to do.
"No wonder Apple ony has like 3% of the market. "
Art is what the Mac excels at. Can't really go wrong there. Sadly, it isn't what the general computing populace is doing. People buy their machines based on their potential, not so much for what they do out of the box. As a result, Apple is in a bit of a tight spot. It's hard to buy a Mac when you go to a store and find but the slighest trace of its existence. Being left out sucks. That leaves you making the decision to go with it in order to solve a very specific problem.
So yes, the statement does have some truth to it.
"Derp de derp."
I apologize, I just have to ditto the above.
With regard to Half-Life, it is THE only game that I have envied PC users for. The only one. I use my Mac for gaming and have otherwise been very well fed, thank you very much. Your points are dead on, and it's something that most don't realize. To add, you can't even purchase a Mac without an exceptional graphics card built in. My wife uses it for her design work, I use it for gaming. Frag on.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
"ree Software Camp: But Photoshop isn't Free. so "bzzt" to you too."
Sadly, I see this argument all too often. Price isn't everything, folks. If I save $600 by using Gimp instead of Photoshop, but the result isn't good enough to get paid for the project, then Gimp effectively isn't free.
I'm happy to spend the money, especially when it makes the task of making more money a lot easier. GIMP has a long ways to go before it actually saves a lot of us artists money.
"Derp de derp."
Personally, I got tired of having to re-locate the the set of arcana I needed to get my USB and DVD stuff working again on my Linux box after each kernel update. When the time came for a new machine, I bought a Powerbook.
I still have my Linux servers, but for daily use, my Mac is a dream.
Clear, Dark Skies
So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.
Well, two problems with that statement.
One, there are still a lot of A-list games that never make it to the Mac. Battlefield 1942 and Serious Sam are two of my favorites.
Two, by the time the Mac port comes out, the PC version is usually in the bargain bin, so Mac players are paying $50 for what PC users are now paying $20 for. And if you're like me, I never buy a new release when I know it's going to be half price in 6 months.
I've been a Mac user since 1984, so believe me, I know the Mac gamer's anguish... hope, pray, sign petitions, send emails, etc. Things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY better in the past few years... I mean, LucasArts actually released Jedi Knight II for Mac! Wonders never cease. But the situation is a far cry from being "satisfactory".
if your buying a computer based on how many buttons its OEM mouse has, you have some major issues.
There is one really, really big issue. Apple is famous for their laptops. Apple's desktops are not (IMHO) particularly exceptional or cost-competitive, but their laptops have traditionally been near-PC price and well-built. Most people I know that want Apple hardware want a laptop.
However, if you purchase an Apple laptop, you cannot simple snap in a new trackpad. You are stuck with a single button. Yes, you can can purchase an external mouse, but then you're stuck using an external mouse with your laptop. This is a pain in the ass, and something that you can avoid on non-Apple laptops -- you can get nice three-button laptops elsewhere.
This is not something that Apple is unaware of or incapable of fixing. However, they have made a conscious (and much-protested) decision to not natively support multiple buttons in their hardware, even as an option. While I can respect their reasons for doing so, it does make their hardware much less appealing. The reason people get so bent out of shape about this is partly because Apple *insists* on forcing you to use their hardware to use their software, and *insists* on not providing an option for more buttons for the (many) folks that are unhappy with their default setup.
If this is not a problem for your uses, that's fine. For me, it would be a major issue -- having to find a flat surface and carry along a big clunky external device to use the thing *is* an issue. Please do not call this "nitpicking" -- it is an entirely justified criticism that Apple has chosen not to address.
May we never see th
Almost everyone with a clue agrees OS X is pretty good. It's the damn hardware costs.
Apple does not "get it" WRT open source in anywhere near the same way that Red Hat and friends do.
Apple "gets it" much better than Red Hat and friends do. Apple "gets" that open source needs to be part of a profitable business plan if you are going to run a company based on it. Why do you think Red Hat is no longer maintaining a user distribution? Because you can't make any money by giving things away. You have to charge for something. Apple knows that they will only be able to charge for hardware if part of their software (the GUI parts and the iApps, etc.) is closed source. Otherwise, people would just download the source, compile it for x86, and Apple's hardware sales would go in the toilet.
I generally agree. The speed that the Mac ports are handled do vary, but I tend that see that, while the PC version that arrived is already marked down, the game is usually not in the bargain bin yet, nowandays.
Yes, Battlefield 1942 is a good example of a great game not yet ported to Mac OS...but it might not be because of a lack of trying. There are still a few games out there that might be resisting a port due to a technical snafu, if not from good lawyers to negotiate the licensing of the port for Mac OS. Any PC game that heavily leverages the DirectPlay and DirectX tools from Microsoft could render a Mac port hard to do.
Another point you somewhat hit...while the PC version of the games do drop in price, the Mac versions of the games tend to stay at full price much, much longer, or hell, never even drop in price. What's up with that?
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Or MatLab, octave, Mathematica(?) various GIS software &c. without an overly painful porting process. Or, even better, I can run all that stuff on some nice, hearty Unix box elsewhere on campus while viewing the perty graphical output on my Powerbook sitting on the grass on the quad over a wireless network. Remote display is still the truly killer portion of X11 IMO. And no, I don't think that exporting a whole desktop compares. I want to view windows from multiple machines simultaneously sometimes.
because being able to view and modify the source code when I should be creating the products that I'm supposed ot be paid to create is going to put food on my table.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
As others said you can optimize individual areas in C++. Also you are now discussing core components which seem a different issue to the person using frameworks. They don't care how the framework is written. Certainly even obj-C advocates don't think it the solution to everything. Other languages have their place.
I wonder though, why you criticize obj-C when even Microsoft is moving to a more runtime oriented system with .NET. It seems obj-C's main competitors are C#/VB.net and Java.
Basic laws of economics. Macs have less games, therefor there is less competition in that market place. Say an "A List" PC game comes out, and hits the top of the charts. Six months later, that A List game is competing with 15 newer A List games. Because newer is almost always better in the eyes of the consumer, the older game drops in price to remain competitive. Now, on your mac an "A List" game comes out. Six months later it's only competing with 1 or 2 other A List games. No real competition, so no price drop. Also, as a mac gamer you have already proven that you don't need the latest and greatest (or you would have a PC), so the new-better mantra is not as relevant.
Hmmm ... so where does all the "slashdotting" come from? Who are all those non-slashdot readers who are bringing down sites by following links on slashdot?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The configurability is a Mac vs. Linux philosophy thing. Don't tout it, you'll start a flamewar. Suffice to say, Apple has decided that for UI, One Consistent Way is better than a huge amount of configurability.
You need CocoaGestures to get system wide gestures. The hotkeys support is already there.
The system-wide password manager? Prithee, sir, what then would we call KeyChain?
System wide spellchecking is part and parcel of the very good Apple text widgets. You use their widgets, you get it for free. You can configure it specially, or you can let all the code in NSApp just do it for you (usually what you want).
Apple doesn't do things like auto-completion in a generic fashion (although you never see it mentioned, they do provide a completion service, and other people have cheerfully extended this functionality with supplemental abilities.) because they haven't decided on their One Consistent Way to do it. Until then, we have a plethora of software, free and commercial, that does most anything we want. The OS X software community is very happy correcting any perceived flaws or blank spots a dozen different ways.
UI is a very subjective matter, so Apple (that makes money off of their good, consistent user experience) takes the middle road in most everything. It's smarter for them that way, since it's so incredibly easy to extend their input mechanisms.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Four problems for Apple:
1) Even if Macs are better than PC's for certain things they are not so much better that people are willing to buy a new and more expensive computer and learn a new operating system for it.
2) In order for people to see if a Mac is better they have to use one and be able to compare vs a PC. Most people don't have the opportunity or the desire to do this.
3) Nobody is buying new computers lately. Unless Doom 3 is in your future there is no reason to even go above 1 Ghz at this point. I know dozens of people who are happy at 450 or less.
4) Finally and most importantly - Windows has come a long way from 95. If Microsoft ever gets its act together on security then it will be lights out for Apple because they already are there on stability, usability, and compatibility. Of course, Microsoft getting their act together with security is a very big if.
And as far as I have read, there is no way to know if what you run as Mac OS X was even built from the published Darwin sources. ...except for compiling the sources yourself and comparing the size and content of the binaries. But that would require actually knowing what the hell you're talking about, which you do not.
/Applications/iTunes.app, then find a more useful way to spend your free time than trolling on slashdot.
I noticed the author didn't mention Apple's closed source DRM system, for instance. It doesn't exist in his model of Mac OS X.
Apple's "closed source DRM system" is a function of (and only of) iTunes.app. It's an application. It has nothing to do with the functionality of the core OS.
If you don't like it, rm -rf
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
The question is not whether you can buy a better Mac or PC at any particular price. The question was whether the Mac is priced beyond the reach of the middle class.
But, just for fun, let's take a look at the $800 Dell, which is the Dimension 4600. It comes with a 2.66 GHz Pentium 4, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB hard drive, CD-RW, 17" CRT, integrated sound and graphics, ethernet, modem, speakers, Windows XP Home, WordPerfect, Money, Dell Jukebox, Dell Picture Studio, Photo Album Starter Edition, and RealOne player. Oh, and 6 months of AOL.
The $800 eMac, thanks to aging G4 technology, probably lags in CPU and has only 128 MB RAM. However, it has the same hard drive, CRT, modem, ethernet, and built-in speakers. It also comes with a combo drive, a 32 MB ATI Radeon 7500, and two FireWire ports that the Dell doesn't have. More importantly, it comes with MacOS X, which is almost certainly superior to XP Home, the well-integrated iApps (that are probably superior to Dell's bundle). It also bundles Quicken 2004 Deluxe, World Book 2003, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4, and some others.
In other words, it is clearly inferior if you only dwell on the CPU and memory. The entire $800 package has other important attractions that make it competitive to the cheap Dell box for those who would use them. That's not even the end of the story. Three years from purchase, you will most likely (based on historical trends of the used Apple computer market) be able to sell the eMac at a higher price than the Dell box.
There are many ways DRM pops its ugly head up on Mac. For instance, Apple decided not to enable screen captures so that you can't grab still frames of a DVD movie. Not even even your own DVD movie shot with your own camcorder.
Once again: an application is not an OS. An OS is not an application. This has nothing to do with any all-encompassing "DRM system"; it's a function of dvdplayer.app. Yes, it's annoying. 10 seconds with google would have found you the workaround for it.
And of course, if you don't have Apple's DRM system running, you cannot play back the MP4 AAC files you purchase from the iTunes store as they are encrypted and have DRM access controls.
Which part of "so don't buy from iTMS if you don't like their terms of sale" is hard for you to grasp here?
When it comes to Darwin, Apple only released the code because Darwin is comprised of much open source code that likely has licensing requirements to maintain the openness of the code.
Again: no. The open source portions of OSX are BSD, not GPL. Apple was under no obligation beyond acknowledging that portions of the OS were copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California.
I cannot do so, that is what I already said.
That's your problem, not mine, and not Apples. RTFM on "strings" and "md5" if you want to solve that problem.
ll in all, I believe I've been accurate in my comments regarding Apple and Mac OS X.
You may believe that as much as you want, but it is not so.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.