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."
Why would someone become "tired" of linux? If someone has spent the time and is now over the difficult learning curve, what's the appeal of spending thousands of dollars on a machine dedicated to an almost completely closed OS and expensive closed Apps? Most Linux users left Windows and its expensive apps behind for a reason. Why not just run XP and Photoshop and a cheap Dell then? You people who always praise Apple always talk about how great OS X is yet you never take into account A) the rediculous hardware costs and B) being ruled under the iron thumb of Steve Jobs.
I really wish Apple had never used BSD for its underpinnings so that OS X users wouldn't constantly try to act like Apple is some great OpenSource backer or that they are now part of the opensource movement. We are worlds apart.
"Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform."
Again, it costs a Shitload and all the interesting stuff is Closed Source. Remember what I said about how most Linux users switched from Windows to escape expensive apps and Vendor Lockin? Why jump back into the frying pan with a Mac? That fact that OSX is partly based on a BSD means jack to us.
People who use and like Linux and its many appps because they are Open Source aren't interested in what your selling because its represents a step backwards in many ways. I can see wealthy Linux users who are interested in Proprietary Unix switching, I can't see many others doing the same.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Is OS-X available for non-Apple machines?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Do I really need to explain that we Linux users aren't running Green CRT's and looking at "crappy widgets and horrible fonts" all day. This isn't 1993. Get a clue Troll.
Come on Mods, think a bit.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I suppose it is your choice, but why bother getting a Mac and skipping out on MacOSX? Their hardware is crappy, Apple cares more about looking nice than lasting more than the warranty period. Once upon a time, they made stuff that worked and stayed durable, but now they make overpriced cheap flimsy plastic and offer hostile customer support when things break. The only thing I like about Apple is that OSX is truly a fantastic blend of 'Grandma usability' and BSD power. Linux can run just as well for 99.9% of users out there on x86 hardware (if you find/make a decent x86 with the same money you shell out for a Mac).
If you couldn't tell, I bought into the hype and bought an iBook a while back and have regretted it since. Spent months trying to convince support the motherboard needed replacement due to video failures, (now well documented), and they eventuall did. The power supply started shocking my lap after 3 months, it was replaced and the replacement died just after warranty was up, and I had to shell out 80 bucks to keep using the damn thing. On top of all that, the lid latch broke and the ethernet port stopped working, so now I can only use the wireless. And each time I called about stuff under Warranty, they were more interested in trying to sell me extended warranties or insisting that Apple didn't do direct hardware warranty service , or admitting they did, but my problems were obviously because I abused/dropped the laptop or something, which never occured.
Meanwhile my Thinkpad has served me well, and it was cheaper. Even a crappy Presario laptop has outlasted that crap iBook. I buy a new system usually at least annually, and Apple has me so off to their products. It is a shame because I think the Apple software developers/testers have *really* got something right in the midsts of everything else going to crap.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer."
If you're gonna to troll, try using a topic that hasn't been done to death?
Here's something a little fresher:
"I hear OSX is based on eunuchs!"
Technically, the article was a good overview of the various bits and pieces of Mac OS X.
However, the article either skipped or provided very skimpy coverage of Apple's DRM system and the defacto closed source nature of Mac OS X.
The one gigantic difference between Linux/*BSD and OS X / Windows is that Linux and *BSD are *open source* while Mac OS X and Windows are *closed source*.
While there are a few pieces of Mac OS X that are open source, much of it is not. 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.
Open source matters as without a full open source OS (and tool chain), an OS simply cannot be trusted. Much as there are many rumors of spyware in Windows (and some documented cases), the same sort of spyware is likely to be in Mac OS X as well. This is especially true given the environments in the western world, especially the USA and EU, with more and more draconian police state laws being passed every day.
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. That was good for a chuckle. It is these sorts of externally managed and controlled "rights" systems that are most likely to invade a person's privacy and violate a person's legal and natural rights. I suppose the author didn't want to upset people with stuff they shouldn't know about...
Mac OS X certainly is a full-featured corporate OS. However, it will never be considered a trusted OS until it is fully open source. Unless a person is incredibly ingenuous, he cannot have unknown black box "digital prison management" software on his closed-source OS machine and think "yes, I trust this computer".
While opinions on the matter differ, I believe the big force driving the popularity of Linux is "trust". It is far easier to trust a product that is owned by an open community -- with everything that entails -- versus a product that is owned by a vendor whose sole goal is to bleed you for as much money as possible and return as little value to you as possible.
There is little doubt in anyone's mind that both Apple and Microsoft are out to take as much of your money as possible. Microsoft is a known monopoly with monopoly pricing and Apple is just a Mini-Me version of Microsoft, complete with their own monopoly pricing in their closed market. In an industry of low margins, Apple is legendary for their extremely high profit margins and how they respond to problems with their products only if you threaten them with drastic legal action.
It is easy to understand the author's personal preference, as a wealthy American, for Mac OS X. It works well, it looks reasonably good, and it's trendy in various American subcultures, from drug subculture, to music subculture, to the social elite subculture. So why not go with the trend? It seems like modern American culture, especially their foreign policy, management ethos, and environmental policy is "rip/mix/burn".
The great truth, though, is that Mac OS X it is not a healthy choice for the world, for humanity.
I often say "people may be ignorant, but mostly they are not stupid". And so, wisely, most people in the world avoid an expensive closed source OS from one of the world's greediest and most abusive corporations.
And while Windows users are captive under the power of a monopoly, slowly more and more of them are moving away from their closed source OS to the open source world.
There are many reasons that Apple's global market share is falling every year, but one of the most important is that even when you spend all the money it takes to buy into the Apple computing world (religion?), you still do not get a trusted computer.
Meanwhile the Linux world is getting closer and closer to giving people everything they need in "good enough" form, all in an open, trustworthy, and transparent manner.
Maybe Apple can ponder this as they wonder why -- with all that "insanely great" technology --- most people are deciding they really don't need to buy an expensive yet ultimately untrustable Mac.
"OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?"
Linux is not trying to be anything. It's a "UNIX", not a backend for PlayschoolOS. (but it could be... up for a challange?) It is what it is, and it will become it's own desktop system once it reaches that level. IMO it's already there.. KDE is awesome, and only getting better every day. The beauty is that you don't have to run my choice of DE's, you could use Gnome, or whatever else, and still run the same applications.
The reason Linux keeps on getting bigger, better, marketshare and mindshare isn't because it's UNIX, or fun, or anything like that. It's because of one thing: the License.
Because of the GPL, Linux is able to be added to, developed for, tailored to, expanded, optimized, and changed in any way by anyone, to the benefit of everyone.
If OSX appeared for x86, it would still be a proprietary system and I seriously doubt that it would perform well on the market. It would be like trying to release a new version of OS/2; even if it kicked serious ass and ran all your windows applications too, the OS market has changed. It would fail if it's not GPL/equivelent.
That's my opinion anyways.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
To get back to the facts --
First, there is indeed a lot of DRM in Mac OS X. Most every Apple app that deals with content has DRM code in it. While you, as a techie, are making distinctions between the Mach kernel and other parts of "Mac OS X", most people, especially Mac users, do not make such distinctions. Most Mac users don't even know that there is another way to play a DVD other than using what came on the machine as part of "Mac OS X". BTW, did you ever notice those two letters "OS" in "Mac OS X"? Your technical view of the OS is certainly not what Apple considers the "OS".
Second, Apple themselves admit that Darwin is not the same as "Mac OS X". Unless you work at Apple on the OS, it is impossible to know what the differences are between Darwin and "Mac OS X".
Third, in terms of how much open source code Apple has included with OS X compared to how much code Apple has contributed back to the OSS community, the difference is gigantic.
There is no substantial application that Apple has contributed to the open source community. There is not even one body of code similar in size and complexity to Samba or JBoss that Apple has contributed to the open source community. Yet Apple includes both as part of "Mac OS X".
No matter how you quibble over word meanings, Apple is a net "taker" from the community. I used the word parasite because this word accurately describes how Apple works with the open source community:
"One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return."
The OSS/Linux community would be far better off without any more parasites, especially those as big and hungry and vicious as Apple.
Bravo! I appreciate that you made some progress sticking to facts this time around the platformloveberry bush :-) Maybe one day you'll be able to have a conversation with another human being without attacking him personally.
:-)
I stand corrected about saying "most" Apple apps that deal with "content" have DRM in them. I should have been more specific in my statement and said "multimedia content playback".
<I am not addressing some of what you wrote because as I have stated before, I am not going to engage in any discussion that is based on personal attacks. FYI, I did read the entire article. Move on.>
The first link you mention says the following --
"Darwin includes the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) and the GNU Project Debugger (GDB)."
At the "most", Apple created the GNU compiler backend for the PPC. Apple certainly didn't create any substantive part of the GNU Compiler Collection or the debugger. A compiler backend, especially one written to a pre-existing framework, is not similar in scope to SAMBA or JBOSS.
Secondly, you talk about Apple contributing "XNU" to the open source community. You didn't mention that the open source community had to fight Apple as Apple's original license was horribly one-sided. It is only very recently (Sept-12-2003) that Apple changed their license and had it approved by the OSI.
While the current APSL 2.0 license is going in a good direction, none of that direction is due to Apple's innate desire or inherent corporate philosophy.
This has always been the case with Apple. The company makes the least possible effort to work with their customers or partners and people have to threaten them with massive public shaming or lawsuits to get any sort of improvement out of the company.
I'm sure you recall "www.ipodsdirtysecret.com" and the current pending class action lawsuits against Apple regarding problems with the iBook. Apple is legendary for being a nasty horrible company to work with. I would think that in practice, using their source code license would be more of the same. I notice there is nobody using Apple's XNU for anything. And I wonder if Apple Legal has crushed them or silenced them in some way.
BTW, don't worry, I spent much more than 10 seconds with Google trying to find evidence of any third party using Darwin for their own projects/products and couldn't find anything. Do you have more information?
Looking at the list of "open source projects" on Apple's website, most of code was not written by Apple.
Darwin -- major parts taken from university work (Mach/BSD)
Streaming Server -- mostly Apple code???
Compiler Tools -- mostly GNU code
Kerberos -- mostly MIT code
Open Directory -- mostly outside code
OpenPlay -- ???
Printing -- mostly outside code
Rendezvous -- ???
Security -- ???
WebCore -- mostly KDE code
X11 -- mostly outside code
So far on the list above, I don't see Apple's major contributions. While it's great Apple is putting Darwin out there as open source, most of it began as open source funded by the American taxpayer in the first place.
The Free Software Foundation is mostly of the same mind on the matter:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
"...we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what it does."
What is your objection to making all of "Mac OS X" open source?
Why do you champion DRM and its invasion of personal privacy?
These were my key concerns in my first post and it would be good to stay focused. I still haven't heard any of your thoughts. You've been too busy attacking me, I think
It is very immature to respond in way which is just dumping a bunch of anger and hate on someone and then walking away.
I had some hope for you regarding personal attacks, but I see I must temper it. I can only be optimistic and think that you are not like this in other parts of your life, just when it comes to your precious Macintosh.
Just out of curiosity, do you eat a lot of beef? I see a lot of angry people eat beef frequently and it may be mad cow that makes you so angry and filled with hate.
I'll skip your hate-filled response to my original message and again ask --
(1) Do you have objections to making all of "Mac OS X" open source? If so, what are they?
(2) Is there ANY digital rights management in "Mac OS X" that is not in an application? If I delete the various programs you mentioned, will that get rid of all DRM? Can you point me to anywhere on Apple's public website where they discuss what DRM is in "Mac OS X" and what it is used for?
If you don't answer, that's okay. You seem like a person who is more interested in cathartic release of repressed rage than addressing the key issues I have put on the table.