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."

Comments

Re:OS X 10?

[goober]

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.

Hey, Wait a second

[jetkust]

On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in OS X!

But if I wasn't interested, then why would I be reading it?

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[KillerHamster]

And even if you were interested, you probably still wouldn't read the article. This is Slashdot, after all.

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[phre4k]

isn't being pissed-off a part of the zealot definition?

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[BorgCopyeditor]

You know what else pisses people off?

Sticking pins in them! Some people say it's wrong, but that's what makes it fun!!!

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[jc42]

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?

Carbon's roots are older

[saddino]

Carbon. This is a set of procedural C-based APIs for Mac OS X that are based on the old Mac OS 9 API (actually dating back as far back as Mac OS 8.1)

To nitpick: actually, a lot of the Carbon APIs go as far back as System 1.0 -- most of QuickDraw for example.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[frankie]

The article is conflating two different things - either an accidental mis-edit or an intentional oversimplification.

Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[gwernol]

Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

Actually (if you care about all the historical details of Mac OS X's evolution) Carbon was originally based on the QuickTime library, which in turn was based on the classic Mac APIs. I was an engineer on the QuickTime team during the early Rhapsody days up through Mac OS X beta.

When Rhapsody (basically the NextStep OS) was being developed it quickly became obvious we needed to support classic Macintosh applications. QuickTime had already been ported to an early Rhapsody version, and it just so happened QuickTime already carried around an API that contained about 70% of the Mac OS functionality. This is how QuickTime runs on Windows and why porting Carbon/classic Mac apps to Windows is (relatively) painless if you know to call the QTW libraries. So Apple effectively had the start of Carbon on NextStep as a result of the QuickTime port. Rhapsody became Mac OS X, the QuickTime library support was spun out to its own team and became Carbon.

None of which really disagrees with your post, just a little more detail on the exact process.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

Holy Crap, you people are geeks !


Oh, sorry, forgot where I was for a minute there...

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[gwernol]

So if most of the Classic Mac's functionality is based on Carbon, which is based on QuickTime, and QuickTime has been ported to Windows...

aaaannnd, most of the NextStep functionality was available to x86 early on, with the YellowBox environment as well as seen in Rhapsody and WebObjects...

aaaaannnd Darwin, the OSX xnu kernel and personalities on Mach run on x86...

We have pretty complete coverage of the state of the Mac on x86. Interesting. I suspect with QuickTime installed, the hardest thing about iTunes on Windows was getting the GUI right. Which really is hard.

Yes, this is indeed the case. However...

First you're missing some important components, for example the Quartz rendering layer and the Aqua UI components. Neither of these are at all trivial.

Second, even ignorning Quartz and Aqua, you now have a set of about 70% of the components you need to build a Mac OS X-like operating system on Intel. As they say, the first 70% of the work takes 90% of the time, the other 30% of the work takes the other 90% of the time. It gives you a head-start, sure but you still have an immense effort ahead of you.

Apple spent (very, very approximately) a team of 1,000 engineers for 3 years to get to Mac OS X 10.0, from about the starting point you describe. That's 3,000 engineer-years of effort to find. Panther is another 3,000 engineer-years beyond that. It could be done, but its not trivial.

That said, when I was at Apple we did builds of Mac OS X (the entire stack) for PowerPC and Intel. From colleagues still at Infinite Loop I understand they still do every build for both platforms. I don't believe that it is technical barriers that are stopping Mac OS X for Intel...

The core is already...

[SuperKendall]

Darwin has been released under the GPL. It's only the higher layers (like Aqua) that are closed.

Re:The core is already...

[scrod]

Really? The GPL you say? Sorry, but no. Parts of Darwin are GPL'd, but Apple's own code is released under the Apple Public Source License.

Re:OS X 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what you mean...

Yesterday I was having a great time editing my masterpiece "When Trolls attack" on Final Cut Pro, especially after I finally was done tweaking the shots in Photoshop and After Effects.

Later I enjoyed solving another level of Halo while listening to my iTunes collection.

Thank God for FreeBSD 4! I didn't have to pay for none of this stiffling proprietary OS X crap! :P~~~~

Joe Anoymous.

Re:OS X 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these good or wack comments about? Are they good or are they wack?

The question

[CelticWhisper]

It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...

"What is Mac OS X?"

Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.

Re:The question

[NaugaHunter]

I took a bit out of a rainbow-colored apple and ended up in a wormhole to my life in the 70's...

What is Mac OS X?

[mac os ken]

Mac OS X is:

stable

easy to use

gorgeous

well rounded

interesting Kind of sounds like the perfect boyfriend/girlfriend. But remember, we're talking about software here... :P

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[CelticWhisper]

So then it's Software vs. Softwear?

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[NanoGator]

" vs. Softwear? "

Whoah.. I can sort by cup size. Man I'm glad I'm telecommuting today.

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[shunnicutt]

Mac OS X is:

stable

asy to use

gorgeous

well rounded

You forgot "lickable"

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[burns210]

You forgot "lickable"

just like the perfect girlfriend! :)

Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

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.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[happyfrogcow]

I'm sorry, I'm not using Linux because it's a strong desktop (it's good enough for me, i'd call it adequate). I don't fight to get the latest software, I use what works and don't need to have the hottest, newest bits running through my processor. Most security updates are irellevant as I have hardly any services running, but I update the ones I need. If I had accesories, i'd make sure they worked with Linux before buying them, or were from a company who has a history of devulging enough specs for people to write device drivers themselves.

I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets. They force too much upon me. It's my hardware, not theirs. I use Linux because it is Free. I use OSX at work and MS-Windows at work because I have to. What management decides is out of my control.

"...without a call to your other Linux buddies..."

Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

Makes sense to me, all you've said. Apologies if I sound like I am pigeonholing the typical Linux user.

But OS X is much like any other BSD. Don't want to pay Roxio for a burn app? Just use the exact same CD burn tools you're using now. Same is true for Apache and many, many other tools that are built in OS X as they are in Linux and BSD. Else, compile the darn things.

Just note that not everyone (not even here on /.) are whizzes that can build anything they need or tinker for hours. How much do you consider your time is worth? Some of us just want to buy something, use it, and take the remaining time in the date to do something else, like, hell--I don't know--date or something.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[MalleusEBHC]

I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets. They force too much upon me. It's my hardware, not theirs. I use Linux because it is Free. I use OSX at work and MS-Windows at work because I have to. What management decides is out of my control.

Unless you are a GNU/Zealot, I can't see what problem you would have with Apple's licenses. They are about the minimal license for a piece of proprietary software: can't redistribute, they own it, etc. If this is "cramming it down my throat," I can't imagine what MS is. I'm also confused as to what you mean by "It's my hardware, not theirs." I've installed OpenBSD and Linux on a Mac before with no problems (that is, except for the exceptionally painful install process).

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[gamgee5273]

I started using OS X with the Public Beta - in September 1999. And, yes, it was on my production machine. Thus, OS X has been with us for 4 years and 4 months, not 3 years.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[NanoGator]

"Is OS-X available for non-Apple machines? "

A lot of us running Windows wish it was.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[rampant mac]

"Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it."

Half the frustration of Linux is the community built around it, also.

That goes for every operating system. Use what makes YOU more productive. I could care less about free/open source/closed source. I prefer to use an OS that makes me more productive, with the least amount of hassle. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't either.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Brandybuck]

And this was the way some proprietary software was going for a while. In the beginning, it was unclear how copyright applied to software, so the proprietarists came up with licensing instead. Like humans coming down out of the trees, this is generally been regarded as a bad move. But once it became clear that copyright applied to software, some proprietarists thought it silly to saddle their users with contracts, or to spend years in court arguing that "read-to-agree" schemes constituted contractual assent. They didn't want to control their users, they just wanted to make sure their software wasn't redistributed. Standard copyright law (plus an attached disclaimer of warranty) was all they needed.

I think Borland was the first major software vendor to use a copyright-based proprietary license (the famous "book" license). Some other companies followed suit, Apple included. Unfortunately, the old unilateral-contract-based schemes required hordes of lawyers, and lawyers love nothing better than to control other people.

Apple's proprietary software is still proprietary. But it's in a completely different class then Microsoft software. Nothing is being crammed down anyone's throat. While I still prefer Free Software, I have no problems buying and using proprietary software if the license terms are based on copyright rather than on some lawyer's delusion of how the world should work.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

I'm sure you know of Darwin, which is the OS X OS core that runs on x86, so I won't discuss a Mac OS X port, per se. It will never happen, having a complete OS X version for x86, since Apple leverages its OS to sell its hardware, not software. Best example: the iTunes Music Store is built not to make money, but sell iPods.

Again, when it comes to buying a basic PC box, assembling it yourself and installing an OS, or buying a Mac box, you get what you pay for. There is a very good reason why Porsche doesn't offer a "build-it-yourself" option for their cars, and Apple feels the same way. Why are Macs a tad more expensive on average? Because they don't use the low-cost crappy commedity parts, and because they add the hardware they know many PC users may skip buying today but will eventually buy later (FireWire, a better video card, and other niceties). The only thing really unique in any Mac today is its chassis, motherboard and processor. The rest is the same stuff you find in any other PC.

The various UNIXes and clones out there all have their joys and laments, but none have hit the overall consistency, useability, and business software availability (Microsoft Office) than OS X--yet. You may be right--but not right now.

I understand truly about the joys of geekhood as well, and I don't think I should lose a point from my Geek License for suggesting that tinkering is a sin. In fact, unlike the original Mac OS (which was mostly closed up), I have gained far more repair and software options with the advent of OS X, since the UNIX side allows me to truly get under the hood of the damn thing in the few instances where it gets cranky or if I need to compile some app that's not included with OS X (like any other UNIX).

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[drinkypoo]

I agree that open firmware is a thing of beauty. However we should eventually attain the same level of convenience with LinuxBIOS. (The problem right now is diminutive EEPROM/FLASH bios.) However on PCs you no longer have to worry about IRQs, DMA conflicts, or IO ranges, as long as you're not using legacy hardware. These days, some machines even have no ISA bus whatsoever - Even the legacy PS/2 keyboard and mouse are on PCI. Macs still have to deal with interrupts and such, they just don't bother you with it, and neither do modern PCs. I haven't had to deal with IRQs and shit since the last time I installed a non-pnp ISA card. Which was a long, LONG time ago.

Mac hardware hasn't been special since PCs went to the PCI bus and apple hardware stopped having the drivers in rom on the card. NuBus was a paragon of autoconfiguration equalled by no one but the Amiga. But now that drivers are in the software and not adapter ROM, that advantage is nonexistent.

It's also worth pointing out that until the G5, apple hardware has had poor bus architecture and slow memory buses. So while the designs are supposedly clean (I have a yosemite so I know that is a lie; I am also familiar with the IIfx, which didn't even follow Apple's standards, let alone anyone else's, and even needed a nonstandard SCSI terminator) they have usually been dated. The G5 is an exception; it sure would be nice if OSX were 64 bit though. Apple finally has the superbadass hardware, and their OS doesn't even take full advantage of it. By the time they have a 64 bit OSX, AMD's hammer chips will have come down further in price, and XP-64 will be running on them, and they'll squander their "lead" once more.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

1) KDE, while less polished than Aqua, is much more powerful.

Howso? I'm working with KDE in my current job, and I've yet to find anything that KDE can do that Aqua can't seem to. I suppose this depends on your definition of "power" too. GTK+ is very "powerful" as I'd define it, but a triply nested button inside other buttons doesn't seem like power I really need.

In general, I think Apple's rapid development tools and APIs in the Cocoa environment (along with the language used) knock the socks off just about anything else I've worked with for overall usability (both from a user and developer's standpoint).

Especially in the area of rapid development, few environments can even begin to work as well, or produce such clean and maintainable results, as Apple's tools for this job.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[calyphus]

Actually, the author didn't get OS X until April 2003. So, more like 9 Months.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

A few things about this:

1. Apple has a unified hotkey system. In panther, all the system-wide hotkeys are rebindable. Applications override this, and they can (and do) offer to change the keybindings. There are also tools to change keybindings arbitrarily, and even on regexs of the menu items. :)
2. Apple's text widgets are configurable in the extreme. This can be accomplished both at the application level, or at a global level. Developers can override this functionality in the individual application case. You might notice that OS X text widgets respond to many C-(something) keys (C-a to go to the beginning of a line, etc...). This is because of a global config file which individual users and appliations can override to taste. It's quite possible to make the text widgets perform in almost any manner possible (although it's unlikely that you'll see Emacs or VIM behavior without an InputManager.
3. The component methodology is more pervasive in KDE because developers want it to be. Nothing restricts people in the OS X world from writing their widgets in that fashion (most do!). Few people take it to that level in OS X. Not because it's hard, but because there is seldom reason to. This is nice, I'll grant, but it's not really that much of a benefit.
4. KDE's MDI suffers from the general problems of MDI everywhere. I'd say Apple's minimalistic MDI stuff is a feature. Especially with Expose, MDI is seldom necessary. The notable examples are web-browsers. Even then, I find myself using tabs in Safari less and less. Why, when I get a better idea of what's going on with Expose?
5. KDevelop is probably more mature than XCode, which is quite new (albeit based off the venerable ProjectManager, it's a very different machine under the hood as some Apple developers have intimated to me.
6. NOTHING KDE has comes even close to the awesome power of the Developer suite that you get when you sign on with OSX. When it was designed, it was 20 years ahead of its time, and no one else has even begun to catch up.
7. As a developer, I balk at C++ frameworks. Sorry, C++ is rapidly becoming more of a nuisance than anything else.
   
   This is, of course, subjective. Since I win my daily bread as a C++ and Ruby coder, I'll leave it as obvious which language I prefer to work in.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

Firstly, we're comparing Aqua, the UI part of OS X to the UI part of KDE. Any other comparison would be unfair. Thusly, naming other features KDE has outside of the UI domain is kind of pointless.

"My window manager is better than your FTP Client!"

As for "better ripping CDs", I can't see how that could be. Burning and copying CDs is so trivial in OS X, it simply doesn't get much easier or intuitive.

OS X could use more stable network transparency, though. Apparently that's On The List along with the process of supporting the file system notification system than FreeBSD is giving them.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

Last time I used OS X (10.2.8, haven't used Panther yet) it had nothing comparable to the auto-completion capabilities of KDE's text widgets. Its probably possible for the application to do this stuff, but KDE apps get this function automaically.

Well, the auto-completion stuff is new to panther, but the configuration has always been there. It's not UI'd up, so KDE has a one-up there. However, this is part of the disjunt ideology problem. There is a great deal of comfort in knowing that any mac you come up to is going to behave in mostly the same way as every other mac.

Have you used KDE 3.2's IntelliJ-inspired IDEAL MDI mode? I didn't like MDI at all (my primary OS for a long time was BeOS, which was agressively SDI). But IDEAL mode kicks ass.

Still sucks. Until you've used Expose in SDI, you really don't know what you're missing. It's trivial to have 30+ windows open and not feel cluttered at all. Especially if you bind expose to spare mouse keys.

MDI is kinda obnoxious, save in very controlled scenarios. Generalizing it outside of these scenarios is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not familiar with [Cocoa], what's in it?

Its a whole Objective-C development environment, complete with FoundationKit, which is a bunch of stuff for core data structures, system interfaces, and whatnot. Basic stuff. Then there is the AppKit, which builds off the FoundationKit to give you one of the coolest application development suites around.

It's possible to write a full-featured text editor with about 10 lines of code. 10 readable lines of code, I might add.

So why not use the Java, Python, or Javascript bindings? C++ is a fine language for implementing the framework, especially because Qt and KDE are examples of properly-done C++ code. However, there is no reason you have to use them for your apps.

I try not to write GUIs at all. I try to use visual feedback tools to develop them, then let the tool generate an intermediate form I can use. I grew fond of this approach using Apple's dev stuff.

It's kind of a pain to use KDE's tools for this. They aren't very good, it doesn't tie together very well. All in all, it feels like a very slipshod affair. Ultimately, the framework is a C++ system, and shows the rigidity and lack of cool dynamic features that make developer's life easier in other frameworks.

KDE is a fine piece of work, and it's competitive. I just don't think it's an incredibly hot piece of software. I use it in preference to GNOME, when I use Linux environments (and I do frequently), but I haven't found all this "power" particularly compelling.

I try not to fall into the trap mentioned in the article above. Endless cycles of tweaks, configurations, and generally boring drugework to get my windowing environment "just so" when it was 90% of what I wanted to begin with. I'd rather have good development tools and a nice base language. That's my standpoint as a developer.

As an average user, KDE's options are hidden, bewildering, and seldom used. This is Microsoft all over again. Windows can do a ton of things, but it's all buried in cluttered UI, unknown and arcane dialog boxes, and odd control panel property lists.

For people who want to futz, tweak, and generally waste time... well that's great. More power to ya. If you think spending 2 days tweaking your window manager instead of just adapting to it is really that beneficial, that's cool. I've kept mostly with the stock KDE, and I haven't been wont for anything really.

I just get a lot more bang for my buck with the stock OS X config. Expose, especially, really breaks the bank. :)

Re:OS X 10?

[mfago]

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?

OS-X Quartz display blows away X-Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OS-X Quartz display blows away X-Windows

[be-fan]

Um, what crappy widgets, and what horrible fonts?

Widgets are the domain of the toolkits, and I think Qt's are quite pretty. And FreeType is a much better font-renderer than the Apple one. Apple's renderer hints too little (leading to uneven color weight on normal-res screens) and Microsoft's hints too much (very forced, distored glyph shapes). Freetype has a nice mix balance between contrast and proper glyph shapes.

uh

[SweetAndSourJesus]

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?

though i love linux

[spectre_be]

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

Re:though i love linux

[TrippTDF]

I agree with your thoughts in a lot of ways, but it's raising a questoin for me- Why the hell do people fight over their OS's so much, alwasy trying to say that theirs is the best there ever was?

I'm reminded of the Ansel Adams article a couple weeks ago. Someone pointed out that Adams used lots of different media for different things, and he would have used digital photography in instances where it suited his purpose. Why can't we all think of an OS the same way? There are things that XP does that I'm very happy with, so i use it. OS X offers me other things that I like, so I use it for certain things. Same with Linux (though I use it much less frequently)(And now I just gave all your linux-heads a reason to dismiss me; Linux is not my primary OS, so I must be stupid). Seriously, can't we all just get along?

Re:though i love linux

[GlassHeart]

i consider it to be a best of both worlds

When a company does such a good job, then the intelligent consumer would pay the company so it can improve. Apple does not survive by your applause, but by your purchasing dollars. Even your dollars spent on Microsoft Office for the Mac is partially a powerful vote for Apple.

Point is, if all we are going to do is to sit around and dish out glowing reviews, then we should not be surprised when (not if) a company we so approve of fails. Put your money where your mouth is.

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!)

GarageBand requires a G4 with DVD drive for full operations. The entry-level eMac satisfies this at $800 brand new, or under $700 refurbished. The $800 price, if you wait a few weeks, would include the $50 iLife.

Don't get me wrong. $800 is still real money, and is still more expensive than a Dell box. However, it's not $1,800, which is what an entry-level G5 would cost, and the Dell box won't have GarageBand, its big brother Soundtrack, or Final Cut Express and big brother Final Cut Pro.

Re:though i love linux

[cayenne8]

The only thing I've seen lacking with OSX, and please tell me if I'm just missing it, but, the lack of virtual desktop support? I love this feature on my Linux boxes...I have my work/play usually grouped together in each of my 4 desktops and switch between them as needed....

I think I'd really like OSX if it has this one tiny, but, to me, invaluable feature...

Re:though i love linux

[subtillus]

Don't get me wrong. $800 is still real money, and is still more expensive than a Dell box.

This is suprisingly not TOTALLY true. My last box was a dell, they also charge about 160CDN for shipping on their lower ended models. Apple didn't charge me at all for shipping.

So, The price difference is only about 100-200. I found it to be seriously worth it to go from a P4, 2.8 desktop to the new G4 ibook.

interesting article...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to explain more of the underpinnings OS X. You see, NeXTSTEP was almost the perfect operating system and development environment.

The NS environment (living on in Aqua today) is just so cool. Well-designed interfaces abound. Design patterns everywhere, created when the term "Design Pattern" had barely been explored in the computer world. For instance: most objects use delegation to extend their behavior. Not subclassing! Just compare building a GUI in Swing to Cocoa, it's like salt and sugar.

Objective-C is a wonderful semi-dynamic language, much nicer than C++.

Programming the mac is a true joy, even if all this dynamic dispatch is a little slow and hardly anybody uses macs. :-)

Re:interesting article...

[cosmo7]

I've worked for Apple and I can tell you just about all the new core stuff is being done or being converted to C or C++.

If you've worked for Apple you'd know that all the CoreFoundation classes have always been written in C/C++ and are (mostly) "toll-bridged" with their corresponding Objective-C Foundation classes.

If you are writing in Objective-C and discover a performance hit from the dynamic binding there is nothing to prevent you from using the CF classes (other than having to write C/C++) and including it in your Objective-C code.

Re:interesting article...

[WatertonMan]

"Maybe in look and feel but it performs like crap. It's too disconnected; too much stuff done at runtime; too dynamic to be used for core components."

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.

some more words

[SweetAndSourJesus]

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.

Tired of linux?

[OmniVector]

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.

Re:Tired of linux?

[OmniVector]

bogie, you have a really negative attitude towards a system i don't think you really understand much yet.

a lot of users tried to get away from windows because linux works better from a day to day basis for getting work done. just about any linux advocate with agree with you there. what most linux users won't say is how wonderfuly nice and easy to setup linux is, or so what if i takes 5 hours to compile KDE from source.

you're confusing philosophical matters with an argument that's not predominantly philosophical. for people who want to *completely* escape proprietary software, yes linux is the answer. for people, like myself, who want UNIX, want it to WORK easily, and want to spend more time getting word done than compiling/configuring/installing linux then os x might be for you.

switching to mac os x is NOTHING like windows xp. lets take a brief look:
kernel: open source under an apple license. just got OSS approved if i remember correctly.
rendevous: open standard (zeroconf) for allowing instant networking
xcode: based off gcc, and is completely FREE unlike visual studio .net.
preferences system: no harry registry in os x. preferences are done in xml files, and each program has it's own xml file (~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.Addressbook.plist ) for example.
open packages: i can right click on Safari, choose show package contents, and naviagte to safari's gui file. i can open up safari's gui and MOVE buttons around. i can rebind keys, i can delete menus, i can do a heck of a lot. isn't safari closed source? yep. but GUIs in os x are extremely easy to hack if you install XCode.
build in tools: os x ships with perl, ruby, python, and many standard unix tools. for what you can't get in the base system, you simply install darwinports and install it similar to ports in BSD. i can type sudo ifconfig en1 down and turn my wireless off. i can type ssh -X user@host and forward linux apps to my powerbook with apple's built in x11 server.
build off standards: os x's rendering system is based off opengl and displaypdf. it also has nfs and smb built in so i can mount shares off my linux machine.

you complain about how much more expensive macs are, but you get a hell of a lot more "built in" and free software compared to windows.

if your issues are that you don't have complete control over your environment, then stick with linux. if you are fed up with the day to day ease of use of linux, then consider ponying up the extra cash to get a machine that does all your unix goodness and everything "just works"

GIMP

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

These features Photoshop has that Gimp does not have just hasn't given anyone a sufficient itch yet.

Oh?

From the developer of FilGimp: "Film GIMP developer Caroline Dahllof, a programmer at Rhythm & Hues, "Photoshop handles more layers with big images better". Matte painting artists at Rhythm & Hues create large backgrounds with perhaps forty layers and use a lot of specialized plugins. Working on single large images is quite different from the typical Film GIMP tasks of retouching film frames to remove dust or wire rigs. To get rid of Photoshop completely would require investing a lot of developer resources."

Re:OS X 10?

[HarveyBirdman]

Open Source Camp: Gimp might not cut it right now, but it is an evolving peice of software.

Bzzzt! Nice, but I have work to do RIGHT NOW.

it's really quite simple

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OS X on x86, I wish

[skinfitz]

Maybe if they offered some sort of lite x86 version

You can get Darwin (the OS X kernel) for x86 at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

This is a single Installer CD that will boot and install Darwin on Macintosh computers supported by Mac OS X 10.3, as well as certain x86-based personal computers. The version of Darwin installed by this CD corresponds to the open source core of Mac OS X 10.3 and is available at the following URLs:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/image s/darwin-701.iso.gz
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/7.0.1/darwin-7 01.iso.gz
MD5 (darwin-701.iso.gz) = 57e9cb37e9595436596b2fa5975d5569

Re:OS X on x86, I wish

[JudgeFurious]

Well, then I'm thinking your best bet is to go out and find yourself a used blue and white G3 (can be had very reasonably priced on ebay IF you take your time and don't rush it) and follow that with a CPU upgrade. They're coming down to a fairly comfortable price for those machines. Get that B&W going about 500Mhz and add Panther. Don't worry about the price of Panther (I figure if you're going to pirate XP then why pay for Panther?) and you got your firsthand look at OSX.

I pretty much did it that way and then decided I loved this shit enough to give them $3K to see it run on their new machines. I'm not the least bit disappointed either.

Everybody's different but as far as I'm concerned to hell with Windows and screw waiting on Linux to get it's collective desktop shit together. OSX beats both.

Excellent read!

[Tor]

This is one of the very best "OS Review" articles I've ever come across - especially the way that it brings in all aspects of history, influences, etc to address ignorance & common misconceptions.

Good Job!
-tor

Re:Short Answer

[Nick of NSTime]

Why not just build the GNU tools, Apache, and postfix on an OS X machine?

Re:OS X 10?

[DreamerFi]

And if you think it's just the UI that makes GIMP less powerful, you've clearly never seen a pro work on PhotoShop.

Re:Steve Jobs secret marketing meeting

[ScottGant]

Orc: What news from the eye me lord, what does it command?

Steveron: Build me a G5 worthy of Mordor...

Weeks later, looking over the 1100 G5's heading toward VA Tech...

Steveron: There will be no dawn...of Windows

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[daeley]

Yeah, it's too bad that Apple forces you to use its LCD monitors and wireless hardware.

Oh wait, they don't.

Go away, troll.

That's funny

[subtillus]

Because I was just at the website and the store says 799$ for the emac right now. Shipping included.

Airport may be expensive, but you don't have to get it. In my laptop it was cheaper than the PC equivalent.

The initial cost of 800 does cost more than a PC, but they also don't become obsolete AS quickly so it's a neat trade off.

maybe you

[asv108]

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.

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.

Maybe you should try Linux again, has it been 3 years? I've had very few problems with the latest hardware and software. Now I do have an ibook laying around, its a nice machine and fink+osx is powerful, but I have yet to see a good reason to switch to OSX from Linux. Yes the gui is prettier and there are more solid desktop apps but strangly enough, I actually prefer XFCE 4 to more fully featured desktop enviroments.

Minor things to update (Nits)

[WillAdams]

Misses the ``sturm und drang'' over Adobe's promising a free, then low-cost, then no-way-what's-your-market-cap license for Display PostScript (originally co-developed by NeXT and Apple), as well as the free ``Yellow Box'' run-time which went away at that time, as well as the moving target of the up-dated APIs when Apple ceased to think of Mac OS X as an OpenStep implementation.

Apple's support for PDF/X gainsays the claim the pdf support isn't a replacement for Adobe Acrobat to a certain extant. By tweaking a few settings one can get a press-ready .pdf out of pretty much any app. If one needs access to other features, well, there's always pdfTeX....(which provides access to things which the Adobe Acrobat GUI _doesn't_)

And the author misses Gerben Wierda's spiffy iInstaller.app which is a neat way to install iInstaller packages (which includes TeX, xfig, imagemagick, Ghostscript &c.). This was developed to work around (then limitations) of Apple's Installer.app and to make updating packages more efficient---way cool stuff.

osx.hyperjeff.net is a way-cool app tracker....

Also misses Macromedia FreeHand MX and the irony of NeXTstep's premier drawing / page-layout application having come to Mac OS X as a Carbon app :(

But a nice, informative article naetheless.

William

I know what OS X is.

[Anonymous Coward]

FeeBSD.

On the Subject of Games

[Spencerian]

The largest flaw of the article involves the availability of games for Mac OS X. The writer admittedly didn't know of many, so I'll list a few, past, present, and near future. Games that cannot play with their PC or Linux counterparts in a multiplayer mode will be marked with the number sign (#)

-Return to Castle Wolfenstein (original; the Enemy Territory MP expansion is not yet available) (Multiplayer DOTH ROCK.)
- Diablo 2 (including all expansions)
- WarCraft 3 (including all expansions)
- Neverwinter Nights (original; expansions not yet available, but can be hacked to work)
- Baldurs Gate II
- Icewind Dale
- Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
- Star Wars: Jedi Academy
- Lara Croft: Angel of Darkness
- No One Lives Forever 1 and 2
- Halo
- Soldier of Fortune 2
- Dungeon Siege (#) (Legends of Arranna expansion not yet available. This game is made in part by Microsoft and uses proprietary software to make MP work for PCs)
- SimCity 4
- The Sims (including all expansions, excluding Online)
- Splinter Cell (coming soon)
- Command & Conquer: Generals
- Star Wars: Battlegrounds
- Call of Duty (coming soon)
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Spearhead expansion (new editions not yet available)
- Unreal
- Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
- Quake 3 (duh--its the engine for most of the games listed)

About the only big game that never hit the Macintosh in recent years was Half-Life. I built a PC just to try that baby out, and I wasn't disappointed.

Usually, you have to wait 2-6 months for a successful PC game to be ported by companies such as Aspyr, but the wait is usually worth it because the game has been patched and runs much smoother than when it was first introduced on the PC.

I jokingly consider PC players as my beta testers, since a PC game that sucks ("Bloodrayne" notwithstanding--that turd got through the quality control somehow) is never ported to Mac OS X.

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.

Some companies, like Blizzard, ship boxes that contain both the Mac and PC versions of the game, such as WarCraft 3.

Re:On the Subject of Games

[eclectic4]

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.

Re:On the Subject of Games

[artemis67]

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".

Re:On the Subject of Games

[Spencerian]

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?

Re:On the Subject of Games

[inkswamp]

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'm not sure how long you've been using Macs, but I've watched that gap closing rapidly in the last few years. Game companies have shown and startlingly renewed interest in getting the Mac versions out either simultaneous with the PC version or hot on the heels of. I can't think of many top games that haven't had a Mac version out in a matter of days.

There are still some, however, I admit. One issue to consider is that some game companies wait to see if a game is big enough to bother porting to the Mac. True, that causes some lag, but it effectively weeds out most of the garbage and if you're a casual game player, that's a small blessing. I've played a lot of the games that PC users brag about having and IMO, it's not impressive. It's like the old Dennis Miller quote about KMart clothing (you know, back before he became Bush's little bitch): "Dontcha love these cheap clothing stores? Two of shit... is shit. If they really wanna fuck you, they'll give you three." Lots of shitty games doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather deal with a gap in the release times and know that most of what's available is actually worth buying.

And yes, I'm well aware of Half-Life, but those kinds of situations are few and far between.

Re:Hi Steve,

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, nice mouth--while it's really impressive here on slashdot, somehow methinks you don't get any of the real thing;>

i think the REAL issue is that Apple users are much more likely to have actual sex, while all the *nix trolls get is goat.se(x)...

Dirty post-stealing whore!

[teamhasnoi]

I posted that! Get your own sense of humor, you dirty, dirty whore!

You might also want to steal comments from someone who doesn't have 1765 comments, and does have a life...

Mod parent down

[Wesley Willis, RIP]

How the hell is this "insightful??" Macs can use any LCD or CRT monitor and standard 802.11b/g equipment.

Re:The story behind OSX

[anactofgod]

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---

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[BlueSteel]

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.

Re:Gimp mouse

[dseyeffer]

mod the above in the "hilarious" category

Re:Adobe and Microsoft..

[larkost]

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.

Re:OS X 10?

[NanoGator]

"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.

Re:OS X 10?

[NanoGator]

"only a dipshit thinks that photoshop is better than gimp. "

Either a dipshit or somebody who sits down, uses Gimp, and finds out it's missing a LOT of what Photoshop has.

There are a few things that Gimp does just fine. However, those of us that make a living by knowing every nook and cranny of Photoshop find Gimp to be virtually unusuable in many areas of image creation and adjustment. There's a reason why Photoshop is the de-facto leader in that market, think about it.

Re:OS X 10?

[NanoGator]

"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.

Re:OS X on x86, I wish

[gamgee5273]

Dude, you can pick up four-year-old Macs for under $100 (check a local university's surplus office) and put Panther on it (make sure it has built-in USB if you want Panther). I have Jaguar running on a beige G3 with 192MB of RAM and, for the MAME box it's being turned into, it runs perfectly.

So, if you really wanted to, you could spend less than $500 and have an OS X machine on your desktop to play with it and see if you're interested in going further.

Just to address one of those...

[Millennium]

If Quartz was so "good", why would Apple need to make it's own (non-free for that matter) version of X11 available as well?
Because people wanted to run the GIMP and X-Chat.

Seriously; that's just about it.

Re:Just to address one of those...

[andermuffins]

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.

try OS X on a cheap iBook

[SideshowBob]

If you're interested in trying OS X, Apple's online store has new iBook G3s for $799 (look in the Special Deals section). I bought one for my wife and 'borrow' it liberally ;-) OK so it isn't a PowerBook G4 but it has to be one of the best values in laptops. Its fast enough to do reasonably sized software development, and its more than enough for couch-born web surfing and email. Unix + great GUI + lightweight portable = bliss.

Not trying to sound like an advertisement, just giving a heads up to people that want the cheapest way possible to run OS X. (well, on new gear, on the same page you can get factory refurbs for even cheaper)

Re:try OS X on a cheap iBook

[kitzilla]

Yeah, I abandoned OS X on my older (first generation) iBook -- it was just too slow. Then I tried Panther. It's a much snappier user experience, even on old Mac hardware.

I liked Yellow Dog Linux on my laptop, but the new version of OS X runs so nicely I'll probably leave it. Still happily running SUSE on my x86 desktop, but I think a dual-boot Powermac is somewhere in the near future.

A very reasonable article.

Why would someone be tired of Linux?

[porkchop_d_clown]

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.

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[gobbo]

it is NOT the software that turns people away from buying Macs

No, it's compatibility FUD (I actually had an online banking support rep say to me "remember Betamax?") and a complete lack of understanding of ROI and the lifecycle of hardware. Not to mention lemming behaviour...

And I've heard more people than I can stomach who just need to use the internet and type some letters say that there isn't any software for the Mac, a salesperson told them so. (10K native apps plus VirtualPC and all those OS 9 apps, and counting.)

$1299 for just a box (WTF? which one? izzat $CDN?) that you'll use for 4 years as-is (after a third-party RAM upgrade) and can run semi-pro creative applications without geekery, viruses, or downtime--not bad at all, especially if you use it to make money.

I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Art Tatum]

It's called GNUstep. And yes, there are applications that build cleanly on both platforms. GNUMail.app, for example. There's also a project called Renaissance that allows you to craft your interface with XML, avoiding even issues with Apple's proprietary .NIB files.

There are also clones of NeXT/Apple's InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder and a host of end user applications. GNUstep builds on Linux and other UNIX systems. The Foundation classes work fine on Windows and there's serious work to perfect the GUI classes on Windows as well.

Re:I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[CottonEyedJoe]

No, that wasnt what he was saying, or if it was, he was wrong. Cocoa apps would ideally need only to be recompiled for GnuStep/Linux to work on your linux box, practically, GnuStep isnt 100% compatible and significant changes would likely need to be made in order to get it to compile. You could certainly write an app to be cross compatible easily from the ground up. One of the linux mags had an article on this last year including a simple example project.

Re:I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Cthefuture]

A couple times per year I check in on the GNUstep stuff. I'm always suprised to see there are still people working on it... doing stuff... but I can never figure out what the purpose of it all is.

I mean, you never hear anything about GNUstep. There are no distros that I know of that use it on the desktop. Hell, to this day I'm not 100% sure what exactly GNUstep is or what it does. I mean, is it a X11 replacement? Something like KDE/GNOME? Some widgets? Just some API's? ... I mean, what the hell is it for? Are there any applications that let me "do stuff" which make me more productive?

They really need to do some marketing legwork here because right now the whole project is off in some dark corner (as it has been for many years). Maybe collaborate with some other well-known projects or something.

Re:I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Art Tatum]

No, it's source code compatible. Cocoa is kind of like the standard C library, except it's for Objective-C and it's object oriented. GNUstep is an LGPL'd implementation of that API. It was originally created because people didn't want to lose the excellent Objective-C language and API that NeXT created. Once Apple bought NeXT, the maintainers started tracking the changes that Apple made. Cross platform development (including, hopefully, the ability to deploy on Windows) is a goal.

Re:I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Art Tatum]

A couple times per year I check in on the GNUstep stuff. I'm always suprised to see there are still people working on it... doing stuff... but I can never figure out what the purpose of it all is.

Well, there are several purposes it seems (everybody has different goals and desires). Many are old NeXT programmers who didn't want to lose the beauty of the Objective-C language and API. Others are OS X programmers who also like Linux or other UNIX systems and like to have the same tools, API, and language to work with. Still others are completely new to the paradigm and just think it's nice technology. There are also quite a few people who are professional software developers and want to release their software or libraries on more than just OS X. (One guy ported his special software to OS X and is also going to release it on Linux and Windows XP).

I mean, you never hear anything about GNUstep. There are no distros that I know of that use it on the desktop.

Yes, there are several reasons for that. One of them is that distro integrators have never heard of it or don't think it's really being maintained. The other is that the number of end-user applications has only recently started to grow. But there are some Gentoo ebuilds, I understand. Might be some packages for other distros as well. I don't really know much about that since I always build from CVS, since there are so many changes and commits. :-)

Hell, to this day I'm not 100% sure what exactly GNUstep is or what it does. I mean, is it a X11 replacement? Something like KDE/GNOME? Some widgets? Just some API's?

The GNUstep core is just a set of object oriented APIs. It's an implementation of Cocoa. But there are also other packages, like dev-apps, that includes clones of the Apple/NeXT development tools, as well as some other frameworks for development. There are lots of 3rd party frameworks and applications too, like the MusicKit.

I mean, what the hell is it for? Are there any applications that let me "do stuff" which make me more productive?

There are some. At this point, it's mostly just your typical desktop stuff (a media player, a mail client, dev tools, a GPS app, a few games, some other stuff). Somebody is doing a port of Apple's WebKit and working on an HTML view class that will make it pretty easy to write a web browser.

They really need to do some marketing legwork here because right now the whole project is off in some dark corner (as it has been for many years). Maybe collaborate with some other well-known projects or something.

Yeah, that's a problem. I'm trying to do some of that myself by posting here. The GNOME and KDE projects have such prominence that it's difficult to get the general population interested. Personally, I think the attempts to create an integrated desktop system could be superior to what GNOME and KDE are doing. Both of those projects tend to be over complicated. It seems like they just want to throw in everything including the kitchen sink. It ends up just being a big mess.

Re:OS X 10?

[b-baggins]

This isn't so much true anymore. Macs are excellent at digital music, and a LOT of consumers are into that. Nothing touches Mac for digital video, and consumers are really starting to get into that.

The biosciences community is in love with Apple, and universities are sitting up and taking notice ever since Virginia Tech made the #3 supercomputer with fewer processors and a fraction of the cost of the number 4 Xeon-based cluster (and now that G5 Xserves are out...).

I believe it was an Apple executive who recently said: When you own all the niches, you own the market. This is the plan I see Apple working toward.

Unless you want a laptop

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:Unless you want a laptop

[0x0d0a]

My attachment to three (not two) button mice is due to the fact that I use X11 software, and would even on a Mac. I do also like contextual menus.

Control-clicking is not a reasonable solution. It is a good, understandable way to transition people to multiple-button mice, and it was what I expected Apple to be doing. However, Apple has ended up presenting control-clicking as a good long-term solution, which it is not. They have decided to go with contextual menus, but to force you to use both arms to bring one up, is silly. I do not deny that a computer can be used in such I way -- I do so when I'm using a Mac. However, it's decidedly irritating. On my Linux box, I can use either the mouse or the keyboard at any given time. I can even comfortably eat while web browsing. On the Mac, I'm forced to constantly use both arms.

Also, I have seen few folks arguing that Apple is doing the *right* thing, or the *superior* thing, but rather that they are doing something that is not as bad as people are making it out to be.

I've had the pleasure of being able to talk to some engineers working at Apple when OS X was in production, and happened to bring up the multiple button issue. Both grimaced, and laughed. Apparently, from what they told me, the One Mac Button is a decision that comes straight from the Top -- Jobs is firmly married to the vision of a simple, easy-to-use single button mouse. I feel that he's wrong here. His idea was somewhat justified two decades ago, when folks were not familiar with computers, much less multibutton mice. However, whether Jobs wants to admit it or not, just about everyone has run into Windows, or at the *very* least, an OS that uses multiple buttons. Multiple buttons are just not a foreign concept that average Joe cannot understand any more. There is no significant ease-of-use issue present any more, and there is a functionality difference -- and a lot of peeved folks. The time has come to make the switch.

Apple occasionally has a "We Do Things Our Own Way, Dammit" moment. They provided only SCSI interfaces for an awfully long time, for instance. They insisted on using those darn little eight-pin serial ports for ages. They won't change their single button mouse style. In the PC world, people that do this quickly go away, because people simply use a competitor's product. However, you just don't have such an option in the Mac world, where Apple is the only game in town. So, while Apple is a Pretty Good hardware provider, if they insist on maintaining an absolute monopoly, they have to be The Best hardware provider to compete with the PC world, where people can simply choose hardware to suit their tastes.

OS X is ...

[josepha48]

.. the GUI that UNIX could have had.

I guess I'm suprised that UNIX just accepted the CDE and never really extended it to be something really cool. At its base OS X is BSD, and Panther actually comes with a version of X one could install. Personally I like OS X, but macs hardware is just to expensive for a poor man like me. IMHO Mac OS X is the uppermiddle class mans extra friendly UNIX. I'll take Linux cause I'm poor ;-)

Re:OS X is ...

[taweili]

Well. I am a Mac user. Actually, I am a NeXTSTEP user but it beomes Mac OS X after NeXT acquired Apple. So, for me, Mac OS X GUI is the UI my Unix box always has! ;)

Unix never really accept CDE or Motif. They were just, well, there. Three big Unix vendors: IBM, Sun and HP have all in one time or another trying to adapt NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP on their machines but as fragemented as the Unix was during the early 90s', the adaption never went anywhere.

If you are on Linux, you want to take a look at GnuSTEP which is an open source implementation of OPENSTEP which is the fundation of Mac OS X.

Re:OS X is ...

[taweili]

OPENSTEP spec is jointly developed by NeXT and Sun. OPENSTEP/SPARC has been released.

As for NeWS, it's a terrible system. It tried to use Postscript as the communication language but it's very slow. Sun tried to define new Unix GUI standard with AT&T and jointly developed CDE. The other group IBM/HP/DEC decided to go with Motif.

NeXTSTEP adaption came after the CDE/Motif fight which basically fragemented the Unix GUI market.

Re:OS X is ...

[GlassHeart]

Sure, but with 800$ for a desktop or 1100$ for a laptop you can have a much, much better x86 computer

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.

Re:OS X on x86, I wish

[faust2097]

I'd consider the "Digital Audio" G4s to be the best price/performance place for people looking for a cheap way to play around with OS X. Most of them came with Quickdraw Extreme-capable video cards and they all have at least a CD burner.

Just make sure you stock up on RAM [at least 512 IMO] and you'll have a smooth while not exactly rocket-powered OS X experience. The 466s seem to run around $500 on eBay.

Cutting but true

[0x0d0a]

Most of what is here is cutting but true. However, the article, unlike most Slashdot posters, does not claim this. He doesn't say that OS X is a "better Linux" -- he says that they're two different beasts.

"Despite the fact that Linux is just code and can't WANT to be anything, I truly believe that it'd love to be a single-vendor, single-platform, sluggish half-proprietary OS with dwindling market share. Linux would love to throw away its impressively growing corporate takeup for that."

True, but I don't believe OS X has dwindling market share.

"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."

I don't think I've ever seen people say this.

"My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done. It feels like KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, and I can't change to a light and fast WM, but those drop-shadows must make me work so quickly!"

True. However, I think they may also be referring to the lower learning curve of much Mac OS software. Unless you're using software quite a bit, the learning curve plays a larger role than the total amount of functionality. I claim that it takes around three years of heavy use of emacs before you really start to get a lot more good out of it than its traditional Windows and Mac OS counterparts.

"OpenDarwin.org and its community of about 27 is surely not just a token gesture by Apple. Pretty much nobody uses pure Darwin, and all the crucial components of the system are closed and require me to spend money just to get major OS updates, but they're really helping the community somehow."

True. Apple does not "get it" WRT open source in anywhere near the same way that Red Hat and friends do. They produce a high-end, propriatary product. However, they are infinitely better than Microsoft (and to many people, Mac OS is a valid alternative to Windows...but Linux is not). Furthermore, even before the open source thing started up, Apple was much better about helping folks tinker around with internals than Microsoft was.

"My iBook was made by in Taiwan by AlphaTop and has design and build quality flaws (needing foam sheets jammed in to stop the common problem of the keyboard scratching the screen). But it's silvery and cost far more than an x86 laptop of better spec, so it must be much higher quality!"

I agree that many folks try very hard (and fail) to justify the amount of money spent on their Apple hardware. I find such claims pretty much futile on desktops. However, while they aren't perfect, many Apple laptops are fairly price competitive and pretty good compared to their PC counterparts. Yes, Apple has had a history of doors breaking off, of scratches, and of some flimsiness. But I've also seen countless x86 laptops with all kinds of problems as well. Apple may not be light years ahead here, but they sure aren't light years behind either.

"Although there's truth in PPC being more elegant than x86, it's crushing that the top-of-the-range 1.5 GHz chip is slaughtered by the equivalent 3 GHz Pentium 4. However, Steve Jobs showed some vague Photoshop filter benchmarks at the last MacWorld, so being a leprotard, I'm convinced."

Very true. Macs are (significantly) slower than x86 machines. It's simply true. Folks who are arguing that Macs are good should not waste their time trying to argue otherwise. They're much better off with the "Yes, but what are you actually *using* said cycles for? I'm getting drop shadows out of it -- you seem to be using about 2% of your CPU on average!"

Re:Cutting but true

[Raffaello]

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.

Re:OS X 10?

[as400tek]

becasue sometimes free is to expensive. To explain. I don't have time to learn to load FreeBSD on intel or PPC. I don't have time to try and find all the great apps that already come with MacOSX. I don't need to spend my time trying to figure out how, I would rather just do. I think the entire Linux Community is awesome, but as a linux head I spend to mcuh time trying to find a way to get things to work in UNIX/Linux when Apple just did all that for me for $90-129 dallors depending on wher eyou purchased it. That is why. Free in some cases means 40 - 200 hours of work and that is time I could be spending gaming, writing, or just plain relaxing doing other stuff. Plus you can't beat all the other cool stuff Apple offers. Dude....???

Re:The story behind OSX

[0x0d0a]

OS X supports all hardware going back to their various G3 models, which means pretty sizable number of processors, laptops, video cards, motherboards, USB devices, firewire devices, printers, audio hardware, etc. etc.

This is still awfully few compared to the number of devices for the number of things that Linux can talk to.

Also, USB (as long as the hardware is HID-compliant) support is free. The USB mouse is going to be supported -- the USB SmartHome X10 controller may not be.

Sure, Linux and Windows still support your 1996 video card, but maybe it's time to invest a wee bit more money in your hardware setup?

Dammit, it's exactly this kind of thinking that irritates me about Apple. No, I bought the thing, it works fine, I don't need more performance at the moment, and so I don't see why I should pay even more because Apple found it profitable to not support something.

Re:IT'S AN OPERATING SYSTEM. PERIOD.

[as400tek]

Can't we all just keep picking on Microsoft? and get along. MacOSX is not the devil!

Re:OS X 10?

[0x0d0a]

The major things I've seen that Photoshop has that GIMP doesn't are:

* No neat duotone tool. I like duotones.

* No non indexed/RGB color model support. Very, very bad if you're doing output for professional printing.

* Not sure, but I suspect Photoshop has better color matching support.

* Photoshop has a nicer warping interface.

* There are more plugins available for Photoshop. They're often quite pricy, but if you're a professional designer (the sort of person that would care about four color work and hence want to use Photoshop instead of GIMP), you're probably going to make back the cost pretty quickly.

There are only a few things that I know of that GIMP can do that Photoshop can't. Among these are:

* Better support for many languages to write plugins in.

* Some researchy plugins that go well beyond what Photoshop can do; Resynthesizer is one.

Re:Dunno about that...

[PygmySurfer]

Instead of buying a Cube (Cubes are notoriously over-priced still, even though they were discontinued years ago) you should've picked up a G4 tower. Or, since you were going the upgrade route anyway, you could've picked up a Blue & White G3 tower, and upgraded it, though I don't think the G3s had AGP support.

Regardless, a 500MHz G4 tower would've cost you ~$400-500 on eBay, instead of $800. And, you'd have a machine infinitely more expandable than the Cube. Hell, for the $1300 you spent, you probably could've picked up a 867 MHz G4 (With a Superdrive).

A little more research would've gone a long way...

Re:Put away the crackpipe.

[WillAdams]

Actually, Display PostSript wasn't that much of a chokepoint on NeXTstep---it _is_ a multi-threaded system after all (the problem was DPS granularity was 1 PostScript operator and sometimes 1 OS op. is ``Display this multi-megabyte bitmap graphic''. The NeXTDimension board off-loaded this from the main CPU though, greatly assisting performance.

Turbo NeXTs were 68040 at 33MHz (the standard was an '040 at 25MHz and the original Cube was an '030 at 25MHz). There were a few pre-production ``Nitro'' accelerator cards (estimates range from 6 to a couple of dozen) which ran at 40MHz in Turbo hardware, and there was a ``Pyro'' CPU upgrade which allowed one to run a clock-doubled 50MHz CPU in _non_ Turbo hardware.

Agree, having X11.app is nice 'cause one doesn't have to wait for things to be ported (just recompile), though QT support for things like LyX for Aqua is _way_ cool.

William

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[MoneyT]

Hmmm, damn I could have sworn the PowerMac we just bought is working absolutely fine with our nice Sony CRT and our NEC LCD monitor, both of which use standard VGA connections.

And I could swear that the D-Link wireless card I have works very nicely in my Powerbook.

I must just be dreaming though.

OS X has improved its font rendering

[waaka!]

I agree that hinting too little has been a problem with past versions of OS X, but whatever they added between Jaguar and Panther (I guess Apple prefers to call it "micro-pixel positioning") has done a lot to clean up the color problems that existed before. I noticed the difference the first time Panther booted, and the appearance of small fonts in particular is much more readable now.

Re:OS X 10?

[MoneyT]

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.

Why Mach?

[leandrod]

This is the answer I never saw properly answered, and I hoped the article would.

Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?

One could be lean with a single BSD server, or flexible with Mach and a multiple server system like the Hurd. But XNU gives one the worst of both worlds as I see it...

Re:Why Mach?

[rmlane]

Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?

Your premise is incorrect. I worked at Apple as an Enterprise SE, and asked the same question of the kernel engineers which they answered as follows: (errors all mine, accurate info all theirs)

The Mach microkernel and the BSD kernel stuff actually live inside the same memory / process space. There is no task switching performance penalty (the performance issue from "standard" Mach implementations), as you don't task switch to get from the Unix kernel to the Mach microkernel.

What you do get from having Mach is a well debugged, small set of OS primitives that the rest of the kernel can call with the performance penalty of a function call rather than a task switch.

Effectively, XNU uses the "single server" model from a performance perspective, and the BSD on Mach model when you're talking about stability, extensibility and debuggability. In addition the Mach primitives are available when you don't want to use the *NIX ones.

So you DO get the best of both worlds.

Re:Adobe and Microsoft..

[grunherz]

... the profound cost of owning an Apple.

-Apple iMac DV SE Spring 2000: $1300
-RAM upgrade from 128MB to 256MB: $98
-Yearly Updates to the MAC OS: $129 (and well worth it)
-The fact that said machine is still sitting on my desk, still looking cool, churning away with OSX 10.3, original partitions and no further problems when any other piece of hardware from Spring 2000 would most likely be landfill fodder: Priceless.

Adobe Photoshop? ... Graphic Converter ($30 Shareware)
Adobe Illustrator? Comparable Linux alternative?
Microsoft Office? TextEdit, OpenOffice (free)
Outlook? No thanks, I'll use Mail.app (free)
Media Player? VLC Player (free)

Re:The story behind OSX

[taweili]

If we are talking about device driver comparsion, here is an interesting paper Linux Device Driver Emulation in Mach describing how Mach can use Linux's device driver without changing the device driver code. Mach which powers the Mac OS X is a very flexible micro-kernel OS. A lot of neat trick can be done with it. I wonder if there is an effort in Darwin to bring this enmulation to Darwin.

It's compiled! DAMMIT!!

[The Muffin Man]

Hmm, he lists Lisp amongst the interpreted languages. I hope the rest of the article is more accurate...

Edi.

== Programming Language Myths ==

BASIC Myth: People who learn BASIC go on to learn other languages.
Reality: Most people who learn BASIC go on to find less nerdy ways of writing "Mr. Gzabowski is a lame teacher" over and over again.

C Myth: C programs are insecure, full of buffer overflows and such.
Reality: C programs are only insecure if written by imperfect programmers. Since all C programmers know that they are perfect, there's no problem.

COBOL Myth: COBOL is dead.
Reality: It stalks from out the ancient vaults of death, its putrid mind drawn to the blood of the living.

Forth Myth: Forth makes no sense.
Reality: backwards. think to have just you sense, perfect makes Forth

Java Myth: You need Java to do business applications.
Reality: You need Java to get a job.

Lisp Myth: Lisp is an interpreted language.
Reality: Lisp is COMPILED DAMMIT COMPILED! IT'S IN THE FUCKING STANDARD!!!

Pascal Myth: Pascal is a toy.
Reality: Oh, wait, that is not a myth, it is true ...

Perl Myth: Perl is impossible to read.
Reality: You are not taking enough psychedelics.

Python Myth: Python's only problem is the whitespace thing.
Reality: Python's only problem is that it is fucking slow.

Conclusion from reading the article

[Overly Critical Guy]

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?

Re:NTFS Read support(!!)

[aristotle-dude]

NTFS read support has been in there since Jaguar. IIRC. Jaguar and onward also has read/write support for FAT32.

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[phillymjs]

It's the fact that apple only sells LCD monitors, starting at $699.

Yes, and nobody else makes displays that work on the Mac. I'm just imagining the two ViewSonic LCDs that are connected to my G4 right now.

It's the fact that airport (which is a fancy name for 802.11b/g) is much more expensive than what is available for PCs.

Yeah, and no other wireless hardware works with the Mac. Those pesky hallucinogens pumped through the air ducts at my office only make me THINK my iBook is connecting via the company's Compaq wireless access point.

It's also the fact that systems have high initial costs ($1299 for JUST A BOX!).

Well, it's not Apple's fault that people are cheap, short-sighted idiots. I've gotten significantly longer usage out of the Macs I've owned than the x86 hardware I've owned. I got six years out of the last Power Mac I bought new, but I've rebuilt my x86 box with newer hardware three times in that same time period. You might be able to get a PC for 1/3 the cost of a Mac, but chances are you'll have purchased two more before I'm ready to replace my Mac.

~Philly

OS X does most of these things!

[Paradox]

Mac OS X's environment already has almost all these things.

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.

an unusual fork & exec sequence

[hayne]

Actually, mach_init is originally process #1 but that process forks and then the parent process (#1) does an exec of /sbin/init. The child process from the fork is process #2 and continues running as mach_init. The thing that makes this a bit hard to understand is that it is the parent process that does the exec whereas it is usually the child that does that.

A few more details are available here.

Please put down the crack pipe.

[Doktor Memory]

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.

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 /Applications/iTunes.app, then find a more useful way to spend your free time than trolling on slashdot.

Re:having a tough time outside the distortion fiel

[Doktor Memory]

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.