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

[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!!!

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

[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...

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.

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

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

[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: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?

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

[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: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.

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. :-)

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: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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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]

"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.

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)

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.

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: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.

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?

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.