Slashdot Mirror
A Power Users Look at Linux on the Mac
An anonymous reader writes "Even though most Linux users have treated Linux as an operating system for their x86 white boxes, Linux runs equally well on PowerPC machines. This article looks at Linux on the PowerPC and the appealing range of PPC machines produced by Apple, where the option of using Linux is of great value to many users."
But I would really like to see IBM announce and open hardware platform based on the PowerPC chips.
I'd like to see instant on Linux desktops, and S3 suspend-to-ram states that are 99.99% reliable.
BTW, can any mac user tell me: how well does the ACPI equivalent on MAC work?
[p]I would like to ask, as a completely serious question, aside from the matter of personal preference, the whole, "Linux is better than anything else in the world," thing, why in the hell would anyone feel a need to install Linux on a Mac?[/p][p]OS X runs on most modern Macs, and is based on a *BSD. It's stable as hell, more secure than any distro of Linux I know of, and it has a very functional GUI (if you like such things).[/p][p]I mean, I run two Linux boxen, one as a server, the other as a generic code monkey-ing machine, and if I had a Mac I would in no way see or feel a need to put Linux on it.[/p]
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Anyway, I am planning to buy an old mac (mostly because I like its colour), and, of course, I want a Linux-only system.
Therefore, which distributions do you suggest. Are there sws that are not available for the mac-linux (openoffice?)?
Thanks,
M.
--
http://incuso.altervista.org
Does anyone know where I can find Knoppix for PPC? I'd love to play around with it on some old iMacs I have lying around. However I only found an old release. I would think that linux-live cds should work even better om macs than on pcs, since there is so much less hardware to configure. The knoppix homepage states that the minimum requirements include a x86 processor.
Hm - there are some interesting implications with that.
IBM wants to sell chips. Apple wants to sell hardware. If IBM came out with a "desktop" or even "workstation" PowerPC machine that ran, say, Yellow Dog Linux (or PPC Suse or the like), how would Apple respond?
Especially since most of the programs made for PPC Linux can easily be ported to Apple - whether running under X11 or adding in Cocoa portions - and I'm sure Apple would be more than happy to supply a compiler that could turn PPC-X-Windows code to Aqua code - cludgy, but it could work.
If such a system took off, Apple would be pretty happy - more programs could be converted easily. And odds are, if you're already running PPC desktop, you might be looking at OS X for ease of use issues.
On the other hand - who would use such a system? Most people would probably go for x86 Linux - x86 parts are cheaper, more software is available (even on just the Linux side alone). So a person wanting a PPC desktop would have to have a very good reason, like wanting to do high-end calculations or graphics rendering.
In which case, they'd probably just go for a Mac first anyway.
Personally, I think that Apple's best move is this:
1. Keep the high-end Powermacs/powerbooks.
2. Keep the lower-cost iBooks.
3. Make the iMacs truly cost compatible. Yes, there are the eMacs - what I think would blow away the market is a $600 headless iMac. Small base, maybe like the Cube (only upgradeable - that's what killed the little guy). Most people already have monitors, and if they could by a $600 G4 Mac they'd be estatic. Apple would make money, and could eventually move them over into the more expensive stuff - and even if they didn't, they'd gain market share, which would still mean more money.
Either way, we'll have to see what happens with IBM and Apple. The 970 chips are becoming more popular (Xbox Next, anyone? - this could be a side issue about how many Xbox games could be ported to OS X if the Xbox Next is truly G5 based....), so the future could hold anything.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Exactly. It's like putting a VW Bug engine into a mid-60's porsche. Not only is it not going to work right(and LinuxPPC doesn't work nearly as well, just on a features basis, as OS X), but it'll be slow and everyone who sees it will just stare at you- and if they're not polite enough, demand to know why you did it. Even Robin Malda uses OS X!
Who cares? Slashdot is hardly an example of technical prowess; in fact, it's rotting(HTML 3?!?). The FAQ hasn't been touched since '99, and they have yet to rise to the challenge of solving any of the problems they themselves created(slashdotting for example). From what I've heard(several OSDN sales people worked where I used to work), Malda got wined and dined by one company after another hoping he'd either post about them or endorse their products. Absolutely no integrity.
Please help metamoderate.
Sorry, clearly you've never used OSX.. it IS the most intuitive user experience, and the most widely distributed UNIX. Grandma, any child, most Slashdot admins, and Virginia Tech all agree. Take a look at how elegant Aqua/Quartz is what with it's PDF base and GPU offloading. I know the 'community' likes Linux, I like and use Linux, but NeXT and now Apple has taken the OS to where nearly every Computer Science PHD speculated in the late 80s when they imagined: "What do we *really* want from an OS." Here it is, OSX, enjoy it!
Interesting... Apple has always stressed that they are not PCs. They used to push the idea that their machines were for the "rest of us." Now it seems there's an almost "in-group" mentality behind their campaigns. Whatever people may think about this idea, it seems to be working. People are looking for a measure of personality in their machines. In a way it's almost like cars. For many people, an automobile is something to convey them from one point to another. Yet just as many people look first to the stylings of the car rather than practical considerations. The problem with PCs is that there's not much difference between one box and another. People are almost begging for the ability to customize their machines or make a statement through their laptops. And I personally know at least two people who have purchased iMacs because they looked "cool".
That's why I bought an iBook.. I figured it would be a perfect linux laptop.
Then I tried OSX for the heck of it, you know, it was already installed.
And now you can pry OSX off my mac from my cold, dead hands.
Not to mention they'd be a lot faster than the PPC chip of a comparable price. I use Linux because I'm cheap or else I'd be running MacOS X on all the machines in my house. Alas I can't afford to replace my $500 desktop with a $3000 equivalent Mac.
Of course... Linux on a Mac presents an interesting question.
There are x86s available without Windows, but Apple will start shipping PPC based PCs without OSX shortly after Satan orders anti-freeze and warm winter woollens.
Does that make it more or less a candidate for replacement with Linux??
You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
Now, Linux on newer Macs? I dunno. I've never used OS X, so I can't comment.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I doubt locate would be as useful in that situation -- if you're doing an ls in only directory, the time difference will be minimal and the results more up-to-date than locate's. If you're doing a find over multiple dirs, on the other hand, then you'd probably have need to look for a faster solution (ie, locate) -- so long as what you're looking for existed the last time locate's db was updated.
I have a second hand 400mhz G4 powerbook. When OSX came out I tried it, but it seemed to run a bit too slow on the powerbook for me and watching a divx movie in osx was nearly impossible with quicktime.
After a week I was fed up with it. I've been running gentoo linux on a lot of x86 servers, so I decided to make it a gentooppc computer - with a GUI for the first time.
It took some effort at that time, since gentooppc was just starting, but eventually I managed it.
I felt proud that it worked and it made many mac addicts give me strange but cool looks.
Nowadays I run the 2.6 kernel and kde 3.2 and I must say it's perfect (only vga out is a bit of a b!tch with my graphical chipset): reliable and fast and all of the hardware is supported. I use it mainly for webbrowsing (konqueror), movies (mplayer), email (sylpheed-claws) and SSH'ing to other machines.
Only one but, if you run linux on a non x86 computer, you don't have the nice Wine things, but on the other hand you can run DOS apps with Bochs (though terribly slow on my system).
I won't swap if someone offered me a faster powerbook with OSX and I weren't allowed to reinstall my beloved linuxppc.
The speed argument is so tired.
what matters is total speed of use...
If you want to crunch numbers, obvoiusly, buy a damn PC.
But I get more work done faster on an 800Mhz G3 w/ OSX than I get done witih a 3Ghz Linux box.. simply because of how things interact, and how the gui is set up, keyboard shortcuts, etc.
Because MacOS X needs a shitload of RAM to run decently. If all you need is vim and a browser, fluxbox on linux is a far better solution. Especially when the last generation stuff only came with 128MB of ram by default and is increedibly cheap right now. Less swapping off the harddrive also improves battery life.
RAM is cheap now though. I'd say you need about 384MB to keep OS X running smoothly and the terminal application is fairly nice.
One of the things that people have been saying with each iteration of OS X is that it is getting faster and faster. While this may be true, they still have a long way to go. I recently tried out a gentoo live cd on a friends 600MHz G3 iBook, and I was blown away. In OS X 10.3 the iBook feels responsive, but it is clear that a fast G4 or G5 would fair a great deal better. Under Gentoo running gnome 2.4 this computer was sickeningly fast. It felt almost as fast as my Athlon XP 2500. I was amazed at how much this little 600MHz G3 was capable of. If you are looking for a reason to use Linux over Mac OS X, look no further than getting to utilize the performance your system is capable of.
I know I know OS X is a more modern os blah blah blah. People used to say (maybe they still do and I just ignore them) the same thing about java, it is a more modern language and all of it's advanced capabilities are too much for todays computers. The end result? Very few modern GUI apps are written in java. I say the same thing for OS X, just because it uses a somewhat new concept for GUI (pdf-based) doesn't justify it's cripplingly slow speeds. I for one would rather have a fully functional GUI that doesn't make a decent processor suck wind every time I try to resize a browser window, than have the prettiest antialised interface. For the record I personally find gnome 2.4 with the ximian industrial theme quite pleasing to the eye. Just my $0.02.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
OK, someone who uses Linux on the Mac, answer this for me: how the hell do you make it come back on after the power fails? In OS 9, this is called 'server mode'. OldWorld machines have a way to enable it by catting a few bytes at /dev/adb.
Nobody has a way to do this on anything newer, which means something like FOUR YEARS worth of machines (or more!) can't reboot when the power goes out and then comes back on.
Linux on the Mac is nothing more than a toy until someone can figure out how to set the server mode flag. I don't care if I have to run it in my boot scripts. As long as it works I will be happy.
Until it exists, I know that nobody is really using Linux on Macs for anything important, since all their machines would stay off the first time they lost power (including draining a UPS)!
Yes, I'm bitching, and no, I'm not trolling. I've done a lot of work with Linux and a G4, and this has been pissing me off the whole time.
Try Jaguar on a 7300. Or Panther on a 9600. Or even Panther on a beige G3. For those of us who love Apple hardware, can't afford gear more recent than four years old, and want to get some UNIX out of it, Linux just blows OS X right out of the water.
Linux doesn't care about my video chipset. X11 DEs don't require 32 megs of VRAM. Linux runs inside of 128 megs of physical memory without difficulty. Fluxbox is just as responsive as OS 9 on the same hardware- something OS X still can't claim.
All that and here's the bag of chips: The Debian "Software Update" (apt) updates EVERY APPLICATION ON THE SYSTEM. Compare to OS X, where I get my Apple updates through SWU and have to download and install Adobe updates, new builds of BZFlag, new versions of Quicksilver, etceteras myself.
Not to say I don't have issues with various packages, but dear GODS Linux is far more useable on older hardware than OS X. On a general level- quality of applications and userland are a slightly different matter.
Linux on Sparc is the real untold story. The installation of Debian unstable on an unused Sun Ultra 5 has been a recent revelation, and given the prevalence of such hardware sitting unused in many locations, represents a low (or no, if one carries out an ftp install) way of recycling such hardware to make it truly useful. The Sun Ultra 5 recently rejuvenated in this way is running much faster than it ever did using Solaris 7 or 8, and also has none of the compilation/compatibility problems which beset Sun desktop users who don't have Sun's own (expensive) compiler. apt-get install - could life get any easier?
Photoshop 7 runs great under Linux with Crossover Office. Disney paid Codeweavers to get it running so their graphics artist could use it. There had to be some merit in Linux for Disney to go through that trouble when they could just run Photoshop under MS windows or Mac OS X. Oh, Dreamweaver MX also runs just fine under Crossover Office. Acrobat? There is a Linux versio of Acrobat reader. As for making PDF files, Linux has tons of ways to do that. Have you ever heard of any2pdf? You can also use Open Office 1.1 and export just about anything to a PDF file. Open Office 1.1 can also export your presentations to Flash.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Anacron is a periodic command scheduler. It executes commands at intervals specified in days. Unlike cron, it does not assume that the system is running continuously. It can therefore be used to control the execution of daily, weekly, and monthly jobs (or anything with a period of n days), on systems that do not run 24 hours a day. When installed and configured properly, Anacron will make sure that the commands are run at the specified intervals as closely as machine-uptime permits.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I've had very very few problems (although it's been many many years since I've had to) porting between Unixes (Unices?) as long as everyone had the GNU tools installed... now, trying to compile decent software with the supplied CC and tools on an AIX or HP/UX (at least several years ago) was just about impossible...
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
much love to linux, i LOVE it and use it on all the pc's at work and in my past (before i switched to mac). that said, i think OSX is a better choice right now for the macs. i'm very trained to use linux/oss and that same usage pattern i still use on my mac. i have to learn the darwin way of doing things, but it's usually pretty easy to pick up.
:-)
problem with linux/ppc for me is the java support. there simply is no 1.4 support out there and that straight up blows. OS X lags behind in their implementation enough as it is. it's also not uncommon to have difficulty with hardware, power management (laptops), etc. i think if you want to run X/KDE and whatnot to preserve your uniform UI, you may as well use opendarwin. it's just a better fit, at the moment.
besides running a few commercial apps, there's not much i do with my OS X install that i can't do on linux -- with a little effort. but i think more importantly, there's very little (nothing?) i do on a regular basis that i CAN do under linux and CAN'T do under OS X (&& fink). that realization, plus the ease of use of apple's stuff, pretty much closed the deal for me to use OS X on my hardwar.... but i do miss linux, and this 2.6 kernel looks fun -- maybe i'll build a little mini-itx/x86 box for it when i got some money to burn.
The company I work for writes software for wireless adapters, and Windows was our first platform. The appeal for us of porting our software to another platform would have been much greater if there was some similarity between OSX and Linux, but there is very little. The driver model, the device management, the hardware platform, the GUI, and even the main user mode languages (OC vs. C/C++) are different. I recognize that there is a fair bit of compatibility in the user, non GUI, API's and in the CLI, but I think that was the minimum possible (ie. it couldn't be avoided).
This was Apple's choice when they did the big jump to PPC and OSX: they could have gone with the PC platform, they could have built OSX on the Linux kernel, etc. I think the OSS community would have embraced the slick, polished GUI and software that Apple has if Apple had given them a reason to - it's exactly what Linux needs. But what the OSS community did not need (and still doesn't need) was to reopen the BSD vs. Linux divide (like GTK vs. Qt).
I'm sure they had solid financial and strategic reasons for staying away from any Linux compatibility, but for both Apple and Linux users (and for us developers) it was a bad choice. Perhaps they were concerned that if they did something that really benefited the OSS community then MS would get mad (ie. no more Office).
It's a shame - since Linux is focussed on the low cost, business market, and Apple is focussed on premium, brand conscious, consumers, they could have co-existed and cooperated very nicely.
In the end my company delayed, but has recently decided to port to Linux.
Dude, no offense but you don't know WTF you're talking about. All your post did was basically try and pass off Photoshop and Dreamweaver (both #1 in their market segments) as if they were useless apps. You just tried to denounce two of the most major pieces of software on the Mac platform. That alone tells everyone you're full of it. No offense intended, but your post was asnine.
I don't think you have much experience with Photoshop nor Dreamweaver. I use both every day and I find it funny that Dreamweaver MX 2004 has yet to crash on me nor is it slow, but if some poor sod took your post to heart, you have them thinking the app is an alpha.
Further, do some of you actually think that the majority of Mac users just have a Mac to use vi or lynx?
If you want to jack it in vi and lynx all day, you don't need a Mac. Go buy a P133 or something.
Some of these arguments on here are ridiculous and shameful.
My last machine was a TiBook 400MHz (the original Titanium Powerbook). Largely as a result of reading so much about Linux on Slashdot, I decided to try creating a dual boot system.
I went with Yellow Dog Linux 3.0. After re-partitioning my drive, I installed it and it ran great. Fast, simple, let me do what I wanted. Mac-on-Linux is installed by default, and that ran fine, too.
I did this becuase I only owned that one machine, and I wanted to get my hands dirty a bit with Linux. This was free and fun and easy to do, and I do recommend it for those wanting to extend the life of their machine. It is also a great way to learn more about your machine in general (I'm not a real geek, just a lifelong user and musician).
In the end, I'm not using Linux on my new machine (17" PowerBook), but I would jump back to a minute if I felt the need, and have complete confidence in the OS on the PPC platform.
Do you realize that even on modern PCs there's only 8 IRQs? There's another 'cascade' interrupt device that provides IRQ 9-15.
That's only by default when you just start booting up. The OS is supposed to enable the IO-APIC, which I believe gives 32 interrupts. Unfortunately, some boards don't implement it correctly, some (typically low-load) devices still use the XT-PIC, and some devices still do share interrupts (probably due to the PCI scheme of assigning the same interrupt to multiple slots; my USB and AGP unfortunately seem to be like this).
THE NERD IS THE COMPUTER.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I've yet to see Debian or YDL support a new apple computer straight out of the gate. When they do support a new model, its most often in a crippled state. Like some posters here have mentioned, the nvidia Go line of graphics cards are barely supported and lack 2d and 3d acceleration. Other items still NOT supported are Bluetooth, Airport Extreme, and external video (on powerbooks). These features were all in the 12" powerbook that came out over 12 months ago!!! The powermac g5 support page just simply lists "No."
YDL hardware support page
Linux on ppc is just not worth it on a new machine. But on a positive note, by the time support is available, the computer will be too old to upgrade to the newest MacOS and will need the linux build.
if you're finding OS X slow, opaque and frustrating, it's because you don't know what you're doing, you just think you know what you're doing.
...)
Heh. You're right there.
However, on linux, I do know what I'm doing.
Part of the reason for getting an OSX system (and so far refusing to bring up non-Mac things like X-Windows etc) is that I wanted to get familiar with it.
The problem here is that, as others have pointed out, when I did the obvious thing and asked Apple's CS for help, I got an idiot-level runaround. They didn't say "Hey, this guy knows how to run linux gateways and firewalls; maybe I'll bounce him to an expert level. They kept "helping" me with something that wasn't related to my original problem (getting airport + printer + powerbook to work), and bollixed up my network as a result. They didn't mention DHCP to me; I discovered it myself. And they told me quite clearly that I couldn't expect to use their equipment in a mixed-vendor network.
I'm starting to agree with them.
With linux, OTOH, when I ask CS (e.g., Red Hat's), I get intelligent answers. Or sometimes I get RTFM, and usually a pointer to the FM or some equivalent online docs. So I can learn what I don't know.
I freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about linux, and I'm even farther from that with OSX. So far, my experience with linux is that finding answers sometimes takes time, but I can find them, and among the arrogant jerks there are a lot of helpful people. With OSX, my experience so far is that I get a lot of "... for dummies" sorts of answers, but very little else. Finding answers has been rather slow compared to linux. So I'd recommend linux for serious networking applications.
To put things in perspective, we also have a couple of MS windows machines (which my wife needs for her work), and even a cool wifi-enabled PalmOS machine. They're all talking to each other, though not always amicably. I'd say that the OSX system is far, far better than the MS boxes for nearly everything. I've recommended a Mac to lots of people who have expressed frustration with their Windows boxes. I'll continue to do so.
My summary at the moment is that I'd strongly advise linux and/or *BSD for any serious networking, server, or other infrastructure situations. I'd recommend a Mac for any computer non-geek who wants a machine that works and is fun to use. I'd recommend MS systems for masochists. (And that wireless PalmOS gadget is a really cool toy. Now if it had a cell-phone built in, too
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Finder, for example, if one of the best file manager I've ever used
AAAARRRGGGHHH! You really ought to have a look at the OpenStep 4.2 workspace sometime, and you'll see just how much the Apple Finder people missed the point.
Because they require the user to manage complex mental models to use. This is counter to Apple's (and OS X's) principle of a simple interfaces (same reason they won't sell a multibutton mouse).
clever as Expose might be, it is just a crutch for missing virtual desktops.
It's nothing of the sort. Indeed, Expose is an excellent *compliment* to virtual desktops. However, they solve different problems - Expose is for *switching* between windows, Virtual Desktops are for *grouping* applications/windows.
How about these little things
- drag and drop works throughout the system between all applications (you can even drag and drop an item to the terminal window to get it's path pasted in there)
- Most applications can handle multibyte fonts/languages out of the box and switching input methods on the fly is one keystroke away
- there's a proper font management system and OS X handles TrueType Mac, TrueType Windows, Type 1 (PostScript fonts) and OTF fonts just fine (again installing them is as easy as drag and drop or doubleclicking and clicking the install button)
- when installing an application RPM won't tell you that it actually needs the "whateverthefuck.lib.so.8" before it can install the package, but won't tell you where in the world to get that library
- There are interface guidelines and most developers stick to them (!), so you can enjoy the same basic keyboard shortcuts in every application, most menues are in the same location in every app etc.
- OS X Services (this rules)
- Automatic switching of network interfaces seamlessly on-the-fly (wirless, ethernet, firewire etc.)
I could go no for hours, but you get the idea.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
That would be because that is incorrect. Rhapsody and the earliest release of OS X, OS X Server 1, did indeed use the Display PostScript system from NeXTSTEP, modified to present a slightly more Mac-esque user interface. But when Adobe bumped up the licensing costs for DPS, Apple were forced to go back and effectively write a new graphics system from scratch. They based it on Portable Document Format, it's called Quartz and the user interface is known as Aqua.
I find your assertion that OS X does not use X laughable. The latest version of OS X comes bundled with an X server that will run rootless right on top of the Aqua screen. The XFree86 distribution will build from unmodified source and work on earlier OS Xs too: have a look at X11 running in Aqua on a Beige G3 with Jaguar. I develop software for a network of Linux PCs, OPENSTEP PCs, NeXTs, Macs, Suns and assorted other systems. If it wasn't for OS X's support for X11 there would be much less portability between the systems (although GNUstep helps a great deal in that regard). So OS X does use X11, even if you and some other users choose not to.
Actually I'm talking from the perspective of a Debian user here. Debian's package hierarchy is good, but it's still far from exhaustive. There will come times when the program you would like has not been Debianised. And when it does, you have to install that program yourself and maintain it yourself, just as you would on any other operating system.
Darwin is not the kernel. Is that so freaking hard to understand? XNU is the kernel, which is a part of the Darwin Operating System. Darwin is a BSD operating system which includes the Mach microkernel running in monolith mode, with features from the BSD kernel added in. The BSD subsystem does not as some people think run as a personality on top of Mach; the two have been combined by Apple.
Yes indeed I am. This post comes to you from a turbo colour slab running OmniWeb 2.0 on top of NeXTSTEP 3.3. Acquisitioned is not a real word, acquired is. Yes, I know that fat binaries came from NeXT. They're still in use today, in OS X. OS X is the only modern operating system to use this technology, in which it is far superior to other offerings. It's jsut a pity that Apple don't make more of it.
No you don't, and frankly I don't give a monkey's because ELF is getting old. The Mach_O binary format provides portability as well as small executables when compiled thin. It provides superior threading by realising processes, LWPs and threads as kernel-scheduled Mach threads. It's better than ELF.
It appears that more homework is required on your part regarding the various parts that go to make up OS X. Find out about Xnu, Mach, Darwin and FreeBSD, then report back on your progress. The second assignment will focus on Cocoa, Quartz, Aqua, CoreFoundation, IOKit and possibly WebObjects if we have time.
eBay, nuff said.
However, you are better off buying a Mac from Apple or one of their distributers. The reason: Applecare. It is a three year warranty that covers almost everything (put down that soldering iron) and Apple will pay the shipping on many items.
But if what you want is to get your hands on some PPC hardware then Pegasas PC is the route for you.
http://www.pegasosppc.com/
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Just wondering, since I've enever handled a beast like that, at least knowingly:
does it work transparently to a Windows install or do I need special config? Like in the WindowsNT/2k/XP installs where you can select 'different' x86 architectures, or use 'generic PC' instead of ACPI.
Can I boot MS-DOS 6.22 on it?
Can you give an example so I can find one to look at?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
I understand that the features you want might not be in free software now, but that can change with effort.
So.... perhaps he should wait for the Linux community to get around to it? Or perhaps do it himself?
Uhhhh... no. If I need a tool NOW I am not going to wait for the community to whip it out sometime before the second coming, or for me to develop the skills needed to code it myself (not to mention the actual coding and testing time)!
So you are paying for your "free" software in wasted time and crippled productivity. Which to me is a much higher price then Apples small cost.
Now if you want to mod the underlying BSD layer of OS X you CAN!!!! You may have to send the alterations up the chain to Apple but how is that any different then sending the changes to the distro maintainers on any other *NIX?
Hells bells! Everytime I hear a variation on this saw it seems to be saying nothing more then: I won't pay for an OS! I want what Apple PAID TO MAKE to be provided to all at NO COST! Or, I want to be able to alter the code to all parts of OS X and do with it what I will with out so much as the courtesy of letting the writers know of any improvements.
You can alter the same software that you are currently using and sharing! Since almost all of it will run on OS X! The only stuff you can't alter and redistribute is the stuff that someone own the copyright on.
So go ahead and diddle about with the code on Darwin! Knock yourself out! Just follow the license and send the changes upstream! And if you want to share it with friends I might suggest signing up for a free developer account on Apple and just considering those few close friends as part of your coding team!
In this very thread I covered the fact that 'massive' does not mean 'omnipresent'. There will be packages that are not covered, as you indeed go on to talk about.
You can do that on Mac systems too, using mkbom and the developer tools for package management.
And me. Most of my systems management experience is in Solaris, and Linux. I hate SysV init. You've never fully appreciated overkill until you observe that their are eleven states you can put your server into.
One can't violate POSIX. One can implement it, or not. BSD does implement POSIX and also supplements it just as some SysVs do. Ignoring that oversight for the moment, let's have a look at why the BSD signal handler mechanism is superior (indeed, many SysVs now implement it in acknowledgement of this, though I'd be wary about claiming that all SysVs do). In the SysV/SysIII/VIIed signals API, once a signal has been received, the signal handler is reset to its default value. This means that if I'm expecting SIGHUP to be overloaded somehow, and send my process two SIGHUP signals, I cannot guarantee that the second is handled in the expected manner. Not so with the BSD handler mechanism, which does not reset the signal handlers. Then what happens if you receive a signal while within a signal handler? Well, in SysV, you've got an interesting race condition on your hands. The BSD signal handler introduce ways in which signals could be vetoed or suspended over blocks of code.
Yes it was, although Classic MacOS didn't have fat binaries. Todays topic: NeXT Computer, Inc. (later NeXT Software, Inc.)
No it's not. But that's only because you're using a system that doesn't support it. Think of this: I can develop an application on my black slab, then bundle it up and distribute that one bundle to people using SPARC, M68k, Intel and HP-PA. This saves me a lot of work. Have a look too at the Darwin installation CD available from Apple. That one CD will install on both PowerPC and IA32 architectures. Let's say I decided that I didn't like any of the systems available today, and went out to create uber-UNIX for IA32, IA64, PowerPC, Itanium, SPARC, M68k, ARM, HP-PA, PDP-7 and Alpha. Wouldn't it be great if I only had one distribution set to maintain? Wouldn't it be great if all of my developers could compile for all supported platforms, without the tedium involved with cross-compiling on less aware systems?
I'm sorry, but the article you linked to doesn't give enough information for those benchmarks to be supported. For instance, when comparing file system latencies, why does the benchmarker not tell us which filesystem he is using on each system? My guess is that he's using e2fs on Linux and HFS+ on Darwin. Why not use UFS on both, to actually determine whether the Operating System is the source of the bottlen