There are several answers to this question, depending on what kind of UNIX apps you're talking about:
If you mean any of the hundreds of free/open source libraries and command-line utilities/servers, the answer is "duh". In almost all cases (once OSX ships) there will be little or no "porting" required. All of these apps, from Apache to Pine to vi will build with a simple "make".
If you mean open-source apps that use X11R6, perhaps in conjuction with a GUI toolkit, then it depends. There is already at least one X11R6 server for OSX, and you can be sure that there will be some excellent solutions for X11R6, including "rootless" operation using Aqua windows, and so forth. I think it would be interesting if the popular GUI toolkits were ported from X11R6 to Aqua (a fair amount of work). Then you wouldn't need X11R6 and your apps would run without modification.
Finally, commercial apps. Commercial UNIX applications will only become available as MacOSX binaries if the GUI barriers can be avoided, and if the producers of those applications consider OSX to be a "serious enough" platform. It's not so much an issue of how well these apps would run on MacOS - it's really a political and religious barrier. Look at how long it took for Oracle to recognize Linux.
As much as I can't stand the Windows OS, I choose it for running CAD tools over the Solaris alternatives, mostly because of the fact that -all- of my tools will run under Windows. A platform's success is all about momentum - more apps, more users; more users, more apps. I would much rather run these tools on a less intrusive OS such as Linux or Mac. The reason Linux has only achieved moderate success in gaining commercial support is because it is still widely regarded as an OS for hacker kids, not serious professionals. As much as this sentiment annoys me, it can't be denied that Linux users generally don't like paying for their software (let's see, CodeWarrior or GCC?) so the software has to be something spectacular if they're going to sell it at all. Will MacOS do any better? Hopefully, Apple will leverage their platform's reputation for excellent ease of use, graphics, and video capabilities (the areas where they clearly have an advantage over Unix) in convincing the UNIX software developers to port their engineering tools and such. It hasn't worked in the past, but soon it will be so easy to move those programs to OSX.
I would also note that while the OSX developer releases demonstrate some interesting technology, they still have a *long* way to go before they have anything that would be considered an "upgrade" from OS9. For now I'll have to keep one each of Mac, PC, FreeBSD and Linux all stacked under my desk.
If Apple plays their cards right, they stand to deliver the first platform that will appeal to both free and commercial software developers, while also offering the flexibility, ease of use, and great hardware that consumers want. Can they pull it off?
Slashdot Mirror
- If you mean any of the hundreds of free/open source libraries and command-line utilities/servers, the answer is "duh". In almost all cases (once OSX ships) there will be little or no "porting" required. All of these apps, from Apache to Pine to vi will build with a simple "make".
- If you mean open-source apps that use X11R6, perhaps in conjuction with a GUI toolkit, then it depends. There is already at least one X11R6 server for OSX, and you can be sure that there will be some excellent solutions for X11R6, including "rootless" operation using Aqua windows, and so forth. I think it would be interesting if the popular GUI toolkits were ported from X11R6 to Aqua (a fair amount of work). Then you wouldn't need X11R6 and your apps would run without modification.
- Finally, commercial apps. Commercial UNIX applications will only become available as MacOSX binaries if the GUI barriers can be avoided, and if the producers of those applications consider OSX to be a "serious enough" platform. It's not so much an issue of how well these apps would run on MacOS - it's really a political and religious barrier. Look at how long it took for Oracle to recognize Linux.
I would also note that while the OSX developer releases demonstrate some interesting technology, they still have a *long* way to go before they have anything that would be considered an "upgrade" from OS9. For now I'll have to keep one each of Mac, PC, FreeBSD and Linux all stacked under my desk.As much as I can't stand the Windows OS, I choose it for running CAD tools over the Solaris alternatives, mostly because of the fact that -all- of my tools will run under Windows. A platform's success is all about momentum - more apps, more users; more users, more apps. I would much rather run these tools on a less intrusive OS such as Linux or Mac. The reason Linux has only achieved moderate success in gaining commercial support is because it is still widely regarded as an OS for hacker kids, not serious professionals. As much as this sentiment annoys me, it can't be denied that Linux users generally don't like paying for their software (let's see, CodeWarrior or GCC?) so the software has to be something spectacular if they're going to sell it at all. Will MacOS do any better? Hopefully, Apple will leverage their platform's reputation for excellent ease of use, graphics, and video capabilities (the areas where they clearly have an advantage over Unix) in convincing the UNIX software developers to port their engineering tools and such. It hasn't worked in the past, but soon it will be so easy to move those programs to OSX.
If Apple plays their cards right, they stand to deliver the first platform that will appeal to both free and commercial software developers, while also offering the flexibility, ease of use, and great hardware that consumers want. Can they pull it off?