In terms of size and performance, UNIX installations can be small and nimble compared to MacOS X, which has to support a lot more "stuff".
I agree. Particularly true in devices like Tivo. The author's metaphor is broken.
In terms of software architecture, MacOS is a mess and a dumping ground of legacy technologies: microkernel, UNIX personality, Objective-C, Java, MacOS ROMs, etc.;
I don't really agree with your assessment. There are only two real APIs to be concerned with for Mac OS X: Carbon and Cocoa. Carbon is a cleanup of Mac OS libraries so that old software still runs. Cocoa is a combination of OpenStep's Objective-C and Java. The reasoning for the inclusion of the BSD layer should be obvious. MOSX even comes with built-in Java 2 support. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else is doing that.
Nothing here is too ridiculous. People would be upset if any of this was left out. In fact, one could argue that deciding which Linux environment to develop for (GNOME, GTK) is more of a hassle. Not to mention all the basic services that X is lacking (or whoever is supposed to take care of fonts, printing, graphics, color correction, etc).
no design or taste there
I'm sorry, but I just don't feel Linux has much to say to Mac OS X in terms of design and taste. If you use the software, you'll realize this stuff has been very well thought out, and this is just the beta. Look for, example, at the fact that the configuration are XML-based, and are modified with an XML GUI front end. Linux would do well to learn from this. Consitency is certain an area where Linux could grow.
In terms of appearance, there are plenty of pretty UNIX GUI interfaces.
Pretty and intuitive are different things. Enlightenment is pretty (not as pretty as Aqua, though), but not intuitive. And frankly, that's not really E's fault as much as a function of that fact that it has to remain compatible with the way *nix is setup. Mac OS X does not.
MacOS X, with its consumer market share, may be an OK compromise for people who want UNIX reliability and some kind of consumer-oriented system. But I don't think people have been holding their breath for this
Hmmmm, even just reading slashdot posts (largely an Apple-hostive environment), I would think the opposite. Very interesting comments have also come from Carmack and other people at Id.
MacOS X isn't salvation for the UNIX users of the world, it's salavation for Apple: without it, the company would not have a competitive product at all.
I agree that Apple needs this product badly, but if you really want the Unix userbase to grow (in other words, anything that's not NT), than take a hard look at MOSX before you make sweeping generalizations. You don't have to like it if you don't want to. Heck, Linux might even learn a thing or two from it.
- Scott
(I've used/administered SunOS/Solaris/Linux/Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server and many others)
I use something like this every day - it's called IRIX
Ah yes, but IRIX doesn't have all the Mac software -- Adobe, Macormedia, MetaCreations/Corel, games, etc. This is why Carbon is good, and Rhapsody was bad.
I guess it would be too much to ask for Mac OS X to use rpm
Not natively, but somebody could probably port it. Of course having two project managers on the same system is probably a bad idea, at least for non-hackers.
but I would be thrilled to hear that there is a real package management scheme built into Mac OS X. Is there?
Yes. The files are.pkg (or at least they were in the developer releases). I don't know if the package management system has any special name beyond "package manager."
A real problem with the Mac OS X of old is that it's waaay to easy to scatter installed software all over the place.
I assume you mean the "Mac OS" of old.;) And despite the lack of package management, I still felt it was easier to find installed files on Mac OS than on Windows or *nix.
A real package system would also make it so convenient to upgrade the system, especially during the beta cycle.
I'm pretty sure it has signed internet-based updates (Mac OS 9 does). The help system is also dyanmically grabbed from the net, apparently. Though I hope there's backup access if TCP/IP is unavailable.
I recommending checking out the recently updated Darwin FAQ. There's actually quite a bit of insight here, including strategic direction, syncing of the Mac OS X and Darwin trees, etc. It's not just PR fluff. Many of the questions were submitted by Dirk Myers of DaemonNews.
Actually it would be incredibly convienent for some application programs to be able to assume the compiler is installed. How about an applicattion that can convert "macros" into "plugins" (something I am working on right now).
That's a good pro, but I think the cons outweigh it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any free registration.
There are several levels of ADC member. "ADC Online" membership is free, and will get you access to the tools in question. Or, get the compilers from Darwin right now.
I'm considering developing on OSX, but not if it costs $400 for some GNU based tools. That's almost as expensive as Visual Studio...
Not only gcc, etc free, but it looks like Project Builder and company will be available for free as well.
I think it was fairly stupid of apple to not ship at least cc and make with the beta, this prevents non-apple paying developers to actually port anything.
Dev tools will be downloadable in Mid-October. You only need an "ADC Online" account to get to the files, which can be had for free.
I don't know how much of the UI is built into the kernel
I don't think the kernel is married to the UI at all, though the Mac apps are. All the fancy UI stuff happens with the help of the Quartz libraries, though. Quartz is apparently "PDF based," whatever that means.
but if they could port the UI to x86 and run it on top of your favorite distro, you could have the nice fluffy mac interface
Interesting idea, but I don't think it's every going to happen. Aside from the fact that it would be a bad monetary decision, it would be a confusing move for Apple strategically.
If the final shipping product still contains the same tool set, I might get my mother and Apple with OSX on it. Heck, I may even buy myself one (Apples are too expensive though!)
Prices have come down a lot. As I side in another post: iMacs start at $799, a single CPU G4 tower is $1600, and a dual G4 with gigabit ethernet is $2500. You can get a Radeon card installed in the towers now, as well.
all i have is DP4, but cc is gcc. the debugger is gdb. i don't know if the linker is gnu ld, but i suspect it is. sounds like another crappy article off slashdot... what happened to the good stuff?
The article is correct. DP4 had gcc, etc. because it was intended for developers. The public beta does not, however the tools will be available for download in mid-October.
Of course MacOS X will never be as "good" as the other *nixs, it's not meant to be.MacOS X isn't meant to replace Solarise,OpenBSD,Linux,etc, its for the average user, those who don't know the difference between a cracker and hacker.
I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions. Just because Apple's main focus right now is designers, consumers and education doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be forever.
I wouldn't really expect Apple to compete against Solaris anytime soon, but it can certainly evolve into a capable small-to-mid-range server platform with a little work. Heck, people have been using Mac OS (the non-Unix kind) as servers for years.
From what I understand, GNUStep would probably only help you run Cocoa applications. Most of the interesting stuff that exists today is written to Carbon. More Cocoa apps should appear as time goes on.
However, even if you got something to run Cocoa apps, you still wouldn't have Quartz or QuickTime.
so porting to x86 would allow current mac harware buyers to get the same operating system they love on cheaper hardware
It's a little more complex than that. One of the reasons the Mac is so easy to use is that the OS doesn't have to support tons and tons of video cards, SCSI cards, hard drives, etc. It's standardized hardware. So a Mac OS X on x86 would probably not work as seamlessly as one on PPC.
This intergration also allows Apple to make simultaneous changes to both the hardware and OS to introduce new features. Example: AirPort.
This gets asked constantly. The reality is it would probably be pretty easy to get Mac OS X to boot on x86 hardware, but it wouldn't be a sound business decision for Apple for a variety of reasons. The main one is that Apple is a hardware company. Selling Mac OS X for x86 would put them smack up against Microsoft.
Plus, you wouldn't have access to the existing library of Mac software. You'd only be able to run Cocoa apps.
... promting their newest software as being more functional because there are more ways to mess it up at the core level? That's how the lUsers will see it.
Personaly, the less we say about the BSD backing on OSX, the better we'll all be in the long run.
The BSD (or really, Mach) side of things is good for 1) performance 2) stability and 3) porting of server applications.
And while the arrival of the GNU tool set -- the mainstay of Unix development -- is inevitable, it's a shame that Apple didn't see fit to include it in the Mac OS X beta.
The reason for this may be so that mortal users are not expected to actually compile their own software to use it. Example: Windows doesn't come with compilers, so virtually all Windows software (even Apache, PHP, etc.) come in binary form.
From what I understand, the dev tools: Project Builder and friends (and even gcc, etc) will be available for free download from the ADC (Apple Developer Connection) site in October.
I'm fairly confident that compilers, in one form or another, will be freely available.
Um, i recieved an email, while on the Apple Mailing List about the iMac about 2 months before it came out.
The iMac was "introduced" aka "announced" aka "unveiled" at a media event in May 1998. It shipped in August. Apple wasn't in danger of cutting into sales because there was no comparable machine (consumer centric) in the product line at the time.
Well with all the stuff going on with Rambus, I think this is just Apple taking steps to make sure they retain the title of Most Litigation-Happy Company Ever.
Ummm, nobody is suing anybody in this story. Apple just doesn't want to keep giving money to the people that are pre-announcing their products for them.
all publications should stop talking about Apple period. No more regurgitation of self-serving press-releases as news, no more bullshit corporate spin as commentary, no more free advertising in the form of product reviews
Ummm, what?
I think Slashdot should from this point forward replace the Apple icon in its stories with a photo of Steve Jobs in Stalin's moustache.
This really underlines an important point. Despite what people might think, Apple is not a government. It is a for-profit company. Apple is not responsible for the coverup of the discovery of aliens. Jobs did not assissinate JFK. They're not trying to prevent you from watching DVDs on Linux, or even preventing you from downloading Metallica MP3s.
ALL Apple is doing is deciding to not pay the people that are taking information on their unannounced products (some that may never even make it to market), and selling it in a magazine for personal gain. Most of these magazines and online publications are for-profit organizations. They are taking something from Apple, and attempting to make a quick buck off it. Why would Apple continue to buy advertising from these people? I don't see anything immoral about this. They're voting with their checkbook.
He's better than Bill, alright--even a better power-drunk, paranoid Tyrant.
What's amusing is that Gates is doing such a good job at what he does that you actually believe Apple/Jobs is more harmful to the industry/society than Microsoft/Gates. When was the last time Microsoft released an open source OS, of any kind? Or an open source streaming media server? How much innovation has Microsoft really brought to the industry?
Rumour sites are what get the hype going, people salivating, and the media interested and pumped.
No, that's what the media events are for.
Steve Jobs is a control freak who while being good at getting people focused and directed, has proven time and again to be bad for the long term interests of the company.
You're kidding, right? Apple has pretty much only done well (mindshare, interest, profits, innovative products) while Jobs has been in charge. Had Jobs not been there, Jonathan Ives (head of industrial design) probably would have left, and Apple would still be chasing an OS strategy that would force all developers to rewrite their software from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for all the mispellin.., misppelli... mistakes in that post, btw. It's late.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
In terms of size and performance, UNIX installations can be small and nimble compared to MacOS X, which has to support a lot more "stuff".
I agree. Particularly true in devices like Tivo. The author's metaphor is broken.
In terms of software architecture, MacOS is a mess and a dumping ground of legacy technologies: microkernel, UNIX personality, Objective-C, Java, MacOS ROMs, etc.;
I don't really agree with your assessment. There are only two real APIs to be concerned with for Mac OS X: Carbon and Cocoa. Carbon is a cleanup of Mac OS libraries so that old software still runs. Cocoa is a combination of OpenStep's Objective-C and Java. The reasoning for the inclusion of the BSD layer should be obvious. MOSX even comes with built-in Java 2 support. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else is doing that.
Nothing here is too ridiculous. People would be upset if any of this was left out. In fact, one could argue that deciding which Linux environment to develop for (GNOME, GTK) is more of a hassle. Not to mention all the basic services that X is lacking (or whoever is supposed to take care of fonts, printing, graphics, color correction, etc).
no design or taste there
I'm sorry, but I just don't feel Linux has much to say to Mac OS X in terms of design and taste. If you use the software, you'll realize this stuff has been very well thought out, and this is just the beta. Look for, example, at the fact that the configuration are XML-based, and are modified with an XML GUI front end. Linux would do well to learn from this. Consitency is certain an area where Linux could grow.
In terms of appearance, there are plenty of pretty UNIX GUI interfaces.
Pretty and intuitive are different things. Enlightenment is pretty (not as pretty as Aqua, though), but not intuitive. And frankly, that's not really E's fault as much as a function of that fact that it has to remain compatible with the way *nix is setup. Mac OS X does not.
MacOS X, with its consumer market share, may be an OK compromise for people who want UNIX reliability and some kind of consumer-oriented system. But I don't think people have been holding their breath for this
Hmmmm, even just reading slashdot posts (largely an Apple-hostive environment), I would think the opposite. Very interesting comments have also come from Carmack and other people at Id.
MacOS X isn't salvation for the UNIX users of the world, it's salavation for Apple: without it, the company would not have a competitive product at all.
I agree that Apple needs this product badly, but if you really want the Unix userbase to grow (in other words, anything that's not NT), than take a hard look at MOSX before you make sweeping generalizations. You don't have to like it if you don't want to. Heck, Linux might even learn a thing or two from it.
- Scott
(I've used/administered SunOS/Solaris/Linux/Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server and many others)
------
Scott Stevenson
I use something like this every day - it's called IRIX
Ah yes, but IRIX doesn't have all the Mac software -- Adobe, Macormedia, MetaCreations/Corel, games, etc. This is why Carbon is good, and Rhapsody was bad.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Of course having two project managers on the same system is probably a bad idea
Errr, would you believe "package managers"?
Also, I believe USB printing is available to some degree in this release.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I guess it would be too much to ask for Mac OS X to use rpm
.pkg (or at least they were in the developer releases). I don't know if the package management system has any special name beyond "package manager."
;) And despite the lack of package management, I still felt it was easier to find installed files on Mac OS than on Windows or *nix.
Not natively, but somebody could probably port it. Of course having two project managers on the same system is probably a bad idea, at least for non-hackers.
but I would be thrilled to hear that there is a real package management scheme built into Mac OS X. Is there?
Yes. The files are
A real problem with the Mac OS X of old is that it's waaay to easy to scatter installed software all over the place.
I assume you mean the "Mac OS" of old.
A real package system would also make it so convenient to upgrade the system, especially during the beta cycle.
I'm pretty sure it has signed internet-based updates (Mac OS 9 does). The help system is also dyanmically grabbed from the net, apparently. Though I hope there's backup access if TCP/IP is unavailable.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I recommending checking out the recently updated Darwin FAQ. There's actually quite a bit of insight here, including strategic direction, syncing of the Mac OS X and Darwin trees, etc. It's not just PR fluff. Many of the questions were submitted by Dirk Myers of DaemonNews.
Thanks to darwininfo.org for the link!
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Actually it would be incredibly convienent for some application programs to be able to assume the compiler is installed. How about an applicattion that can convert "macros" into "plugins" (something I am working on right now).
That's a good pro, but I think the cons outweigh it.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any free registration.
There are several levels of ADC member. "ADC Online" membership is free, and will get you access to the tools in question. Or, get the compilers from Darwin right now.
I'm considering developing on OSX, but not if it costs $400 for some GNU based tools. That's almost as expensive as Visual Studio...
Not only gcc, etc free, but it looks like Project Builder and company will be available for free as well.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I think it was fairly stupid of apple to not ship at least cc and make with the beta, this prevents non-apple paying developers to actually port anything.
Dev tools will be downloadable in Mid-October. You only need an "ADC Online" account to get to the files, which can be had for free.
Or you can get the dev tools from Darwin right now.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I don't know how much of the UI is built into the kernel
I don't think the kernel is married to the UI at all, though the Mac apps are. All the fancy UI stuff happens with the help of the Quartz libraries, though. Quartz is apparently "PDF based," whatever that means.
but if they could port the UI to x86 and run it on top of your favorite distro, you could have the nice fluffy mac interface
Interesting idea, but I don't think it's every going to happen. Aside from the fact that it would be a bad monetary decision, it would be a confusing move for Apple strategically.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
If the final shipping product still contains the same tool set, I might get my mother and Apple with OSX on it. Heck, I may even buy myself one (Apples are too expensive though!)
Prices have come down a lot. As I side in another post: iMacs start at $799, a single CPU G4 tower is $1600, and a dual G4 with gigabit ethernet is $2500. You can get a Radeon card installed in the towers now, as well.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
all i have is DP4, but cc is gcc. the debugger is gdb. i don't know if the linker is gnu ld, but i suspect it is. sounds like another crappy article off slashdot... what happened to the good stuff?
The article is correct. DP4 had gcc, etc. because it was intended for developers. The public beta does not, however the tools will be available for download in mid-October.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
OSX should be Free (you know what that means).
;)
Apple's a business. And a profitable one at that. They have shareholders.
And quite frankly, I'd be scared to see what all the hackers would do to the Mac OS X UI.
And Mac hardware cost a small fortune.
iMacs start at $799, and you can get a tower G4 for $1600 with single CPU, or $2500 for dual and gigabit ethernet built-in.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Of course MacOS X will never be as "good" as the other *nixs, it's not meant to be.MacOS X isn't meant to replace Solarise,OpenBSD,Linux,etc, its for the average user, those who don't know the difference between a cracker and hacker.
I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions. Just because Apple's main focus right now is designers, consumers and education doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be forever.
I wouldn't really expect Apple to compete against Solaris anytime soon, but it can certainly evolve into a capable small-to-mid-range server platform with a little work. Heck, people have been using Mac OS (the non-Unix kind) as servers for years.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
GNUStep is your only hope...
From what I understand, GNUStep would probably only help you run Cocoa applications. Most of the interesting stuff that exists today is written to Carbon. More Cocoa apps should appear as time goes on.
However, even if you got something to run Cocoa apps, you still wouldn't have Quartz or QuickTime.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
so porting to x86 would allow current mac harware buyers to get the same operating system they love on cheaper hardware
It's a little more complex than that. One of the reasons the Mac is so easy to use is that the OS doesn't have to support tons and tons of video cards, SCSI cards, hard drives, etc. It's standardized hardware. So a Mac OS X on x86 would probably not work as seamlessly as one on PPC.
This intergration also allows Apple to make simultaneous changes to both the hardware and OS to introduce new features. Example: AirPort.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Anyone know if Apple are planning a port to x86?
This gets asked constantly. The reality is it would probably be pretty easy to get Mac OS X to boot on x86 hardware, but it wouldn't be a sound business decision for Apple for a variety of reasons. The main one is that Apple is a hardware company. Selling Mac OS X for x86 would put them smack up against Microsoft.
Plus, you wouldn't have access to the existing library of Mac software. You'd only be able to run Cocoa apps.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Just think of it: the lack of ftpd and httpd
Both come built-in. The former is Apache, btw.
nothing for media playback except for the proprietary QT4 player (hopefully optimized for OSX)
Download RealPlayer. Download Microsoft Media Player. Download Macster (for Napster).
and a TCP-IP stack that's about as stable as a tall stack of dimes
Uh, what? What makes you draw that conclusion?
All of this adds up to an unpleasant unix experience.
Doesn't really sound like you've used Mac OS X yet.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
... promting their newest software as being more functional because there are more ways to mess it up at the core level? That's how the lUsers will see it.
Personaly, the less we say about the BSD backing on OSX, the better we'll all be in the long run.
The BSD (or really, Mach) side of things is good for 1) performance 2) stability and 3) porting of server applications.
Many iMac users won't care or know what BSD is.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I'm not surprised that OS X isn't great as a Unix
This isn't what the article says. I've used Mac OS X DP4, and I think MOSX is a quite capable Unix, particularly when you grab an X server.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
And while the arrival of the GNU tool set -- the mainstay of Unix development -- is inevitable, it's a shame that Apple didn't see fit to include it in the Mac OS X beta.
The reason for this may be so that mortal users are not expected to actually compile their own software to use it. Example: Windows doesn't come with compilers, so virtually all Windows software (even Apache, PHP, etc.) come in binary form.
From what I understand, the dev tools: Project Builder and friends (and even gcc, etc) will be available for free download from the ADC (Apple Developer Connection) site in October.
I'm fairly confident that compilers, in one form or another, will be freely available.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Um, i recieved an email, while on the Apple Mailing List about the iMac about 2 months before it came out.
The iMac was "introduced" aka "announced" aka "unveiled" at a media event in May 1998. It shipped in August. Apple wasn't in danger of cutting into sales because there was no comparable machine (consumer centric) in the product line at the time.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Well with all the stuff going on with Rambus, I think this is just Apple taking steps to make sure they retain the title of Most Litigation-Happy Company Ever.
Ummm, nobody is suing anybody in this story. Apple just doesn't want to keep giving money to the people that are pre-announcing their products for them.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
all publications should stop talking about Apple period. No more regurgitation of self-serving press-releases as news, no more bullshit corporate spin as commentary, no more free advertising in the form of product reviews
Ummm, what?
I think Slashdot should from this point forward replace the Apple icon in its stories with a photo of Steve Jobs in Stalin's moustache.
This really underlines an important point. Despite what people might think, Apple is not a government. It is a for-profit company. Apple is not responsible for the coverup of the discovery of aliens. Jobs did not assissinate JFK. They're not trying to prevent you from watching DVDs on Linux, or even preventing you from downloading Metallica MP3s.
ALL Apple is doing is deciding to not pay the people that are taking information on their unannounced products (some that may never even make it to market), and selling it in a magazine for personal gain. Most of these magazines and online publications are for-profit organizations. They are taking something from Apple, and attempting to make a quick buck off it. Why would Apple continue to buy advertising from these people? I don't see anything immoral about this. They're voting with their checkbook.
He's better than Bill, alright--even a better power-drunk, paranoid Tyrant.
What's amusing is that Gates is doing such a good job at what he does that you actually believe Apple/Jobs is more harmful to the industry/society than Microsoft/Gates. When was the last time Microsoft released an open source OS, of any kind? Or an open source streaming media server? How much innovation has Microsoft really brought to the industry?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Rumour sites are what get the hype going, people salivating, and the media interested and pumped.
No, that's what the media events are for.
Steve Jobs is a control freak who while being good at getting people focused and directed, has proven time and again to be bad for the long term interests of the company.
You're kidding, right? Apple has pretty much only done well (mindshare, interest, profits, innovative products) while Jobs has been in charge. Had Jobs not been there, Jonathan Ives (head of industrial design) probably would have left, and Apple would still be chasing an OS strategy that would force all developers to rewrite their software from scratch.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson