|
|
Why OSX and not Linux?
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area
Status:
Offline
|
|
So in my other thread someone told me I know nothing abot OSX b/c it's really based on FreeBSD and thus is really an open-source OS with a GUI layer on top of it, which we pay money for.
This statement prompted me to start a whole new thread, b/c I think this is very very wrong. So I wanted to see what other ex-Unix/Linux/BSD users think about this. Why did you choose OSX? Was it just for the pretty bells and whistles? Is that all that OSX offers over other *nixes?
I personally love Linux, and I still use it at work everyday. OSX is prettier, but that's not the reason I chose to switch and pay the extra $$. Not at all. I personally like running all the latest software on my machine - and this was a problem with my Linux box. I spent way too much time making everything work together ... package management was hellish. Many things did not want to work. Some libraries did not function properly on my old hardware ... etc etc. I could not just open up a movie player and watch a quick time preview of LotR I could not do a lot of things nearly as easily as I can with my iMac now, and some things I could not do at all, even after long struggles ...
So to me investing in a Mac was far more than buying Aqua. I paid for having hardware/software integration. I paid for the ease of use. I paid for media simplicity.
I recognize the fact that Darwin is the core, and Darwin is open source. I know all about BSD past - I write code at work every day, and I use Unix software on my Mac all the time - I've had Fink installed on it almost since the day I bought it. But given all that, I still think OSX is much more than a pretty BSD. The Unix core is by far not the whole system. What do other people here think? Is this community just fooling itself in thinking that we got something special going on? Are we just BSD users paying extra $$ for pretty buttons on our windows?
|
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: From The Deep End Of The Jar ©
Status:
Offline
|
|
I personally like running all the latest software on my machine - and this was a problem with my Linux box. I spent way too much time making everything work together ... package management was hellish.
And then you say.....
The Unix core is by far not the whole system. What do other people here think? Is this community just fooling itself in thinking that we got something special going on? Are we just BSD users paying extra $$ for pretty buttons on our windows?
I believe you answered your own question!
|
20"iMac intel 2.66 Duo: 4GB RAM : OS 10.6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Umbrella Research Center
Status:
Offline
|
|
the reason i dont run linux is because it is really a pain to get graphical libraries looking the same... they just need to pick between qt and gtk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vermont
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Phanguye:
they just need to pick between qt and gtk
AMEN!
I run into that same problem when running X11 on OSX fullscreen. KDE/Gnome, Qt/GTK... they seem split down the middle. I can see why, each one has their own benefits. They're both very consistent within themselves... I'd like to see some team do a cocoa/carbon thing to them. Buuuut this post belongs in the unix forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
sorry, this is the wrong forum for this post...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is probably in the wrong forum, however:
I use OS X because:
- I get all the applications that I need that Linux/BSD cannot deliver on. The GIMP is nice and all, but I get Adobe apps, MM apps here. I'm a Graphic Design professional -- If I cannot run those, I'm out, as much as I liked things like Ximian, OpenOffice etc.
- Meanwhile, I can still use the terminal for some stuff -- however, I don't have to. the Settings/config gui kicks the ass of anything that RH/Suse/Debian can ever put together.
- It's nice and shiny. Well, okay. That doesn't matter. but the fact that the GUI looks nice does influence my enjoyment of the system.
I'm not in the mood to have to defend my opinions here, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Technically, OS X is an amalgamation. It's not a true Open Source operating system, as only about a third of the core OS is open source: the Darwin/BSD microkernel system. That BSD system is stacked on top of a MACH microkernel, which is closed source. Then you have the Aqua layer, which is also closed source.
Of course, there are other open-source elements, such as rendezvous, that are put into OS X. However, it's generally a closed-source OS.
(On the other hand, YOu can go completely opensource with Yellowdog LInux or one of the many BSD builds that run on PPC hardware and have a completely OpenSource solution)
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area
Status:
Offline
|
|
I guess this thread could belong to another forum ... my original reason for putting it here was that I was told that I'm paying for the GUI on top of BSD. But if the admins want to move it, go ahead.
|
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I am not the most knowledgeable person here but I can throw my 2 cents in. Even if I am being fooled into just paying for a GUI for BSD, I would still buy it. I have not tried many linux distros, but OS X and all the software for it is amazing. The prices are also fairly cheap when compared to Windows. So I really don't have an issue for paying for it. If OS X was donationware, I probably would have donated more than $130. Maybe I'm a Mac fanboy or maybe I just like getting work done on a computer that i find helps my in my productivity, not discourages it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Usability.
I don't want to work *on* my OS.
jesse ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amerimacka (mostly).
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think OS X offers a nice bridge between the hard edges of Unix, and the friendliness of the Windows/Mac world. OS X definitely puts a comfortable face on a Unix system, but I guess that's not its only target, being usable by people without much of a clue to Unix is also pretty important.
I wouldn't touch OS X for 3D work though, it's slower than Linux, hasn't got the same depth of high-end applications, the lack of integration in a studio which has its own proprietary software, and the lack of any good GFX boards really puts a damper on it.
|
Over 100,000 Iraqis -dead. Over 200,000 Afganis - dead. and counting...
All dead based on lies fed to an uninformed public, to manipulate them into not seeing the true agenda. All dead in the name of protecting US interests. Not one single thing these hypocrites tells us is based on truth. Not one thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SanDiego
Status:
Offline
|
|
All I can say is:
Whatever the core, I believe Apple is still capable of making it the industry leading OS. I would be using OSX right now regardless of what Apple chose to build upon. =)
.. Even if that was Windows. x_x
- Xidius
|
You're just jealous coz' the voices wont talk to you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
osx isnt just "prettier" than linux its more about usability, linux apps all too often are made just by programmers who know nothing about sensible UI design, makes it utter hell to use unless your used to constant physical pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amerimacka (mostly).
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by sushiism:
osx isnt just "prettier" than linux its more about usability, linux apps all too often are made just by programmers who know nothing about sensible UI design, makes it utter hell to use unless your used to constant physical pain.
In general, yes, but for certain key high-end areas, it has OS X knocked into a hole. Applications such as Houdini, XSI, Maya, and soon to be, Discreet compositing tools, have similar GUI's to their Windows versions, but with the added bonus of being far faster. Some of those apps aren't even on the Mac yet.
|
Over 100,000 Iraqis -dead. Over 200,000 Afganis - dead. and counting...
All dead based on lies fed to an uninformed public, to manipulate them into not seeing the true agenda. All dead in the name of protecting US interests. Not one single thing these hypocrites tells us is based on truth. Not one thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by sushiism:
osx isnt just "prettier" than linux its more about usability, linux apps all too often are made just by programmers who know nothing about sensible UI design, makes it utter hell to use unless your used to constant physical pain.
That's one of very important points for me too. Granted it's easier to theme Linux to make it look the way you want, but if an app's UI design is flawed from the start, it does not matter if it's GTK, GTK2, or QT - it's still unusable
|
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by MorphOSX:
That BSD system is stacked on top of a MACH microkernel, which is closed source.
Uh, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Angus_D:
Uh, no.
yeah, that statement made me uneasy as well
|
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Umbrella Research Center
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Angus_D:
Uh, no.
'
mach is also not a microkernal, correct? monolithic is the term?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: someplace
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, it is a microkernel.
They are taking exception to your statement about Mach being closed source. Behold:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/proje...urces_top.html
Darwin is open source (including Mach and the BSD layer), so you basically get all of OS X except the GUI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Spokane, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
OS X doesn't use Mach. It uses a kernel called XNU which uses Mach 3.x as its fundamental design basis, but Apple has extended the kernel and refined it dramatically beyond the vanilla Mach 3.x kernel.
Mach 3.0 was technically the first complete microkernel implementation of Mach, but the distinction is so blurry these days especially with XNU. Many services like the BSD subsystem are implemented into the kernel, which is how things were done in Mach's more monolithic days prior to 3.0, and XNU also implements several other services in the kernel space which would normally be religated to user-space servers and services in a true microkernel architecture.
So in closing, OS X uses a kernel called XNU, which while not Mach 3.x was originally based on it. XNU is neither a microkernel, nor a monolithic kernel, it is somewhere in between.
Oh and this totally doesn't belong in this forum
-Nathan
P.S. Darwin is the OSS system developed by Apple. The latest version is supposed to be in sync with FreeBSD 5.x I believe. Darwin includes many things, XNU, CoreFoundation, IOKit, etc. It is the fundamental part of what we use as OS X. OS X however uncludes a great deal more frameworks and layers, Cocoa, Carbon, Quicktime, Quartz, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Last time i checked apple's documentation (yes, I believe what my developer docu tells me), OS X uses MACH (or so it is called in what I read, that may not be accurate) and BSD, and that the BSD layer runs on top of the MACH core (which I thought was a microkernel, however I see now that I'm incorrect about that), hence I said stacked. If this is incorrect, I apologize. I may have been reading the wrong information and am not understanding it properly, that happens from time to time.
Oh, and I appreciate the technical information. I always enjoy learning new things (especially when it corrects something I misunderstand).
Dave
P.S., It would help me, and probably a lot of other users, if instead of saying "uh, no" or some such you gave the correct information to help better understand what's going on.
Thanks.
(
Last edited by MorphOSX; Jan 28, 2004 at 04:00 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Okay, I bow before the smarter people here.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/
Great read, very informative. A quick recount from me:
-The base is XNU, not specifically MACH.
-BSD runs as part of the kernel (on top of the Mach base, from I can tell, but still as part of the whole thing).
So, I misunderstood, therefore I apologize and correct myself.
Thanks for the prod to do research. I feel smarter already. ;-)
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|