[besson3c]

There have been plenty of threads where Mac users rightly point out the overall weaknesses of using Ubuntu as a Desktop OS: driver support, screen resolution detection, poor ease-of-use, etc. I get it. Full concession there, this thread is not intended to rehash those arguments.

However, I still sense an air of superiority or a reluctance to accept the fact that Linux might be better at *something* than OS X, and that OS X is not the holy grail of all computing. This thread is intended to point out these things. To me, the following is not a list of stuff that I *prefer* more (e.g. preferring the Windows taskbar to the OS X dock), but stuff that is flat out better when observed rationally and objectively. I also realize that these things are pretty geeky, but then again some of these aforementioned Mac users certainly consider themselves geeks too.... So:

1) Virtualization: VMWare Server is available for free in Linux, making it a server based solution (that is actually no more complicated to use than VMWare Workstation) that the Mac lacks. Even if VMWare Server did exist for the Mac, it would make a lousy VM host since the OS is generally pretty bloated and running it at run level 3 is unsupported. The VMWare console plugin does not work in OS X either.

Redhat is also developing solutions like oVirt to compete with ESX Server, and putting their weight behind libvirt/KVM to compete with Xen. As it stands, Xen is used to power entire hosting companies such as Slicehost and Linode.

The short of this: if you want an actual server VM host solution, you are not going to get this in OS X.


2) Gaming: many Windows games run via a simple double click with no modifications necessary via WINE. WINE is free, and much further along in Linux than it is in OS X. Many Mac games are just bad or incomplete ports of the Windows version, if they exist at all.


3) FUSE support: FUSE support is integrated right into Ubuntu/Gnome so that I can connect to SSH volumes and other devices with a FUSE plug via the standard GUI "connect to server" thing. I've never understood why the only way you can specify how you want to connect to the server in OS X is via a "protocol://" prefix and how this is supposed to be user friendly, but I digress. Not only can I connect to a wider variety of shares, but the drives can easily remain icons that reconnect on a double click. FUSE support is being developed for Amazon S3, which will be nice. As it stands, I simply cannot use AFP on the Mac (nor do I want to), so I've been using MacFUSE and the sshfs plug. This has worked out really well, but it is not at all integrated with the rest of the OS.


4) ports/packages/system wide software update: OS X really needs something like FreeBSD Ports or Debian/Ubuntu apt-get. As it stands, one has to wait for these big monolithic point updates from Apple and hope that they don't break anything. These have no downgrade option that I'm aware of, and the versions of services that Apple provides are often out-of-date with no indication I've found as to whether important fixes have been backported. Whenever a new version is available, one has to wait to see if it will be provided in an update from Apple with the compile options you wanted, or else download and install updates from Apple's developer sites or macosforge. I've given up on using Macports, it is nowhere near as reliable and comprehensive as what is offered by FreeBSD or Debian/Ubuntu.

I know this sounds very geeky, but this could be built on to provide a standardized software update mechanism for any software you have installed - even commercial software. The whole software update mechanism right now is a complete mess - both Apple's own, as well as every developer writing their own on an ad hoc basis that we just sort of have to trust. You want to create a virus on OS X? Just make some sort of semi-useful tool that enough Mac users are willing to install (or pay off a developer of an existing product), and include your virus in a software update. Such a system would put Versiontracker and Macupdate out of business, but this would make finding, installing, and keeping software up-to-date much easier. Apple has already sort of put together something like this with the App store in iTunes, I hope they build on this sort of thing and open it up some more.


5) Flash plug-in: why does the Flash plug-in on the Mac perform so poorly? Granted a great percentage of the time the way Flash is used on the web is very annoying, but when it is forced upon me I hate having my browser come to a crawl and my fans turn on because of some trivially simple looping Flash animation or some video I want to play.


6) DVR: MythTV is cooler than the EyeTV stuff in just about every way that I can see. More video capture card support at cheaper prices, more robust programmable remote support for MythTV itself and helper applications such as VLC or MPlayer via LIRC, and great plugins like MythWeb or MythVideo. Granted, MythTV is imperfect, pretty complicated, etc. However, I like the fact that I have MPEG-2 streams of video that I can keep for as long as I want, can use as I want, and can offload or store on any storage device that I want, I like the fact that I don't have to pay any subscription fees for my sporadic TV watching (except for Schedules Direct, which is dirt cheap), and I like being able to keep a PC connected to my big TV which doubles as my MythTV and gaming setup.

[mattyb]

Poop.

[goMac]

Oh boy, this again...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) Virtualization: VMWare Server is available for free in Linux, making it a server based solution (that is actually no more complicated to use than VMWare Workstation) that the Mac lacks. Even if VMWare Server did exist for the Mac, it would make a lousy VM host since the OS is generally pretty bloated and running it at run level 3 is unsupported. The VMWare console plugin does not work in OS X either.

Redhat is also developing solutions like oVirt to compete with ESX Server, and putting their weight behind libvirt/KVM to compete with Xen. As it stands, Xen is used to power entire hosting companies such as Slicehost and Linode.

The short of this: if you want an actual server VM host solution, you are not going to get this in OS X.

VirtualBox. Parallels has a bare metal VM host for Mac.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) Gaming: many Windows games run via a simple double click with no modifications necessary via WINE. WINE is free, and much further along in Linux than it is in OS X. Many Mac games are just bad or incomplete ports of the Windows version, if they exist at all.

WINE runs perfectly fine on Mac, as does Crossover. I play Windows games on it all the time.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

3) FUSE support: FUSE support is integrated right into Ubuntu/Gnome so that I can connect to SSH volumes and other devices with a FUSE plug via the standard GUI "connect to server" thing. I've never understood why the only way you can specify how you want to connect to the server in OS X is via a "protocol://" prefix and how this is supposed to be user friendly, but I digress. Not only can I connect to a wider variety of shares, but the drives can easily remain icons that reconnect on a double click. FUSE support is being developed for Amazon S3, which will be nice. As it stands, I simply cannot use AFP on the Mac (nor do I want to), so I've been using MacFUSE and the sshfs plug. This has worked out really well, but it is not at all integrated with the rest of the OS.

Not a huge problem, so you have to install some free software?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

4) ports/packages/system wide software update: OS X really needs something like FreeBSD Ports or Debian/Ubuntu apt-get. As it stands, one has to wait for these big monolithic point updates from Apple and hope that they don't break anything. These have no downgrade option that I'm aware of, and the versions of services that Apple provides are often out-of-date with no indication I've found as to whether important fixes have been backported. Whenever a new version is available, one has to wait to see if it will be provided in an update from Apple with the compile options you wanted, or else download and install updates from Apple's developer sites or macosforge. I've given up on using Macports, it is nowhere near as reliable and comprehensive as what is offered by FreeBSD or Debian/Ubuntu.

I know this sounds very geeky, but this could be built on to provide a standardized software update mechanism for any software you have installed - even commercial software. The whole software update mechanism right now is a complete mess - both Apple's own, as well as every developer writing their own on an ad hoc basis that we just sort of have to trust. You want to create a virus on OS X? Just make some sort of semi-useful tool that enough Mac users are willing to install (or pay off a developer of an existing product), and include your virus in a software update. Such a system would put Versiontracker and Macupdate out of business, but this would make finding, installing, and keeping software up-to-date much easier. Apple has already sort of put together something like this with the App store in iTunes, I hope they build on this sort of thing and open it up some more.

But Linux HASN'T decided on a standard updating mechanism. Every distribution has a different updating mechanism.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

5) Flash plug-in: why does the Flash plug-in on the Mac perform so poorly? Granted a great percentage of the time the way Flash is used on the web is very annoying, but when it is forced upon me I hate having my browser come to a crawl and my fans turn on because of some trivially simple looping Flash animation or some video I want to play.

I didn't think Flash support on Linux was that great either.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

6) DVR: MythTV is cooler than the EyeTV stuff in just about every way that I can see. More video capture card support at cheaper prices, more robust programmable remote support for MythTV itself and helper applications such as VLC or MPlayer via LIRC, and great plugins like MythWeb or MythVideo. Granted, MythTV is imperfect, pretty complicated, etc. However, I like the fact that I have MPEG-2 streams of video that I can keep for as long as I want, can use as I want, and can offload or store on any storage device that I want, I like the fact that I don't have to pay any subscription fees for my sporadic TV watching (except for Schedules Direct, which is dirt cheap), and I like being able to keep a PC connected to my big TV which doubles as my MythTV and gaming setup.

It's certainly being worked on:
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Myth_on_Mac_OS_X

[Doofy]

Another way that Linux beats OS X is in its ability to supply fodder for exceedingly boring train-spotterish threads.

[mattyb]

poo-poo

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

poo-poo

You owe me a keyboard. One without Cornflakes on it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Poop.

Heheh... I like the fact that you included a period!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Oh boy, this again...

VirtualBox. Parallels has a bare metal VM host for Mac.

You're right, I just checked, they do... It costs $1248.75 and looks like it has feature parity with the entry level free VMWare Server and/or libvirt/KVM. How is it bare metal? The screenshots show it running on OS X...

To be clear, this is a low end product - it does not compare with ESX or oVirt (although neither of these are products that run on top of a public Linux distro either since they are bare metal, although the latter is from a Linux vendor). Really, the only reason this product exists (in my mind) is for Mac users who want to run this on OS X Server and/or virtualize OS X Server itself - I don't really see any other purpose for this product. However, I'll admit I'm wrong, I said that no server solution exists for OS X, this is one. If I have the luxury of changing my argument here, I'll say that OS X does not offer a *free* server VM solution. It also does not offer support for the ESX client (to be fair, neither does Linux), or the Console plugin (which Linux does).

WINE runs perfectly fine on Mac, as does Crossover. I play Windows games on it all the time.

Not according to this and my own experience it doesn't:

http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX

What games have you gotten working in WINE? Or, have you only been using Crossover?

But Linux HASN'T decided on a standard updating mechanism. Every distribution has a different updating mechanism.

True, but what is provided by any of the major distributions is better than what we have now...

I didn't think Flash support on Linux was that great either.

It's not, the 64 bit plugin is still in beta last I checked, but both the beta 64 bit plug and 32 bit plug perform waaayyy better than the absolutely crippled OS X plug, which is annoying. Not a deal breaker, but annoying...

It's certainly being worked on:
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Myth_on_Mac_OS_X

Progress! The last I checked there was only front-end support. However, we'll still need LIRC support and hardware support for more capture cards - there are other moving parts here. This is cool though...

GoMac, I was expecting a response similar to yours. I don't understand why this seems to become such a personal thing for you as if your attachment to your Macs is so great that you feel compelled to defend Apple at every turn? Sorry to insinuate this, but I really do get the vibe that these sort of threads get your guard up in a very big way.

My simple point is that for some people and for some needs there are things that Linux does better. This is not some sort of profoundly controversial statement, I don't think. My point in creating was this thread, again, was to address the notion that OS X represents superiority in every area of computing in contrast to Linux/open source. Of course, this is not delving too deeply into the nitty gritty of what it would take for OS X Server to become a viable option in big enterprise, which is a whole other discussion which we've had before...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're right, I just checked, they do... It costs $1248.75 and looks like it has feature parity with the entry level free VMWare Server and/or libvirt/KVM. How is it bare metal? The screenshots show it running on OS X...

They have a bare metal version, I've never played with it since I haven't had the need to, but there is a bare metal version...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To be clear, this is a low end product - it does not compare with ESX or oVirt. Really, the only reason this product exists (in my mind) is for Mac users who want to run this on OS X Server and/or virtualize OS X Server itself - I don't really see any other purpose for this product. However, I'll admit I'm wrong, I said that no server solution exists for OS X, this is one. If I have the luxury of changing my argument here, I'll say that OS X does not offer the whole spectrum of virtualization options from the low end to the high end, and that OS X does not offer a *free* server VM solution.

You know... looking at it... VMWare Server doesn't look all that different than VMWare Fusion. And when you're building a server, is $70 really that big of a deal?

VMWare Fusion will even virtualize OS X Server. I do that on my machine for virtualizing a test server.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not according to this and my own experience it doesn't:

http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX

What games have you gotten working in WINE? Or, have you only been using Crossover?

I'm known to sometimes run CounterStrike Source on it. The page is ridiculously out of date. I've also played some old stuff on it, like Birth of the Federation, and others.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, but what is provided by any of the major distributions is better than what we have now...

How so? To update Ubuntu to Firefox 3 you had to update the entire distribution. How is that simpler?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

GoMac, I was expecting a response similar to yours. I don't understand why this seems to become such a personal thing for you as if your attachment to your Macs is so great that you feel compelled to defend Apple at every turn? Sorry to insinuate this, but I really do get the vibe that these sort of threads get your guard up in a very big way.

My simple point is that for some people and for some needs there are things that Linux does better. This is not some sort of profoundly controversial statement, I don't think. My point in creating was this thread, again, was to address the notion that OS X represents superiority in every area of computing in contrast to Linux/open source. Of course, this is not delving too deeply into the nitty gritty of what it would take for OS X Server to become a viable option in big enterprise, which is a whole other discussion which we've had before...

I'm not a fan of Linux because for every step Linux takes forward they take three steps back. Firefox 3 again is a good example. Linux gets Firefox 3, great! Oh, but you have to update your entire OS just to get FF3 because the people who wrote Linux don't understand easy package management. D'oh.

[OreoCookie]

Point 6: Lack of package management system
There's always MacPorts and fink. Yes, they're not included by default, but both are free downloads. I also don't quite understand why this is different from Linux, because `Linux' does not have a standard package management system, different distributions use different package management systems. Different flavors of *BSD may come with their own package management system, though.

I currently only use MacPorts (so I don't have three copies of the same thing on my harddrive), it comes with an easy update mechanism, etc. Easy as pie (if you the command line a little).


I don't want to sound like a zealot here (hard to believe from a guy who moderates a Mac forum ), but I do think Linux' advantages lie elsewhere. It's flexibility (it nearly runs on as many systems as NetBSD), it's (in many ways) more performant than OS X and it's completely customizable. These are just a few and to be honest, I don't really use it anymore (95 % OS X, 5 % Solaris, although I do help colleagues that use Ubuntu every once in a while).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

They have a bare metal version, I've never played with it since I haven't had the need to, but there is a bare metal version...

Okay, well then I guess in fairness one cannot claim bare metal VM host solutions as belonging to either Linux or OS X then...

You know... looking at it... VMWare Server doesn't look all that different than VMWare Fusion. And when you're building a server, is $70 really that big of a deal?

The main thing is that it provides an interface that can be accessed remotely to control VMs (start, stop, restart, reassign resources), as well as access the console remotely. The latter is a very big deal. The former may be available via the "vmrun" command line tool in Fusion?

I'm known to sometimes run CounterStrike Source on it. The page is ridiculously out of date. I've also played some old stuff on it, like Birth of the Federation, and others.

I tried a couple of things with no luck and found that page and took it as gospel. Does Wine work in X11 or Quartz now?

How so? To update Ubuntu to Firefox 3 you had to update the entire distribution. How is that simpler?

I'm not a fan of Linux because for every step Linux takes forward they take three steps back. Firefox 3 again is a good example. Linux gets Firefox 3, great! Oh, but you have to update your entire OS just to get FF3 because the people who wrote Linux don't understand easy package management. D'oh.

Huh? Where do you get this information from? Why would you think this? This is ridiculous...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Point 6: Lack of package management system
There's always MacPorts and fink. Yes, they're not included by default, but both are free downloads. I also don't quite understand why this is different from Linux, because `Linux' does not have a standard package management system, different distributions use different package management systems. Different flavors of *BSD may come with their own package management system, though.

I currently only use MacPorts (so I don't have three copies of the same thing on my harddrive), it comes with an easy update mechanism, etc. Easy as pie (if you the command line a little).

Because they suck? I have no idea of the status of Fink these days, but Macports has failed me so many times I've lost my trust in it. When it doesn't fail, I think it is safe to say that it is nowhere near as seamless as FreeBSD ports, which is my favorite package management system. I don't think I've *ever* had a problem getting something to compile or install in FreeBSD, and I live and breath that OS.

I don't want to sound like a zealot here (hard to believe from a guy who moderates a Mac forum ), but I do think Linux' advantages lie elsewhere. It's flexibility (it nearly runs on as many systems as NetBSD), it's (in many ways) more performant than OS X and it's completely customizable. These are just a few and to be honest, I don't really use it anymore (95 % OS X, 5 % Solaris, although I do help colleagues that use Ubuntu every once in a while).

If I had to summarize its strengths this, and it's obvious strengths as a basis for a server would probably be where I would start, but I wanted to come up with a few examples that do not have to do with running servers to illustrate the idea that the Mac doesn't represent the cream of the crop in every single facet of computing for every person. Maybe it's just me, but I get the vibe around here that people turn their noses up at it thinking that it has absolutley nothing to offer anyone and that we'd all be better off if we could convert the ignorant masses over to OS X.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, well then I guess in fairness one cannot claim bare metal VM host solutions as belonging to either Linux or OS X then...

By definition. Bare metal VM hosts run without an OS.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The main thing is that it provides an interface that can be accessed remotely to control VMs (start, stop, restart, reassign resources), as well as access the console remotely. The latter is a very big deal. The former may be available via the "vmrun" command line tool in Fusion?

I'm pretty sure VMWare Fusion has remote tools. I know that the VM runs as it's own process separate from the VMWare Fusion GUI. I've had the GUI crash before, and when I relaunch the GUI, it reconnects with it's VM processes and my VM's are fine.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I tried a couple of things with no luck and found that page and took it as gospel. Does Wine work in X11 or Quartz now?

X11 with the QuartzWM driver. Crossover rigged it up so that they can spawn X11 windows without actually starting X11.app.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh? Where do you get this information from? Why would you think this? This is ridiculous...

I take it back. It's possible, it just requires a bunch of modifying of your repository settings after you've downloaded the official build from Mozilla.
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/firefox

But once you tweak all your settings it's probably far easier than just downloading the app and dragging it to your applications folder.

Linux package management. So simple they had to dedicate an entire page on how to install Firefox.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm pretty sure VMWare Fusion has remote tools. I know that the VM runs as it's own process separate from the VMWare Fusion GUI. I've had the GUI crash before, and when I relaunch the GUI, it reconnects with it's VM processes and my VM's are fine.

Can you connect to the console remotely without using something like VNC to display the desktop of the host? How would you control who has access to the remote tools, and what they can do with these tools?

X11 with the QuartzWM driver. Crossover rigged it up so that they can spawn X11 windows without actually starting X11.app.

Where did you find the download of Wine for OS X? I'll try this next week... Is WINE OS X in complete parity with the LInux version at this point?

I take it back. It's possible, it just requires a bunch of modifying of your repository settings after you've downloaded the official build from Mozilla.
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/firefox

But once you tweak all your settings it's probably far easier than just downloading the app and dragging it to your applications folder.

Linux package management. So simple they had to dedicate an entire page on how to install Firefox.

Some people like to use the Mozilla version because they think it gives better performance. Others want a newer version of Firefox than their version of Ubuntu will offer (for example, Firefox 3 on Ubuntu 7.10). Whatever your reasons, this page should help you get the latest Mozilla build of Firefox installed on your system properly.

The problem here is not with the package management, it's with the fact that the Ubuntu team decided not to make FF 3 available in their own repository they maintain for Ubuntu 7.10 users. Solutions:

- Download it yourself from Mozilla, like this article states
- Find somebody else who is hosting a repository offering FF3 that you trust

I agree that this is inconvenient, and there are problems with trusting somebody else's repository (just as there are problems with trusting some random dude's binary installer of an open source package in OS X) but the problem here is not what you state - it's in the team's decision to not provide this to Ubuntu 7.10 users, just like Apple decided not to make Safari 3.x available on OS X 10.1 or whatever. We can argue as to how far back availability of all apps should be provided, but this is a separate argument that relates to policy, not the technological superiority of the package system.

What's with the snide comments GoMac? Why are you making this personal again? Relax man, this is just computer software we're talking about, there is no need to be rude.

[besson3c]

It looks like the bare metal version of Parallels is in beta, couldn't find pricing on it though:

http://www.parallels.com/products/server/wl/

I'm sure it will run on an XServe though, as will oVirt:

http://ovirt.org/

[Chuckit]

Wine for OS X: http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX/

[starman]

tl;dr. My Mac works. Linux doesn't.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can you connect to the console remotely without using something like VNC to display the desktop of the host? How would you control who has access to the remote tools, and what they can do with these tools?

For VNC, yes. For user control, I'm not sure, I've never played with them. From what I understand, they're the same tools that ship with VMWare on Windows and Linux. They're all in /Library somewhere.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where did you find the download of Wine for OS X? I'll try this next week... Is WINE OS X in complete parity with the LInux version at this point?

http://www.kronenberg.org/darwine/

It should be. 10.5.5 or 10.5.6 fixed a longstanding X11 bug fixing keeping 3D graphics from working, from what I remember (I spend most my time in Crossover, where the Crossover folks rolled in the fix themselves). Besides that, it's just built from the actual Wine builds.

You could also just download the Wine source and config/make it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem here is not with the package management, it's with the fact that the Ubuntu team decided not to make FF 3 available in their own repository they maintain for Ubuntu 7.10 users.

Which is kind of sort of the problem. Package management is great. Until it doesn't have what you need. Then it sucks. Then you have to deal with two paradigms.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Solutions:

- Download it yourself from Mozilla, like this article states

Which is not exactly a simple procedure...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- Find somebody else who is hosting a repository offering FF3 that you trust

Or just buy a Mac, download it, and drag it to your applications folder...

Just like I said, for every step forward Linux takes, they make two steps back. Package management is a prime example.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that this is inconvenient, and there are problems with trusting somebody else's repository (just as there are problems with trusting some random dude's binary installer of an open source package in OS X) but the problem here is not what you state - it's in the team's decision to not provide this to Ubuntu 7.10 users, just like Apple decided not to make Safari 3.x available on OS X 10.1 or whatever. We can argue as to how far back availability of all apps should be provided, but this is a separate argument that relates to policy, not the technological superiority of the package system.

Maybe, but likely there was a massive dependency that was not available on 10.1. There is obviously no dependency missing in Ubuntu 7.1.0 because as the article states, Firefox 3 will run. So why did the Ubuntu folks not make it available for their package manager?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What's with the snide comments GoMac? Why are you making this personal again? Relax man, this is just computer software we're talking about, there is no need to be rude.

Rude? I'm not trying to be rude. You posted a topic, I replied. I don't agree with your opinions.

I'm not sure what the debate is over bare metal VM's. Bare metal VM's, by definition, don't run under any operating system.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Maybe, but likely there was a massive dependency that was not available on 10.1.

There were a lot of missing dependencies on 10.2 as well. That's why, for the first and last time, Apple updated the system libraries between major versions. (I remember there were programs that required "10.2 with Safari installed" not because they depended on WebKit, but because they depended on updates to Foundation.framework that Safari installed.)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Another way that Linux beats OS X is in its ability to supply fodder for exceedingly boring train-spotterish threads.

I gotta agree with this one. The OP just made me go:

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

For VNC, yes. For user control, I'm not sure, I've never played with them. From what I understand, they're the same tools that ship with VMWare on Windows and Linux. They're all in /Library somewhere.

In that case, I'm pretty sure I know what tools you are talking about: vmrun, vmware-config.pl, vmware-vdiskmanager, etc. These have no ACLs built in - if you have physical access to the host, you can invoke these.

The ACLs that VMWare Server provides allow you to say "this username can restart this particular VM", or "this username can attach devices", etc. This, and the console access are really what separates VMWare Server from client products like Fusion or Workstation. And no, you cannot access the console via the CLI tools over SSH.

http://www.kronenberg.org/darwine/

It should be. 10.5.5 or 10.5.6 fixed a longstanding X11 bug fixing keeping 3D graphics from working, from what I remember (I spend most my time in Crossover, where the Crossover folks rolled in the fix themselves). Besides that, it's just built from the actual Wine builds.

You could also just download the Wine source and config/make it.

I'll take a look at that, this is interesting although confusing. At one point Darwine was WINE + Qemu for PPC Macs, and the Intel Mac version of WINE was simply maintained by the WINE team. I guess it makes sense that what used to be the Darwine project is dead though, since PPC is no longer relevant.

Which is kind of sort of the problem. Package management is great. Until it doesn't have what you need. Then it sucks. Then you have to deal with two paradigms.

Which is not exactly a simple procedure...

Or just buy a Mac, download it, and drag it to your applications folder...

Just like I said, for every step forward Linux takes, they make two steps back. Package management is a prime example.

You have to deal with multiple paradigms on the Mac too. Is it a safe assumption that every piece of software you could ever possibly want or need to download is on Versiontracker? What about Macupdate? Sourceforge?

The whole "drag to the applications folder" is basically the BSD way of doing things in terms of separation of system from user installed applications, and I agree that it is better. In FreeBSD every single user installed application gets installed to /usr/local, and in Linux user applications get mixed in with system applications in /usr. However, the designs of these installers are much different too.

In OS X everything you need for that application is contained within that application bundle. Sometimes an installer will install stuff into Application Support, but for the most part this holds true. It is very user friendly this way, but you also have a lot of wheel reproduction in having potentially many copies of the same shared library in different application bundles.

Under Linux and BSD this convenience is traded off for security and cleanliness. If that library is already installed it won't install it again, and it will link to the latest version of that library available within the repository rather than whatever is bundled with that application that gets updated at a different frequency. This is, truthfully, the best way to build a server.

On the Desktop, yes I think that Ubuntu could stand to gain from self-contained applications that can easily be installed and removed by dragging a single icon into the trash. However, just to be clear, I still think there is a lot of facility from the package management approach to Ubuntu/FreeBSD that would enhance OS X:

- software originating from a trusted source that stores and confirms checksums automatically

- a system wide software update from a single location so that you don't have to do this manually with each application you use

- a way of searching for an application without having to open up a web browser

So, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that apt-get or FreeBSD ports is simply transplanted to OS X. I'm saying that the same general design could work in OS X. For whenever an application is not available in the repository, the user would have to go hunting for this themselves, but they have to do this anyway (especially if they don't know the vendor's name or website URL)

Maybe, but likely there was a massive dependency that was not available on 10.1. There is obviously no dependency missing in Ubuntu 7.1.0 because as the article states, Firefox 3 will run. So why did the Ubuntu folks not make it available for their package manager?

It can be argued that web browsers should not have OS dependencies anyway, having learned from the mistakes of Microsoft. I can't answer your question here, but clearly it is an issue of policy, as Firefox does not depend on any OS component that I'm aware of.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Rude? I'm not trying to be rude. You posted a topic, I replied. I don't agree with your opinions.

The rude is in all of the "here we go again", and the confrontational "you dummy, why not just do this?" sort of vibe I'm getting, but if this is not intended I apologize and will let this go.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I gotta agree with this one. The OP just made me go:

Great, thanks for sharing.

[Railroader]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In OS X everything you need for that application is contained within that application bundle. Sometimes an installer will install stuff into Application Support, but for the most part this holds true. It is very user friendly this way, but you also have a lot of wheel reproduction in having potentially many copies of the same shared library in different application bundles.

Under Linux and BSD this convenience is traded off for security and cleanliness. If that library is already installed it won't install it again, and it will link to the latest version of that library available within the repository rather than whatever is bundled with that application that gets updated at a different frequency. This is, truthfully, the best way to build a server.

Unless, of course, there is an incompatibility between an application and the latest version of a library - in which case you certainly wish the older version had NOT been updated by that stupid other piece of crapware that you've long since deleted.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In that case, I'm pretty sure I know what tools you are talking about: vmrun, vmware-config.pl, vmware-vdiskmanager, etc. These have no ACLs built in - if you have physical access to the host, you can invoke these.

The ACLs that VMWare Server provides allow you to say "this username can restart this particular VM", or "this username can attach devices", etc. This, and the console access are really what separates VMWare Server from client products like Fusion or Workstation. And no, you cannot access the console via the CLI tools over SSH.

Again, I'm no expert, but I'm seeing a lot of stuff, including a vmware-authd. When I start it, I see:
"220 VMware Authentication Daemon Version 1.10: SSL Required, ServerDaemonProtocol:SOAP, MKSDisplayProtocol:VNC , VMXARGS supported"

Looks like an authentication server to me.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll take a look at that, this is interesting although confusing. At one point Darwine was WINE + Qemu for PPC Macs, and the Intel Mac version of WINE was simply maintained by the WINE team. I guess it makes sense that what used to be the Darwine project is dead though, since PPC is no longer relevant.

Darwine has long been integrated into the official Wine repo and is now an integrated part of the WINE project.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have to deal with multiple paradigms on the Mac too. Is it a safe assumption that every piece of software you could ever possibly want or need to download is on Versiontracker? What about Macupdate? Sourceforge?

The whole "drag to the applications folder" is basically the BSD way of doing things in terms of separation of system from user installed applications, and I agree that it is better. In FreeBSD every single user installed application gets installed to /usr/local, and in Linux user applications get mixed in with system applications in /usr. However, the designs of these installers are much different too.

In OS X everything you need for that application is contained within that application bundle. Sometimes an installer will install stuff into Application Support, but for the most part this holds true. It is very user friendly this way, but you also have a lot of wheel reproduction in having potentially many copies of the same shared library in different application bundles.

Under Linux and BSD this convenience is traded off for security and cleanliness. If that library is already installed it won't install it again, and it will link to the latest version of that library available within the repository rather than whatever is bundled with that application that gets updated at a different frequency. This is, truthfully, the best way to build a server.

Well, a few things. First OS X does have package management for Apple updates (which is something we've given feedback to Apple on, it would be nice if they would let us add third party updates). And I don't mean the actual Software Update. The OS X Server remote admin tools make it very easy to see what servers have updates available, and remotely install the updates. They also have tools to force clients to update.

Sparkle is also gaining some traction, and I've seen centralized Sparkle update managers.

I'd take that any day over the Linux repo system. Because in the end, if you want to do something besides what the repo maintainer wants, you're back to manually installing files and working out dependency trees, unless the vendor was nice enough to care about supporting your distro and packaging it for you.

With regards to OS X being less "clean", what Spheric Harlot said.

Linux's idea of libraries is about as clean as the Windows registry. It's just asking for trouble. The reason that OS X allows apps to bundle libraries is so you don't have dependency issues, and apps get the library version they want.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

On the Desktop, yes I think that Ubuntu could stand to gain from self-contained applications that can easily be installed and removed by dragging a single icon into the trash. However, just to be clear, I still think there is a lot of facility from the package management approach to Ubuntu/FreeBSD that would enhance OS X:

- software originating from a trusted source that stores and confirms checksums automatically

Software Update, Sparkle, Mac OS X itself, etc...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- a system wide software update from a single location so that you don't have to do this manually with each application you use

And again, Sparkle is gaining some ground on this.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- a way of searching for an application without having to open up a web browser

Because a web browser is way different than a terminal window?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that apt-get or FreeBSD ports is simply transplanted to OS X. I'm saying that the same general design could work in OS X. For whenever an application is not available in the repository, the user would have to go hunting for this themselves, but they have to do this anyway (especially if they don't know the vendor's name or website URL)

Again, Sparkle?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It can be argued that web browsers should not have OS dependencies anyway, having learned from the mistakes of Microsoft. I can't answer your question here, but clearly it is an issue of policy, as Firefox does not depend on any OS component that I'm aware of.

Firefox doesn't depend on any OS component?

Of course it does. Take a look at all the libraries Firefox links to. I bet you it's not going to be a short list.

Any software program has to have an OS dependency. The entire point of the OS is it provides dependencies so that programs don't have to provide everything themselves.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The rude is in all of the "here we go again", and the confrontational "you dummy, why not just do this?" sort of vibe I'm getting, but if this is not intended I apologize and will let this go.

Any annoyance is because you clearly did not do any research. You could Google people running WINE on OS X. I found vmware-authd very quickly and I don't even care about that feature. Usually when someone starts a thread based on inaccurate information, it's called trolling, and if you weren't a regular around here, I'd probably be more annoyed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Unless, of course, there is an incompatibility between an application and the latest version of a library - in which case you certainly wish the older version had NOT been updated by that stupid other piece of crapware that you've long since deleted.

Well, in theory the way these are designed is to maintain a list of prerequisites both for software depending on a particular package, as well as packages that are needed for the package itself. Whenever one is updated the others should be recompiled and/or reinstalled as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Again, I'm no expert, but I'm seeing a lot of stuff, including a vmware-authd. When I start it, I see:
"220 VMware Authentication Daemon Version 1.10: SSL Required, ServerDaemonProtocol:SOAP, MKSDisplayProtocol:VNC , VMXARGS supported"

Looks like an authentication server to me.

It doesn't mean that this feature is active. Several features are disabled in products shipped by VMWare. For instance, you can't clone a machine in VMWare Server via the vmrun tool, even though this option is listed in the help output. Chances are that if there are no GUI controls for specifying who can access what, and more important no remote console access (which you haven't denied), there is no reason to think that these features would exist in this product. There is no way you can have a functional VM server-type product without remote console support and ACLs to control who can access the console.

Well, a few things. First OS X does have package management for Apple updates (which is something we've given feedback to Apple on, it would be nice if they would let us add third party updates). And I don't mean the actual Software Update. The OS X Server remote admin tools make it very easy to see what servers have updates available, and remotely install the updates. They also have tools to force clients to update.

The third party updates is the key here, although being able to manage your own local repository is of course also nice...

Sparkle is also gaining some traction, and I've seen centralized Sparkle update managers.

Sparkle looks like exactly what Apple needs. I hope they include it and put their weight behind it themselves so that it gains traction.

I'd take that any day over the Linux repo system. Because in the end, if you want to do something besides what the repo maintainer wants, you're back to manually installing files and working out dependency trees, unless the vendor was nice enough to care about supporting your distro and packaging it for you.

True, but doesn't this apply to OS X too? I've seen open source products that compile and run on OS X even though there is no official package available from the vendor. Either way, you are at the mercy of whatever is provided to you. I see an official repository as just another convenient source for getting stuff.

With regards to OS X being less "clean", what Spheric Harlot said.

I forgot to add (or at least elaborate on, I did bring this up before) that there are security issues with being able to count on an older version of an application bundling an insecure library that can be compromised.

Really, it boils down to Unix admins wanting to know about every little file and library that is installed so that they can be fully accountable for their entire system. For the lay person's home computer, this level of security obviously isn't needed, but it is for Unix servers that control sensitive data in sensitive environments. I'm sure this was in mind when systems like apt-get and FreeBSD Ports were originally conceived. However, granted, I'll admit that the pre-requisites can be a real PITA, particularly with RPMs.

Because a web browser is way different than a terminal window?

I meant that a user would have to go Googling for software they were interested in downloading in a web browser, rather than being able to search the repository via their terminal or GUI app such as Synaptic. It's like having a version of Versiontracker or Macupdate built in to the OS, except one that will also download and install stuff for you in addition to searching for stuff.

Firefox doesn't depend on any OS component?

Of course it does. Take a look at all the libraries Firefox links to. I bet you it's not going to be a short list.

Any software program has to have an OS dependency. The entire point of the OS is it provides dependencies so that programs don't have to provide everything themselves.

You're right, I should have rephrased that to say that it doesn't rely on any OS component that cannot be updated separately from the OS itself, or something like that... I think you sort of know what I'm getting at though?

Any annoyance is because you clearly did not do any research. You could Google people running WINE on OS X. I found vmware-authd very quickly and I don't even care about that feature. Usually when someone starts a thread based on inaccurate information, it's called trolling, and if you weren't a regular around here, I'd probably be more annoyed.

Whatever GoMac, I'm not writing a dissertation, just exploring some ideas. There have been many occasions in the past where you have been proven wrong with these same sorts of discussions we've had, just as I'm willing to bet that you will be proven wrong with the Fusion ACL thing we are discussing here, but who cares? Who is keeping score? I did not create this thread to be confrontational, and frankly I think that anybody that would label me as a troll probably had a grudge against me to begin with, or else are somehow threatened by some of their ideas being challenged.

Trolling is when you set out to do nothing but put people on the defensive and/or offend them for some reason. If I really wanted to troll, I sure would have come up with something better than VMWare Fusion not having remote console support or ACLs for assigning who can control VM guests as is possible with VM products designed for servers. That's pretty obscure trolling, don't you think?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It doesn't mean that this feature is active. Several features are disabled in products shipped by VMWare. For instance, you can't clone a machine in VMWare Server via the vmrun tool, even though this option is listed in the help output. Chances are that if there are no GUI controls for specifying who can access what, and more important no remote console access (which you haven't denied), there is no reason to think that these features would exist in this product. There is no way you can have a functional VM server-type product without remote console support and ACLs to control who can access the console.

I've found that on the Mac that a lot of things don't have GUI controls, but they do work. VNC is one example. No GUI control for it in the app, but it works. That they bothered to recompile the binary for the Mac would lead me to assume that it works. If it doesn't work, why would they bother porting it and including it with a product that can't run it? It's not like they ported it for another version of VMWare for the Mac.

Regardless, I don't know how it works, or what configuration files it has, so I don't know how to test it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, but doesn't this apply to OS X too? I've seen open source products that compile and run on OS X even though there is no official package available from the vendor. Either way, you are at the mercy of whatever is provided to you. I see an official repository as just another convenient source for getting stuff.

Oh, there's nothing stopping you from not bundling dependencies. But I don't expect that a normal user is going to be doing something like installing Ethereal. Installing Firefox though? That's not unusual...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I forgot to add (or at least elaborate on, I did bring this up before) that there are security issues with being able to count on an older version of an application bundling an insecure library that can be compromised.

But on the other hand, there can be compatibility issues. And for static libraries, you're out of luck anyway because the application has to be recompiled to take advantage of the new version anyway.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really, it boils down to Unix admins wanting to know about every little file and library that is installed so that they can be fully accountable for their entire system. For the lay person's home computer, this level of security obviously isn't needed, but it is for Unix servers that control sensitive data in sensitive environments. I'm sure this was in mind when systems like apt-get and FreeBSD Ports were originally conceived. However, granted, I'll admit that the pre-requisites can be a real PITA, particularly with RPMs.

I was a system admin, and I did not want to know about every single file on the system. I wanted the system to work, and I wanted the least hassle possible. I didn't care what version of libpng was on the computer, as long as it worked. It really didn't matter.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I meant that a user would have to go Googling for software they were interested in downloading in a web browser, rather than being able to search the repository via their terminal or GUI app such as Synaptic. It's like having a version of Versiontracker or Macupdate built in to the OS, except one that will also download and install stuff for you in addition to searching for stuff.

What I was saying is that one could think of Macupdate as a repository. Except you open it in a web page.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're right, I should have rephrased that to say that it doesn't rely on any OS component that cannot be updated separately from the OS itself, or something like that... I think you sort of know what I'm getting at though?

And you're correct, which is why I'm even more baffled as to why the Ubuntu repo managers did not add Firefox to their repository for 7.1.0. My guess is that they were too lazy to provide the dependencies separately, which wouldn't be an issue on the Mac, because the dependencies come bundled with the app.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever GoMac, I'm not writing a dissertation, just exploring some ideas. There have been many occasions in the past where you have been proven wrong with these same sorts of discussions we've had, just as I'm willing to bet that you will be proven wrong with the Fusion ACL thing we are discussing here, but who cares? Who is keeping score? I did not create this thread to be confrontational, and frankly I think that anybody that would label me as a troll probably had a grudge against me to begin with, or else are somehow threatened by some of their ideas being challenged.

Trolling is when you set out to do nothing but put people on the defensive and/or offend them for some reason. If I really wanted to troll, I sure would have come up with something better than VMWare Fusion not having remote console support or ACLs for assigning who can control VM guests as is possible with VM products designed for servers. That's pretty obscure trolling, don't you think?

You know, whatever. I'm just saying, you posted this without doing any research... I don't know what you expected.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, in theory the way these are designed is to maintain a list of prerequisites both for software depending on a particular package, as well as packages that are needed for the package itself. Whenever one is updated the others should be recompiled and/or reinstalled as well.

That certainly sounds "a lot" more elegant than simply having all supporting libraries included with the executable within a drag-and-drop-installable app folder...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I meant that a user would have to go Googling for software they were interested in downloading in a web browser, rather than being able to search the repository via their terminal or GUI app such as Synaptic. It's like having a version of Versiontracker or Macupdate built in to the OS, except one that will also download and install stuff for you in addition to searching for stuff.

*ahem*

Apple menu --> Mac OS X Software…

[Doofy]

Here's a story for ya.

Back in the depths of time, one of Doof's former students had himself become involved in the teaching of music tech. Doof was invited around to former student's new university to observe the happenings (and so we could go get blind drunk afterwards).
Turns out, the day Doof went up there some bloke from a software company was attending and touting his warez with a demonstration of his new app's capabilities - trying to get the uni to buy a bundle.
Said software was essentially a DOS version of Sound Designer. Everyone in the room was amazed at its "new" capabilities except Doof and Doof's former student, who'd both seen it all before. Imagine, if you will, a DOS version of iMovie. Same kind of deal.
We laughed. And got very, very drunk.

Thus it is with Lintards. They'll bang on and on and on about how good Linux is, when what functionality of what they're banging on about is usually already available (and probably for some time) in an easy-to-use graphical version. And even when said functionality isn't available, there's usually already better ways of achieving the desired objective.

Methinks it's high time to go buy yourself a Mac, Bess.

[Chooglin']

It's pronounced "LIE-NUCKS" too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I've found that on the Mac that a lot of things don't have GUI controls, but they do work. VNC is one example. No GUI control for it in the app, but it works. That they bothered to recompile the binary for the Mac would lead me to assume that it works. If it doesn't work, why would they bother porting it and including it with a product that can't run it? It's not like they ported it for another version of VMWare for the Mac.

Regardless, I don't know how it works, or what configuration files it has, so I don't know how to test it.

Let's just simplify this. No remote console, no server product.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here's a story for ya.

Back in the depths of time, one of Doof's former students had himself become involved in the teaching of music tech. Doof was invited around to former student's new university to observe the happenings (and so we could go get blind drunk afterwards).
Turns out, the day Doof went up there some bloke from a software company was attending and touting his warez with a demonstration of his new app's capabilities - trying to get the uni to buy a bundle.
Said software was essentially a DOS version of Sound Designer. Everyone in the room was amazed at its "new" capabilities except Doof and Doof's former student, who'd both seen it all before. Imagine, if you will, a DOS version of iMovie. Same kind of deal.
We laughed. And got very, very drunk.

Thus it is with Lintards. They'll bang on and on and on about how good Linux is, when what functionality of what they're banging on about is usually already available (and probably for some time) in an easy-to-use graphical version. And even when said functionality isn't available, there's usually already better ways of achieving the desired objective.

Methinks it's high time to go buy yourself a Mac, Bess.

Your ego is just insane! That you think you know better than the numerous environments that rely on Linux on their servers (including Google) really makes it difficult to conjure up a worthy response to. It was fun going through that whole mail server exercise with you before, but I think I'll pass on this again. If you really want to believe that every Linux sys admin is just delusional and they should just buy a Mac, have at it. I'm insane enough that flirting with this sort of insanity is not particularly appealing to me.

[Dakar V]

Jesus, besson, who cares whether Mac users know about LINUX's possible advantages. Its obvious for the overwhelming majority they don't need it, and don't particularly care either. This has all the markings of telling someone who doesn't watch TV "But there are so many great TV shows!" We don't care. Why do you care that we acknowledge it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your ego is just insane! That you think you know better than the numerous environments that rely on Linux on their servers (including Google) really makes it difficult to conjure up a worthy response to.

Yeah. If you think that production servers need an "apt-get" then you're obviously not running production servers. If you think that OS X (as a desktop) would be better with an "apt-get" then you're trying to reinvent the wheel.
Don't worry - this happens a lot with *nix hobbyists - the constant reinventing of the wheel is why Linux will never be a proper desktop OS.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was fun going through that whole mail server exercise with you before, but I think I'll pass on this again.

No, it wasn't fun at all. It'd be fun if I wasn't having that conversation with someone who twisted everything I said in order to position themselves better for the argument.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you really want to believe that every Linux sys admin is just delusional and they should just buy a Mac, have at it.

Not all of them. Just the hobbyist ones who post on Mac forums trying to convince all the Mac users to switch to OS X. If we wanted to do Linux, we'd be on a Linux forum, wouldn't we?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm insane enough that flirting with this sort of insanity is not particularly appealing to me.

Shouldn't this whole thread be in the alternative OS forum?

[starman]

If you think about it, OS X is what Linux tried to be all these years, and failed. So of course the Linux fanboys are all pissed off at OS X.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That certainly sounds "a lot" more elegant than simply having all supporting libraries included with the executable within a drag-and-drop-installable app folder...

The reason why I'm running out of gas with this particular part of the debate is because it is nearly impossible to explain why there so many other variables to account for to make this impractical at the server level for at least some... Maybe I would be best off using general, non specific examples...

Say you have an authentication library that you need to perform 23948209348 requests a second (obviously that is a made up, hypothetical number). It needs to perform as optimally as possible to process more requests per second, because perhaps someday you'll need to run this busy service on aging hardware. So, you are trying to squeeze out as much performance from it as possible.

Obviously there are many other factors that are involved with squeezing out performance - OS level stuff, hardware stuff, etc. let's just assume that you've done everything you can in designing this system. So, logically what you would do is run some benchmarks of this tool setup different ways. Some people go as far as to get into static rather than dynamic links, and some people compile in only the minimal amount of stuff so that the binary is as lean and mean as possible.

This itself is the attraction of source compilation, to compile the binary to your liking - optimized, with or without debug options, with the features you want, etc. This is indeed a lot of work, and I can fully see your perspective that in this day and age of having faster and faster hardware and so many other variables to factor into performance, this level of optimization may be too fine to be worth your while. But believe me, there was a day when services were I/O bound, or CPU bound, or memory bound, and even today there are circumstances when services still are and it warrants that extra little bit of configuration.

In these circumstances, obviously having a dozen different versions of that pre-compiled application to choose from that is configured just as you want it is a little impractical - possible, but impractical. This is where source compilation still is relevant.

Now, I agree that for most people and even most sys admins, they can get away with installing a binary. In fact, the whole Redhat and Debian/Ubuntu infrastructure is setup around binaries. If you are working with binaries, self contained binaries that are isolated to a single bundle does make some sense. My going on about security (and now optimization) is true, but only for circumstances when:

- a feature is too experimental to be compiled into the binary by default

- a legacy feature is needed to be compiled into the binary that no longer is by default (keep in mind that some big companies are still running old proprietary Unix machines that have been kicking around for years and years)

- performance is of upmost importance as I have described


So, this is why we have source based package management, binary based package management, and hybrid package management. When you are dealing with source the mess with prerequisites is unavoidable, you can't always bundle the source to some other project due to licensing issues (and this goes for any sort of project on any platform). So, you have to point the source at something it can build against. Sometimes this can be bundled, sometimes not, but regardless you have to satisfy the compiler.

There is where source based compilation becomes infinitely more complicated (not to mention slower) than binary based package management.

What Apple has done with the .app bundle thing is leapfrog over how other vendors were handling binaries. It is brilliant. However, Apple also has the luxury of a clean break knowing that the vast majority of its customers are not going to need this sort of optimization, this sort of flexibility, or have the ability to do any of this anyway. After all, Macs just work.

The problem with Linux is that it generally lacks focus. It is a fantastic server OS, but it is very difficult for it to be so and simultaneously a fantastic client OS. The designs and considerations are just radically different. The fact that most of you don't give a rat's ass about these considerations is exactly the point, but to some these considerations were, and still are important.

All I'm trying to create here is a little fairness and understanding, as well as appreciation for these differences and some of the reasons behind these differences.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Jesus, besson, who cares whether Mac users know about LINUX's possible advantages. Its obvious for the overwhelming majority they don't need it, and don't particularly care either. This has all the markings of telling someone who doesn't watch TV "But there are so many great TV shows!" We don't care. Why do you care that we acknowledge it?

That's a good question. I don't know really, mostly just an exercise and an attempt to instill a little appreciation? Maybe I feel lonely myself not really caring about most of the Mac related threads in here, yet not caring about many of the Linux conversations either? I don't know, to be completely honest I really haven't figured this out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by starman 

If you think about it, OS X is what Linux tried to be all these years, and failed. So of course the Linux fanboys are all pissed off at OS X.

Yes, I'm sure that OS X is the envy of whatever percentage of Linux users have always wanted Linux to thrive on the Desktop. I'm sure it's the envy of some Microsofties too. However, Linux is also the envy of Microsoft, and to whatever population of the Mac base cares about OS X being a part of the culture of the machine rooms of big business. So, I'm not really why you feel a need to gloat or flaunt?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not all of them. Just the hobbyist ones who post on Mac forums trying to convince all the Mac users to switch to OS X. If we wanted to do Linux, we'd be on a Linux forum, wouldn't we?

Ahh, so you're making the assumption that I'm trying to convert the masses here? See, that is a mistake. I really don't care what you guys use, nor should you care about what I use. All I'm hoping to do here is exchange some ideas without this being so personal and close to home.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All I'm hoping to do here is exchange some ideas without this being so personal and close to home.

Would that "without being so personal" be with or without the

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your ego is just insane!

?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahh, so you're making the assumption that I'm trying to convert the masses here? See, that is a mistake. I really don't care what you guys use, nor should you care about what I use. All I'm hoping to do here is exchange some ideas without this being so personal and close to home.

Why don't you find yourself a nice LinuxNN to exchange those ideas ?

-t

[besson3c]

See, the other problem with this thread that is really not specific to this particular conversation (this happens *all* the time in the political lounge too), is that it really comes a competition of internet research abilities and the time to do so. As soon as somebody turns up a piece of information that challenges the position of the poster, if it is in line with what you thought prior or want to think, it becomes so easy to discard the point being made.

For instance, if I were to say that supercomputers are not built on OS X, one of you could point to Virginia Tech (or whatever) and say rightly "well, they are, so therefore you are wrong". This has happened to me and many others before. Of course, we don't know if this one supercomputer is just one, a growing trend, a minority, how well it has actually worked out, whether price became a factor, or whatever... There is just too much data that is required to *really* prove this that we don't have access to that the argument just becomes discarded. Again, this applies to many political topics and other topics as well.

At this point, it becomes a waste of the original poster's time, and I'm sure I will be concluding the same thing before too long. However, what I don't understand is why more people aren't interested in genuinely *entertaining* ideas that are different than their own, or what they see as conventional wisdom? To me this is fun, to others it seems more like some confrontational. Why is this, exactly?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a good question. I don't know really, mostly just an exercise and an attempt to instill a little appreciation? Maybe I feel lonely myself not really caring about most of the Mac related threads in here, yet not caring about many of the Linux conversations either? I don't know, to be completely honest I really haven't figured this out.

Perhaps you should consider the forum you're on and realize why you're facing such resistance and/or disinterest.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, what I don't understand is why more people aren't interested in genuinely *entertaining* ideas that are different than their own, or what they see as conventional wisdom? To me this is fun, to others it seems more like some confrontational. Why is this, exactly?

People come here for a reason, and that's the ONE thing they all have in common: using Macs and Mac OS X. Trying to interest them in something that is *completely* different is futile and, honestly, plain annoying.

It's like the guy on a dog lovers forum who constantly harps on the members how great cats are. Duh.

-t

[Untitled member]

Things I can do in OSX that I can't do with Linux:

1. REAL WORK

That's about it really. When there's an equivalent of FCP Studio and Adobe Production bundle avaliable for Linux I might take an interest, and DONT EVEN TRY to argue that GIMP = Photoshop. I'll laugh at you.

Nope, I've never used any form of Linux. In fact, I can honestly say I've never even seen it running.

But "THIS IS THE YEAR", right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Perhaps you should consider the forum you're on and realize why you're facing such resistance and/or disinterest.

Well, that I'm facing resistance or disinterest is not that much of a shock to me, but then again what compels people to have these big debates in the political lounge? Has anybody's mind ever been changed there?

It's some combination of the enjoyment of the intellectual challenge of debate, the need to be right, or the need to show up somebody else. For me this time it's mostly the first.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, what I don't understand is why more people aren't interested in genuinely *entertaining* ideas

Well, I don't know about your idea of genuine *entertainment* but mine includes dancing girls. And beer.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Shouldn't this whole thread be in the alternative OS forum?

Excellent question!