Mac from a Linux/Unix perspective

Eliot Rosewater

Well, a non-Mac Unix perspective.

So what do Linux and Unix users thinks of Mac?


And I realise that some people use both Linux and Mac. So what determines your choice?


Myself, I haven't used Mac much so I can't comment on its technical prowess. But the idolising fanboyism of the average Mac user kind of wierds me out. For example, people saying they'd love a Mac Book Pro as they type on their normal Mac Book. You'd swear that the Pro was some totally different product, but it's just an upgrade.

I suppose it's down to Apple's marketing. Today I overhead a guy say to his friend "doesn't working on two Macs make you feel like God?" Jeez buddy, they're computers, not Hollywood supermodels.

Proprietary Unix? Can't say I see the point in this day and age, when there are the GNU/Linux and BSD families.

Macs just strike me as overly shiny and pretentious hipster-magnets. I recently argued against someone who wanted to buy a Mac even though the equivalent 'normal' PC was at least a grand cheaper. It didn't matter, because it was Apple. Tra-la-la...

evercloserunion

I don't doubt that the Mac OS is probably pretty decent and you could probably get a good bit of power out of it. But I don't see why I would pay such a high price for the brand name when I can get similar functionality from Linux which costs nothing.

As for the fanboyism, that's something which Linux suffers from as well. If anything can be said for Windows, it's that it doesn't produce these die-hard fanatics. The people who annoy me are those who pay the extra grand, not for the technical benefits of using Mac, but purely for the image. Like shelling out for a MacBook Pro so you can use MS Word and Firefox on it. To each their own of course, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Knasher

I use all three, often over the course of a day. The thing I like most about the Macs is the hardware design, I know ultimately its just a case, but it feels solid and durable and those are thinks I prize in a laptop.

The OS on the other hand is adequate but nothing I'd really write home about. Its reasonably stable but not as solid as Linux, I've had my fair share of crashes. I find its handling of virtual memory to be wholly inadequate, the machine is mostly unresponsive during any sort of paging. It also annoys me how closely integrated quicktime is, any updates to this requires a full restart and I've had the whole OS crash on me when I opened a corrupted video file. Also while OS X has a Unix base, it isn't really a part of the design philosophy, the ability to throw open a terminal and do almost anything I could do through a GUI is something I miss.

I can't remember the last time I had a crash on Linux beyond X. 5 seconds and your back in again. Don't get me wrong there are definetly features I like and enjoy about OS X and things that could be added to Linux, but I can't think of a dealbreaker.

I had a mac for about a year and a half and I have been using linux for the past 6 years or so.

Back in the day getting Linux to work properly on a laptop could be a chore. Properly means that it does more than just install, it needs to (IMO):

* suspend and resume properly
* have fn buttons working (wireless control, brightness and volume are key)
* have comparable power management as windows (which is pretty decent)
* video out options for external monitors / projectors etc.

Things are a lot better these days. My T400 works flawlessly and my W510 (both thinkpads) works pretty good with recent distros although not as good as the T400.

A mac is great if you want a Unix-like environment that you know will work flawlessly with the hardware you buy it on. That was the experience that I got.

I sold mine mainly because of software issues. Eclipse with the Android SDK was sluggish and there was not one decent archive file manager to be found (think 7-zip). I found battery life to be sub-par and nothing like the quoted figures.

I'll probably get one again in the near future but that would only be to develop iphone applications, it wouldn't be a system of choice over Linux.

cornbb

Knasher wrote: »

Also while OS X has a Unix base, it isn't really a part of the design philosophy, the ability to throw open a terminal and do almost anything I could do through a GUI is something I miss.

This really caught my eye... go to Applications -> Utilities -> Terminal and you have a POSIX-compliant shell at your disposal. I use Macs as my primary machine and spend most of my day in the shell. I do more with the machine via the command line than I do with Finder, System Preferences etc. There's loads you can do, more than you can do via the GUI IMO. Check out O'Reilly's "Mac OS for UNIX Geeks" for the dirt. Onyx is also a great utility that will let you tweak the internals via a nice frontend.

Mac OS hides its UNIX roots well but they're there. To say it's not part of the design philosophy is wrong, Mac OS is essentially BSD at its core and all the utilities and so on are there. I like the honesty of a Unix OS with a highly usable and functional UI.

People don't think Unix when they think Mac, but that's still what it is.

As for arguments about fanboism, they are a bit beside the point when discussing the merits of OS X as a Unix system.

Jonathan

Steve Jobs still believes he is above FHS though.

Naikon

cornbb wrote: »

This really caught my eye... go to Applications -> Utilities -> Terminal and you have a POSIX-compliant shell at your disposal. I use Macs as my primary machine and spend most of my day in the shell. I do more with the machine via the command line than I do with Finder, System Preferences etc. There's loads you can do, more than you can do via the GUI IMO. Check out O'Reilly's "Mac OS for UNIX Geeks" for the dirt. Onyx is also a great utility that will let you tweak the internals via a nice frontend.

Mac OS hides its UNIX roots well but they're there. To say it's not part of the design philosophy is wrong, Mac OS is essentially BSD at its core and all the utilities and so on are there. I like the honesty of a Unix OS with a highly usable and functional UI.

People don't think Unix when they think Mac, but that's still what it is.

As for arguments about fanboism, they are a bit beside the point when discussing the merits of OS X as a Unix system.

Good points. Only problem is, Linux is moving in directions Unix won't be. Linux is evolving to the point where commerical Unix is becoming less and less important with each passing day. Open Source and UNIX aren't exactly exclusive. I mean, look at how Oracle is treating OpenSolaris/Java. The whole point of Linux is to maintain POSIX compatibility while not restricting the kernels use. Corporate interest cannot touch Linux, and this is what will allow it to continue long into the future. Commercial Unix is a bit harder to predict. I will admit, I don't have bundles of respect for OSX. Taking their own NeXTStep code and bundling it with an XNU kernel and plenty of GNU/BSD utilities speaks volumes about their practices. How much does Apple actually give back to the communities that the OS depends on?

UNIX above all, is more of an ideology that is not restricted to POSIX certified systems ala OSX. I find it highly ironic that OSX is fully POSIX complient, yet does not follow common Unix practices such as a case sensitive filesystem, a package manager, standard Unix file hierarchy and above all else, actually being useful on machines other than expensive Apple Machines. Unix was designed to be crazy portable, right? I have used OSX enough to know that it really does feel like less than steller as a Unix box for anything other than desktop use. What company would use OSX as a server os over something like Linux, or even Windows for example? OSX just isn't a scalable platform for infrastructure purposes.

tl;dr - OSX is Unix in a legal sense, but it breaks more unix conventions than more traditional non commercial sysV Unix likes like Linux, or even FreeBSD. Microsoft and Apple aren't friends for no reason. Linux is the spiritual successor to UNIX imo.

/grabs popcorn and waits for spectacular flaming from Apple guys

cornbb

Naikon wrote: »

Good points. Only problem is, Linux is moving in directions Unix won't be. Linux is evolving to the point where commerical Unix is becoming less and less important with each passing day. Open Source and UNIX aren't exactly exclusive. I mean, look at how Oracle is treating OpenSolaris/Java. The whole point of Linux is to maintain POSIX compatibility while not restricting the kernels use. Corporate interest cannot touch Linux, and this is what will allow it to continue long into the future. Commercial Unix is a bit harder to predict. I will admit, I don't have bundles of respect for OSX. Taking their own NeXTStep code and bundling it with an XNU kernel and plenty of GNU/BSD utilities speaks volumes about their practices. How much does Apple actually give back to the communities that the OS depends on?

UNIX above all, is more of an ideology that is not restricted to POSIX certified systems ala OSX. I find it highly ironic that OSX is fully POSIX complient, yet does not follow common Unix practices such as a case sensitive filesystem, a package manager, standard Unix file hierarchy and above all else, actually being useful on machines other than expensive Apple Machines. Unix was designed to be crazy portable, right? I have used OSX enough to know that it really does feel like less than steller as a Unix box for anything other than desktop use. What company would use OSX as a server os over something like Linux, or even Windows for example? OSX just isn't a scalable platform for infrastructure purposes.

tl;dr - OSX is Unix in a legal sense, but it breaks more unix conventions than more traditional non commercial sysV Unix likes like Linux, or even FreeBSD. Microsoft and Apple aren't friends for no reason. Linux is the spiritual successor to UNIX imo.

/grabs popcorn and waits for spectacular flaming from Apple guys

Apple's MO is vertical integration, hence the reason it is only intended to run on Apple hardware. I don't really see what that has to do with Unix compliance though. Although I take many of your points. Apple are a corporate behemoth, and that is naturally abhorrent to the spirit of some of the communities that started UNIX.

Apple do make a server variant of OS X, people do use it with Xserve/Xsan in the real world - admittedly it's not that platform's primary focus and they are a tiny minority. But then on the other hand, many flavours of Linux are wholly unsuitable for the desktop.

I wasn't aware that the filesystem is nonstandard, as far as I was aware OS X uses a superset of the usual directory structure (the usual Unix directories plus /Users /Library /Applications etc)? As for volume case-sensitivity, it is off by default but can be formatted as such (my boot volume is case-sensitive, cause I'm weird like that).

Does the soon-to-open Mac OS App Store count as a package manager? ( sorry couldn't help myself)

Naikon

cornbb wrote: »

Apple's MO is vertical integration, hence the reason it is only intended to run on Apple hardware. I don't really see what that has to do with Unix compliance though. Although I take many of your points. Apple are a corporate behemoth, and that is naturally abhorrent to the spirit of some of the communities that started UNIX.

Apple do make a server variant of OS X, people do use it with Xserve/Xsan in the real world - admittedly it's not that platform's primary focus and they are a tiny minority. But then on the other hand, many flavours of Linux are wholly unsuitable for the desktop.

I wasn't aware that the filesystem is nonstandard, as far as I was aware OS X uses a superset of the usual directory structure (the usual Unix directories plus /Users /Library /Applications etc)? As for volume case-sensitivity, it is off by default but can be formatted as such (my boot volume is case-sensitive, cause I'm weird like that).

Does the soon-to-open Mac OS App Store count as a package manager? ( sorry couldn't help myself)

Fair enough. I might be a bit hard on OSX. OSX does have it's uses. I won't be ignorant enough to say Linux solves every problem. Raw Xorg programming for example tends to horrify most sane developers, let alone users. Apples UI/design principles really is their shining point imo, and that is why the company enjoys so much success. I bet Microsoft is envious of this very fact. Jobs knows how to design stuff well. Microsoft, not so much. Apple were the first in the market to succeed with the whole appstore too. Even Ubuntu and Android are taking this Apple concept into their own ecosystem. For what it's worth, Apples Quartz video display system does not rely on 25 year old tech ala Xorg. Xorg on Linux is actually in the process of being replaced(slowly)by Wayland. Not an issue for servers mind you. Apple really does wipe the floor off Windows/Linux for design principles imo. I still prefer the cli though

aperture_nuig

Deleted User wrote: »

Proprietary Unix? Can't say I see the point in this day and age, when there are the GNU/Linux and BSD families.

Macs just strike me as overly shiny and pretentious hipster-magnets. I recently argued against someone who wanted to buy a Mac even though the equivalent 'normal' PC was at least a grand cheaper. It didn't matter, because it was Apple. Tra-la-la...

I find this happens an awful lot

One of my friends recently purchased a macbook, and glows about it.

....until I or any of my (PC using) friends ask him how much it cost

conor.hogan.2

I could get a micra or a fiesta or even a nissan - but when you drive a lot and love driving why would you not get the best car you can afford?

They cost twice as much (or more/less sometimes) but in general last twice as long, and cause less hassle.

Naikon

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I could get a micra or a fiesta or even a nissan - but when you drive a lot and love driving why would you not get the best car you can afford?

They cost twice as much (or more/less sometimes) but in general last twice as long, and cause less hassle.

And also come with a far less favorable cost : performance ratio:pac: You can buy a hell of alot of machine when your base Operating System is free.

Shankly Gates

I think this is the first fair and knowledgeable discussion/thread/blog/story/comment about Apple I've read on the Internet that has gone 10 posts without any fanyboyism.

conor.hogan.2

Depends on how much you value your time..... in fairness.

But seriously computers and technology would be different without unix/c - look both macs and linux have very low market share.

But if you look at android/iphone along with apache/mysql etc etc - open source in general owes a lot back to unix (unix as a concept and branch, not just UNIX) and has a huge impact on technology today. The Linux kernel is in my tv ffs, it is everywhere.

Basically the os (and the hardware) is the tool to get things done - not the be all and end all.

Btw I dont pay for the brand name - I pay for the fact I can easily install whatever I want on it, get better battery life and not have to think about what its doing unless I want to (its is a simple fact that my macbook lasts twice as long and causes half the hassle that a 500 euro dell, acer etc that my friends have).

Naikon

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Depends on how much you value your time..... in fairness.

look both macs and linux have very low market share.

For me, I value my time by not dealing with inance security practices and the whole virus brigade. Don't get me started on rebooting following software updates. My machine has been up for at least three months without a reboot by now.
I use Unix based OS's because of efficiency. I am not so sure you are correct about marketshare. Certainly, Microsoft holds an almost near monopoly on the desktop, but it's not really Mac/Linux's fault when you consider the practices
Microsoft employ to maintain their dominance. Every other sector, be it embedded systems, medical instrumentation, Internet web servers, back end banking(not ATM systems) run exclusively on non MS platforms like Unix and in many
cases OpenVMS. Basically, any area that requires severe reliability. Imagine if medical devices ran something like Vista. Death in hospitals would be far more commanplace:pac: Sorry to come across as rash, but it's shortsighted to think
Microsoft/Unix systems are the only player in town when it comes to Computing. There was Computing long before Microsoft, and there will be computing long after Microsoft.

*Also, the whole market share of linux being painted as 1% is mostly bull****. It's not as simple to count linux machines, because they may live behind a NAT firewall and don't have licence keys to identify them. It's not as simple to calculate
the market share of open source systems due to lack of licence keys. I would not be surprised if the market share calculations are "fixed" in such a manner as to favour Corporate interest. It would not be the first time in the history of OS stats*

conor.hogan.2

read my post - I didnt just count pcs.

Also macs also dont need to be restarted except for (re)installation.

Naikon

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

read my post - I didnt just count pcs.

Also macs also dont need to be restarted except for (re)installation.

Sorry, I missed the "linux is everywhere" bit. I went a bit over the top there. Sorry:(

conor.hogan.2

No bother, lol.

I agree it all depends on what you are looking at - if you look at everything then "unix" is everywhere.

dubhthach

Regarding hardware it runs on I would think OSX is quite traditional in the commercial Unix sense that it only runs on the vendors hardware. This was nearly always the case in the past. eg IRIX only ran on SGI MIPS systems and SunOS/Solaris mostly only ran on Sun kit (x86 port was bit of a red-headed child at the time). As for filesystems well you can configure ZFS to be case-insensitive (handy for CIFS shares), you could install OSX on a UFS filesystem up until 10.4 in which case the filesystem was case-sensitive.
The filesystem layout on various *nix have their own quirks. I had access to a shell on an old SysVR3.2 box there last year (old AT&T minicomputer), the basics tend to be much the same but there was some differences.

Capt'n Midnight

dubhthach wrote: »

Regarding hardware it runs on I would think OSX is quite traditional in the commercial Unix sense that it only runs on the vendors hardware.

in a word Hackintosh.

to the extent that AMD64 optimised packages are being released for OSX


But ideas move between PC - MAC - *NiX and there is some convergence between the good ideas and hopefully the turkey ideas will fade away in light of better alternatives. There is certainly a wider degree of inter-operability then in the past, especially if you settle on apps (like firefox) that are common to all.