When you think of open source and Unix, is your next thought Mac OS X? The O’Reilly Mac OS X Conference is the third Mac developers conference this year that company founder and president, Tim O’Reilly has keynoted. Sure this is his conference and he can do anything he wants, but earlier this year he spoke to developers at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference and to hardcore Mac geeks at the Mac Hack conference. And then there’s Jordan Hubbard. Sure, he’s now an Apple employee, but he’s known for his work on FreeBSD.” Read the article at OReilly.
Why Unix Matters to Mac OS X
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
because O’Reilly’s culuture is unix, so with a unix based macos it’s easier for them to write books on the matter.
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
…does OSX matter to Unix? Are there any useful contributions to Unix coming out of Apple?
after reading the article – Why does Unix Matter to OS X?
humm
Yes, all the gnu tools used by Apple, all the BSD tools used by Apple (less, tcsh etc …), are kept in synch with the mainstream source. This means that if a patch is written by an Apple insider then it normaly goes back to the main source tree. Read this thread : http://www.opendarwin.org/pipermail/cvs-log-all/2002-June/000309.ht…
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
The question is not whether UNIX matters to OSX or vise-versa. The question is whether either of them actually matters to THE WORLD.
First, this article never actually makes its point. The article says “I like Macs” and thats it.
Second, I don’t know why they mentioned “Open Source” but it really doesn’t seem pertinent to the article. Supposedly, Mac OS X is going to create all these Unix apps…err…somehow, that the article also doesn’t explain. In actuality, whats going to happen is that Mac OS X is going to create all these Mac OS X apps that won’t be ported to other Unix systems while almost all Unix apps will be portable to Mac OS X.
Third, the only thing “open source” about the system is the kernel. Supposedly, you can download all these free software applications to install onto your system, but you can do the same thing with Windows–this doesn’t make Windows any more “open source” now does it?
Caution folks, me smells a rat.
Jago writes:
‘The question is whether either of them actually matters to THE WORLD.’
I infer that by ‘THE WORLD’ he means the less than 2% of the world’s desktops that run – or at least TRY to run – Linux?
There are no rats here. Really, it would do you all to research your subject rather than speculate in such a biased way on it.
You can download Windows programmes, but you can’t get the source code. Ok, who would want it, but that’s not the point.
On Apple’s ADC, you download apps too – but you download them in SOURCE CODE FORM. And unlike what happens with Linux stuff, these projects ‘just work’.
Read up a bit. If you want to comment on what’s happening at Apple, then get some experience with their stuff. Your world, defined in such narrow margins as Linux is, does not exactly lend credibility to your opinions.
If that’s the case… why don’t we see similar articles about Red Hat or Mandrakesoft, etc.? Face it, Apple didn’t contribute much to BSD and UNIX in general. There are some contributions, no doubt. But they aren’t enough to make me say “Unix would never be the same if weren’t for Apple!”.
All of the significant stuff, like the MIDI and Quartz Extreme are all Mac OS X-only.
Rajan, one small example thats important: Apple have extended testing that lacks in open source projects (probably because it’s to boring to do) and have found and fixed several bugs that are commited back.
How can it possible be wrong that another Unix OS is made available? And one that actually is easy enough for average joe to use? Rajan, you should be behind OSX, not against it if you are a Unix user. Every OSX story I see some bashing and even FUD from you and it makes me wonder if you actually run OSX youself? Do you? Or do you make your assumptions by imagination?
redhat, suse, and mandrake–which i do like–just don’t enjoy that holy grail–a large installed user base. with the mac, you’re dealing with 25 million users and counting.
>does OSX matter to Unix? Are there any useful contributions to Unix coming out of Apple?
Users. Unix gets more users. Don’t tell me that is not a
big contribution.
While OS X is probably one of the faster ones it’s still a dog on resources etc…
I guess it’s something Apple has to live with for choosing Unix. Sun, HP, IBM, SGI, Red Hat live with it every day.
BeOS is still wicked fast on my Intel Inside desktop!
Linux runs very well even on low end servers and is free.
Winblows is a richer environment than OS X for the money.
What are you gonna do?
I’ll stick with Intel Inside thank you.
ciao
yc
>I’ll stick with Intel Inside thank you.
So you’re claiming its the processor?
Nice when MacOSX gets ported to x86 then..
“I infer that by ‘THE WORLD’ he means the less than 2% of the world’s desktops that run – or at least TRY to run – Linux? ”
Where do you get that number? Are you speaking in terms of boxes shipped and ISO’s downloaded? I really want to see facts to back your claim.
You are just full of it today, aren’t you. “And unlike what happens with Linux stuff, these projects ‘just work’. ”
Please do tell us a story of something that didn’t “just work” when you compiled it.
Lemme guess, you didn’t have all the right tools installed before you started compiling. Guess what, THAT CAN HAPPEN ON ANY SYSTEM!
Open Directory
Openplay/NetSprocket
Rendezvous
Streaming Server
Sources available for all these from developer.apple.com.
“I’ll stick with Intel Inside thank you.”
Will you have Coke or Pepsi?
Pepsi, it’s the choice of a new generation.
“Winblows is a richer environment than OS X for the money.”
What do you mean by richer ?
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
Must be a Steve vs Bill thing. (haha)
…does OSX matter to Unix? Are there any useful contributions to Unix coming out of Apple?
A gui that doesnt suck. Proof that you CAN put unix on the desktop.
I think it is too early to judge what Apple will try to do with Unix. This may sound OT, but Apple just opened, of all things, an Apple Business Store at the Apple Store website. I don’t know if Unix plays into that or not, except for XServe, of course. I keep thinking of NeXT though and Job’s attempt to get into the scientific area and higher education area.
>A gui that doesnt suck. Proof that you CAN put unix on the desktop.
Yeah, but that means buying Apple hardware, Apple software and sticking with one superior interface but not being able to tweak or modify it in really any way at all. I read a recent article or two on the fact that the Apple ui folks have made hacks like Kaliedescope and such very unusable. I understand their desire for stability and control however their proprietary gui is NOT a contribution to the Unix world because only the Mac heads will see it ever.
The comments on Apple making contributions in terms of projects like:
Open Directory
Openplay/NetSprocket
Rendezvous
Streaming Server
are much more on target.
Those are real contributions. The gui is an Apple only propietary part of the Mac OS.
I am sure glad you got the money to ditch your hardware and buy Apple only but I am not sure if I am going to go there. If I had the money for second machine I might go there.
Because I’ve been using freebsd for over 4yrs and unix in general for 12yrs. Guess what, my next purchase in the coming weeks will be a brand new dual G4 power Mac becuase it has all the tools I need. I’ll be able to do all my perl/unix programming, and have plug and play with my digital camcorder, and camera with ZERO TWEEKING! Now you show me a *nix that does that right out of the box without having to make a custom kernel or know the lower level of the OS to make it all work. No messing around with config files and shit. Let me know when joe public learns how to start messing with run level configs and /etc config’s, I’m sorry let me know when you’ve explained it to them just to understand what the run levels are.
That’s why it “MATTERS”, I will have the best of both worlds, freebsd and the Mac ease of just doing things. Just deal with it, Mac has got the desktop and the plug and play that we have always wanted from *nix.
my 2 cents
of 25 million Mac users.
I’m a long time mac user/programmer who, because of OS X, has gotten heavily involved in UNIX and Open Source, have made some small Open Source contributions and expect to be contributing for a long time to come. Now multiply me by a possible 25 million, and you see what potential there is in Mac OS X.
Yes! MacOS X matters.
So does Linux, BSD, Solaris, HP UX, AIX, True64 etc…
Apple simply has not given me any reason to switch.
In terms of cost effectiveness, most businesses will choose Linux for their servers. For most applications and feature rich environment, they will choose winblows. For large scale systems they will choose Solaris, HPUX, AIX, True64 etc…
Apple’s stuff is nice but matters mostly to Mac PPC only folks. If I buy an Intel box, I can run Solaris, Linux, BSD, Winblows, BeOS, Novell, UnixWare, and many others. They all have GUIs. Apple no longer has a huge advantage because of the GUI.
On a Mac PPC I can run OS 9, OS X or Linux.
What are you gonna do?
I’ll stick with Intel Inside thank you.
ciao
yc
Ya’ll talk about all of the options that you have on Intel Inside. Unless you are just playing around with various OS’s, why are 95% relevant?
I know I did the whole thing of running through a dozen OS’s a week on my x86 box, but all I was doing was playing with OS’s. When it came to getting real work done, my options were Wintel/Linux/*BSD/Solaris. The rest of them didn’t really matter from that perspective.
So, with AAPL, you only have only a couple choices for OS, if you are looking to actually USE the computer, does the small number of available OS’s make a difference?
You can run OSX, w/ a virtual Winbloze server. It allows you to run all of the unix programs and many windows programs, plus all of the OSX programs.
Alright, so the HW is a bit slower, it’s ‘fast enough’, tho faster would be nicer. Everyone always complains about how expensive the HW is, well the upgrade cycle is also longer, meaning it’s not as expensive as it appears, because it lasts longer.
With Intel Inside, new HW is always coming out, which is all cheap, but you nickel and dime yourself to death constantly upgrading or building new systems.
– K
“Apple’s stuff is nice but matters mostly to Mac PPC only folks. If I buy an Intel box, I can run Solaris, Linux, BSD, Winblows, BeOS, Novell, UnixWare, and many others. They all have GUIs. Apple no longer has a huge advantage because of the GUI.”
It’s true that you can run all those with Intel (or AMD for that matter) inside. BUT, without a LOT of tweaking none of them have a GUI that is as good as Mac OS X’s. Some maybe faster (BeOS) but you don’t get everything that you get with Mac OS X. And you certainly can’t connect to everything (digital cameras, vidio cameras, burn DVDs, FireWire, wireless networking, etc.) so easily as you can with Mac OS X.
Oh, and for the person waiting for Mac OS X to be ported to x86. IF that happens you will STILL have to buy your hardware from Apple. Why? Because there will be a propriatatry ROM that the OS looks for and won’t run without. What you say? This won’t be! If that’s what you think you obviously haven’t been paying attention. Remember when Steve pulled the plug on Apple clones? Don’t think he will allow this on x86 processors either. It just won’t happen.
I’ve used over 20 separate OSs in the last 20 years and all of them are lacking. The two OSs that have come closest to just doing what I want to do have been IBM’s OS/2 2.0 in 1992 and now Apple’s OS X (Jaguar). The rest of them are either unable (Windows including XP Pro – too lame and propriatary, BeOS – not enough apps, ) or a pain in the rear end (UNIX and Linux) as little works out of the box and the GUIs need a LOT of work but are getting closer.
As a final note: What Apple brings to UNIX is a UNIX desktop for the rest of us. I’m a geek but am SICK AND TIRED of having to tweak, recompile, etc., EVERY STINKING TIME I WANT ANYTHING. Macs just work. OS X just works. For once in my life I can actually just use UNIX with EVERYTHING that I want to do every day. I want to work and accomplish things. I want to play and have full 3D accelerated games like Quake III and DOOM 3 and NeverWinter (I’m looking more forward to the sequels than the original as hopefully the story lines with mature).
Why will this matter to the UNIX/Linux community?
Because Apple just raised the bar and showed everybody else how it can be done and what to expect.
Right now there are a significant number of major software companies writing programs used by people everyday in offices and at home to get real WORK done. Now that the program has been written in one flavor of unix why not port it over to another? More and more of this will happen as OS X comes into maturity as a platform and it means that a real, USEABLE version of Linux for the PC may hit the desktop within the next decade.
I don’t want to run a server.
I don’t want a computer where I need a Comp Sci degree (self taught) to run the thing. I don’t want to need to spend hours or even minutes at the command line, typing arcane spells to some Cthuloid Unix god.
I want to capture and edit video, watch DVDs, tweak pictures, write papers, print, upload and download files, watch streaming video, and get the pictures off my camera.
There are 2 OSes that let people do all this out of the box or with simple plug and play, click and go software.
Mordorsoft XP and Apple OS X.
And for all of you who bitch about the expense of Apple hardware … if you want the BMW of computing hardware and design, you can’t pay Ford and Chevvy prices for it. (That souped up x86 Rice Rocket may be more “powerful” and a hell of a lot faster, but at the end of the day, the Mac BMW is a more refined and total user experience.)
[I just got my DP tower yesterday … holy lord, that thing’s built like a tank inside. I’ve never owned such a metal intensive tower before in my life.]
I’ve heard a lot about how OS X is making converts out of UNIX users. Any UNIX programmers/developers out there? What sort of development/programming do you do now that you’re on the Mac? Do you use Cocoa or touch Quartz at all? That’s what I’m interested to find out. If UNIX developers are diving into Cocoa/Quartz, that’s something to talk about. If not, its just FINK.
Most companies don’t run on a single platform. You will find that they run Winblows on the desktops because of MS Office, Visio, OutLook, CIFS file sharing etc.
Linux, BSD on the back end for cost savings. NT Server for most proprietary server software, Active Directory, SQL Server, SNA Server, BizTalk Server, CRM software etc…
The beauty of all this is if one day they can not longer afford the Price of Win2k Server and MS SQL server, they can switch to Linux or BSD to run PostgreSQL and without changing the hardware. (Ok Macs can run Linux but what about Novell, Solaris, Windows 2000)
You see, OS platform flexibility and vendor flexibility is very important in the enterprise. Notice how even Sun Microsystems is building Intel Inside boxes nowadays for Linux and Solaris.
Apple has a very big/good niche market. Don’t expect them to win much of the enterprise market because of a decent Unix desktop and server on closed proprietary hardware. It just ain’t gonna happen. If anything, they may lose some of the fanatics to Winblows because of the heavy Unix in OS X. The fact that people are required to buy new hardware alone may lead them to Intel Inside.
ciao
yc
what was unique about OS/2?
The beauty of all this is if one day they can not longer afford the Price of Win2k Server and MS SQL server, they can switch to Linux or BSD to run PostgreSQL and without changing the hardware
Have you any idea of the cost of such a switch in terms of development and reorganisation ?
A lot !!
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
OS X is to a large degree irrelevent to UNIX. UNIX is just a base OS. It doesn’t really have much of a user-interface (except the command line) and is only defined by a kernel that has certain system calls, and a filesystem that follows a certain layout. If you discount the whole UNIX branding thing than BeOS is a UNIX, just as Linux is a UNIX. Now the GUI is a seperate issue, totally unrelated to the UNIX-ness of an OS. And here lies the rub: OS X’s GUI is Aqua. Most UNIX’s GUIs use X11. To the average user (the one who doesn’t drop into the command line) that is a complete difference. To them, OS X is no more a UNIX than Windows is a UNIX. Aside from the small segment of the MacOS population that regularly uses the CLI and the CLI tools, OS X is not UNIX. Thus, OS X really doesn’t bring in more users to UNIX, because most of those users don’t learn anything about UNIX in the process of using OS X. OS X doesn’t really contribute any software to UNIX (aside from the aformentioned bugfixes and whatnot)
because OS X software (programmed to Cocoa or Carbon) isn’t portable to other UNIX machines. So the net result of OS X is that the name UNIX get’s heard in the mainstream, and that maybe a few users who venture from the command line might like it and try to learn more about OS X’s UNIX underpinings, eventually maybe playing with another UNIX OS. But that’s about it.
UNIX, on the other hand, is terribly relavent to OS X. OS X uses a UNIX compiler chain, UNIX server software, UNIX database software, etc. UNIX provides OS X with a huge base of ready made server software and utilities, as well as important libraries for GUI programmers.
If you use OSX in a UNIX environment and you want compatibilty with other *NIX variants, its unlikely they would use carbon to do it so thats not much an issue. If Cocoa is used, GNUstep is possiblity. Worse case XDarwin can be used as well PLUS you have the ability to run those other apps your common *NIX machine can’t run. So you actually have the best of both worlds on running most of the *NIX software and then some. It’s just a matter of how they are gonna pitch it to the enterprise market.
I personally think they have better odds as a workstation than a server market, due to everyones above comments about server hardware. The odds are slim to none we will see a mainframe ‘enterprise’ system coming from Apple. Which is a big deal in the server market. Time will tell, I can’t pass judgement untill I see what is on the table first, though.
Never again will I buy into a closed, proprietary system. Say all that you want about OSX, at the end of the day Apple controls it completely and will change it however they wish, whenever they wish and for whatever reason they wish (not to mention charge you whatever they wish). That’s a shame too, becuase Apple could easily triple their user base if they opened the hardware up. But that is their cash cow, and you will never see it as long as Steve Jobs is alive.
Apple talks a good game about how they are improving UNIX, However that is all it is, talk. The applications they care about are all tied to the Aqua GUI, and you will NEVER see that released as open source. They may offer some small, minuscule open source applications, but by the whole they are irrelevant and pathetic in their attempt. Steve Jobs uses UNIX as a talking point, not as a point of mutual benefit. In the end, Steve Job’s Apple is a User; one who uses something and never gets anything back.
Dave
Of course Apple won’t open up the hardware, because as you put it, IT IS THEIR CASH COW.
Exact same reason they won’t open up Aqua or migrate to x86.
In fact, it would be STUPID for them to do this. Why?
Because, they are a COMPANY, not a CHARITY. They are there to make a profit, not give you free toys. They are held accountable by their share holders to be profitable and make smart BUSINESS decisions.
They will not sacrifice profit for market share. Giving away the farm for free will adversely affect their financials. I swear, the geek mentality makes it so obvious why the dot.bomb happened, everything for free, revel in technology, forget profits.
– K
>Because, they are a COMPANY, not a CHARITY. They are there >to make a profit, not give you free toys. They are held >accountable by their share holders to be profitable and >make smart BUSINESS decisions
Well, it seems to me that some companies can make a great deal of profit from just selling an operating system. I wonder who I can be thinking about?
Apple is too short sighted to realize that most people refuse to pay extravagant amounts for hardware the costs considerably less on the open market. The hardware I can get from a Dell, or a HP, run circles around that of a Mac. Additionally, I can walk into any store in America, buy a piece of hardware/software and KNOW that it works under Windoze. Linux on the other hand doesn’t have the drivers, but it certainly has the stability and cost factors right. And why is that? They focus on using cheap, easily available hardware, and focus on writing applications and drivers. M$ realize a long time ago that getting into the hardware arena was a losing proposition, and wisely has kept that course.
Apple on the other hand it did not realize this, and the only thing they are is a hardware vendor, who happens to sell a nice GUI stuck on top of UNIX. Their very survival is based upon selling over priced pieces of hardware with unique industrial designs. I’ll hand it to them though, their design department earns every penny if they make.
Your very words state the exact reason that you’ll never see a significant open source contribution by Apple to the UNIX world, it doesn’t pay. I won’t hold my breath waiting for those contributions, and neither should you.
Apple is good for UNIX. My reasoning:
Parents their kids comptuers. For school, whatever. Most kids
just use them as is. There’s always that one percent that play with it. Now, do you want that 1% to play with Windows or UNIX? I meet lots of people that only know Windows stuff. They know some really bizarre Windows stuff. They’d take to UNIX well, if they ever saw it in the first place.
>BeOS is still wicked fast on my Intel Inside desktop!
Yes and is still wicked dead if you ask me. (and don’t tell me about that open BEOS project or whatever it’s called, I don’t see that going anywhere soon).
>Winblows is a richer environment than OS X for the money.
Richer in viruses, really ugly security holes DRM and other BS from Redmond. Thanks, I don’t want to pay money for that kind of “richness”.
>Linux runs very well even on low end servers and is free.
I like Linux, but I always say that Linux is only free (beer) if your time is has no value.
Having said that I still think its a nice platform and has deserved all the success it can get.
I just think the worst thing we can do is to start yet another UNIX vs. UNIX war. That’s happened before and killed the market share of UNIX.
We should unite against MS and their bullshit and once that war is won we can still fight it out against each other 😉
Apple is a hardware company that is trying to move into services (.mac). They gave away their OS for many years and now (like IBM) they are happy to support free software because it drives hardware sales.
How do they help unix?
25 million users exercising the unix underpinings of os x.
A massive professional testing team running through the same code.
Apple sponsored submission of said code to security certification.
A way for GNU and BSD licences (as well as code) to enter the common conciousness.
A desktop for marketing/sales/secretaries that plays well with unix servers (and Windows through samba).
A computer for your grandmother that you can troubleshoot through ssh.
A computer for your kids that you can use as a unix file server.
A professional quality unix laptop.
Thousands of unix users that need (or are forced) to use Word/Excel/Powerpoint won’t have to leave unix or dual boot.
Finally, OS X is not competing with Linux of *BSD for headless server operations. It is a partnership.
Example:
Tempermental artist creates computer animation on overpriced, poncey looking, proprietary hardware. Renders it on a cheap linux renderfarm.
it’s a win-win situation folks, no need to get defensive.
PS someone referred to the article in Wired claiming Apple was preventing people doing mods, themes etc. for OS X. This went beyond FUD into outright lies. A simple Google search will show that there are a variety of tools for tweaking the OS visually and functionally.
Taz, I don’t hate Mac OS X. I think Quartz is a fine piece of software. I really like some aspects of Mac OS X. But that doesn’t make it a contributor to Unix in general. Heck, if I fixed some bugs in some software, would O’Reilly write up an article about me? Doubt it.
Apple didn’t contribute much in the sense of changing stuff in UNIX. Things that Sun, HP, IBM, SCO all did. Apple’s big changes are all Apple-only. So in other words, Apple didn’t contribute much to UNIX except some patches and big fixes (well, in general, they did contribute more than that).
Besides, as for bashing Mac OS X – I only bash it when I have a reason. For example, if I bash the UI, I bash it because it is far worse than Mac OS 9’s and OpenStep’s. Sure, I don’t use Mac OS X – but trust me, if I do, you would see far more bashing from me.
The last thing I am is a Apple basher. I respect Apple from the business point of view. They are successful in what every business should aim for: profit. Besides, I bash Windows and Linux far more than Mac OS X, I don’t see you anywhere telling I’m a MS-basher or a Linux-basher.
Phyax: Sources available for all these from developer.apple.com.
And all of them under the ASPL. Not plenty useful if you ask me.
matt: A gui that doesnt suck. Proof that you CAN put unix on the desktop.
This is Apple-only, am I right? Making UNIX easy to use isn’t some alien idea. Heck, NeXT didn’t even come up with it. So, how would this benefit current Unix users?
Kelson: With Intel Inside, new HW is always coming out, which is all cheap, but you nickel and dime yourself to death constantly upgrading or building new systems.
They get obsolete fast. Or rather, after a few months, you wouldn’t have the fastest stuff in town. So? There isn’t a law saying that businesses must have the most cutting egde hardware, no? There isn’t a timer on the hardware that causes the hardware to burn after awhile.
So don’t have to upgrade if you don’t want to. A PC last as long as a Mac.
This is just about the most stupid comment made on this thread.
Bill: BUT, without a LOT of tweaking none of them have a GUI that is as good as Mac OS X’s.
Maybe even better, by getting OpenStep. Windows’ UI is good enough. It is harder to learn, but after learning it, it is much more productive than Mac OS X.
Kady Mae: Because Apple just raised the bar and showed everybody else how it can be done and what to expect.
Next raised the bar higher than Mac OS X years before Apple bought them out. Big deal. Did anything significant happen? Nope.
Kady Mae: And for all of you who bitch about the expense of Apple hardware … if you want the BMW of computing hardware and design, you can’t pay Ford and Chevvy prices for it.
But I beg to differ. Why should BMW prices be higher than of Ferraris and Lamborginis (considering PC’s speed)? If a Ferrari can have a price of a Ford, why can’t the BMW?
I have to stand behind Rayiner in this issue.
rajan r,
>But I beg to differ. Why should BMW prices be higher than
> of Ferraris and Lamborginis (considering PC’s speed)?
>If a Ferrari can have a price of a Ford, why can’t the BMW?
Since when are Ferrari’s and Lamborgini’s beige boxes that have the grace and elegance of a soviet era economy car? Or since when do Ferrari’s and Lamborgini’s come in do-it-yourself kits for $500?
currently, PCs aren’t that much faster than macintoshes anyway…especially in practical terms….so your analogy flops.
Ya know Apple has 1000 engineers working on OS X at probably an average of 90k – 100k per year each. I know the starting salary is 60k for an entry level programmer. That doesn’t count all the hardware engineers and all the software engineers working on all the iFreebie apps.
YOU may have a problem paying people for their work. I don’t. Macintoshes cost more for a reason. I’ll happily pay it to get hardware and software that isn’t a pain in the butt to use. However, you feel free to keep funding the garbage that comes out of Redmond all you want.
-James