prospective_user asks:
"I
am a heavy user of Unix, spend most of my time running Linux and am
considering getting myself an iBook, after seeing a considerable
amount of exposure Macs/Apple have in both Slashdot and the O'Reilly
Network. Given that MacOS X is based on FreeBSD/Mach, I suppose that the usual
Unix libraries and environments (like ncurses and tcl/tk) are
available in MacOS X (which I hope is true, for text-based
applications). In fact, I'm concerned about the Unix side of MacOS X
and also plan on running Debian/PPC on it, but I plan to primarily use
MacOS X. So, before having an (uncertain) investment in a new platform, it
would be reasonable to have a bit more of background on it and thus,
the questions: how well does MacOS X support traditional Unix
applications? For instance, how do the following applications run
under MacOS X (which I use the most): teTeX, GNU Emacs, mutt and
fetchmail?" Note that the submittor isn't asking if OSX is or is
not a Unix; we've
fielded
that question already. No, the question here is where does OSX
differ from the other unicies.
"Also regarding the investment in a new platform and coming from the
x86 world, I'm a bit interested about the PowerPC performance in
comparison to what I could get with a x86 notebook. I've read some
articles and pages that suggest that PowerPCs may not be fast (or, in
fact, may be quite slower than their x86 counterparts):
Some of the sources I've read are:
these
pages, from
D. J. Bernsteins's website, and
this article on
processor performance from the
GMP website.
Also, as some later questions, can the portable Macs be plugged to
non-mac monitors? And does MacOS X feature a packet filter like Linux
or other BSDs do?
Any comments and experiences with these machines are welcome.
Thanks."
why not ask apple? (Score:3, Informative)
all you need to know.
Re:why not ask apple? (Score:1)
Re:Better yet, how useful and stable is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better yet, how useful and stable is it? (Score:2)
as much as you want to (Score:2, Informative)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:2, Informative)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:1)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:1)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:1)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:2)
it saves compile time, and probably download time as well (depending on the package of course.... for example linux source > 10 meg tar.gz (or bzip2 if you insist), linux compiled 1 meg (in general))
in my opinion, open source is about having the option to compile stuff yourself, which doesn't mean you have to
Re:as much as you want to (Score:1)
As for backdoors originating on the machine and making calls outward, you can be pretty sure any such would be discovered pretty fast by people that log every data your machine sends (I have no doubt there's those that do).
Re:as much as you want to (Score:1)
Re:as much as you want to (Score:3, Informative)
Mmm, apt. Mmm, dselect.
Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:4, Troll)
But as I dug deeper, the initial euphoria wore off. While MacOS X gives the impression of being a Unix, as one digs deeper into the system, it becomes more and more clear that it is anything but Unix:
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2, Interesting)
Even after 10 months of OS X, you might be less than dissapointed if you're indeed looking for an operating environment that behaves like what you're used to (say, on BSD or Linux).
My main gripe with OS X was when I upgraded from 10 to 10.1, all my build tools were broken, and I had to bite my lip and wait for Apple's Developer's Kit fix. That sort of thing doesn't happen while using Linux (not yet, to me anyway).
Try writing a device driver? (can't do PCMCIA or IR yet, thanks Apple). On a _unixy_ system,
write a file or two, include library headers and functions, toss a compiler in, you're all set. Under OS X, it's such a curcuituous wild goose chase.
My conclusion: OS X has pretty graphics, apps, and a generally useful programming environment (I mean editor, command line, cc, ld; not that ProjectBuilder); but if you really want to do something other than puttering around in the command line, you will be less than impressed. (I don't know much about Solaris, so I can't say anything about being able to fiddle with it the way you can Linux, ?BSD?, Minix, et al.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:5, Informative)
try "man open" at the command prompt.
and from what the guy was asking originally, i've had no problems running GNU software. I got BASH to compile and set it up as default shell, i've gotten VI to compile, and GNU Emacs seems to run just fine (even m-x tetris is available).
The CLI is a different world from the GUI, but you can turn on all most options to allow the finder to see hidden directories, the whole nine yards. Check out some Mac tip and trick sites...Admittedly it's not default in the OS and you have to peek around, but come on, y'all like UNIX, so why get lazy about learning the tricks of this system.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:5, Interesting)
OS X is based on Darwin, which is a full-fledged Unix kernel that complies with every relevant standard: POSIX, XPG, you name it. Because of this fact, software written within those standards compiles and runs with no problems.
Just this morning I wanted to download some big ISOs to my iMac at home while I was away; why waste that expensive DSL line just 'cause I'm not at home? So I logged in to my iMac with SSH and used NcFTP to download the source code for GNU Screen from the GNU FTP site. Then it was "configure && make && sudo make install." At that point, I was able to run "screen" and use a detached terminal session from the office to download my ISOs.
If that's not pretty damn Unix-like, I don't know what is.
Of course, that doesn't mean OS X is just like Solaris, or HP-UX, or IRIX, or FreeBSD, or Linux any more than those OSs are all like each other. The definition of "Unix-like" is defined by a set of standards, and OS X meets 'em.
You're talking about how different OS X is from your expectations, not how it fits the definition of "Unix." They're not the same thing.
Also, I don't think "FUD" means what you think it means.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:5, Interesting)
No they're not. There's an option - it MAY be "Show hidden files" or something to that effect, but I'm pretty sure it's not. I'm not at my OS X box right now so I can't check. It can be done, though.
Now, as for your gripes about
and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.
Try the "open" command.
Same complaints, 12 years later. (Score:5, Informative)
Ignorance or Evolution? It's hard to say. But I can tell you I've been happy with Mac OS X thus far. Final Cut Pro 3.0 works perfectly. My digital cameras (USB still photo and FireWire MiniDV) integrate fine. OmniWeb 4.1 is looking to be a great new browser (plans for 4.2/5.0 are sounding awesome). And yet I can still run all of the goodies I'm accustom to on my Sun and my Linux box.
That said, OS X is not for someone who wants Linux in the first place. If you want the X Window System, if you want GTK or Qt, if you want GNOME/KDE/etc... do yourself a favor and build a Linux box. Running these under OS X is possible, but a kluge.
Mac OS X is a whole new world. Learn its ways and tools, compute with peace.
Hope this helps.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:4, Insightful)
No /etc. Well, technically, there is a /etc, but it is incredibly empty compared to what you may be used to in FreeBSD or Linux. None of the system's configuration is included in standard POSIX text files; Apple has opted to move everything into what they call a "NetInfo" registry. This is awful, to say the least.
/etc, each with its own syntax and gotchas, is somehow more elegant than a registry-based solution? The registry is something I wish some Linux distro would get around to doing, to be honest, and one of the few good ideas Microsoft has ever had.
Why is this a bad idea? The concept of a system registry is fantastic in theory; in practice, on Microsoft's operating systems, it is a trainwreck. Why must Apple's attempt immediately be classified as such, as well? Do you honestly think managing 100 different little config files in
- A.P.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
Think about your statement. One binary registry was prone to corruption, the one in Windows. (and I suspect that has much more to do with the crappy FAT filesystem than their registry code)
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
I think the original poster phrased that incorrectly..
Flat text files are no more prone to corruption than binary ones - but when it DOES become corrupt, you can fix a text file with VI, or any other text editor.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Plain text files are good. You can view them with just about any utility (cat, less, more), you can grep from them easily, you can echo >> them, etc. Plain text is sort of a universal interface that is easy to manipulate, and easy to write your own tools to manipulate (using PERL, for example).
Now, taking that away in order to have a binary registry that has exactly one painful tool to manipulate is like highway robbery. No remote admin, not easy write your own utils, etc. Just crap.
Plain text configs are just plain easy to learn and to admin. Putting them all in the same file doesn't change much - making them binary and forcing you to use the RegEdit program of your OS provider is crippling to an admin.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
No, there isn't.
Text file -> editor
WinRegistry -> custom program to extract to text -> editor -> custom program to replace -> Winregistry
If your system is hosed with the first one, you load up your rescue floppy, use VI on the text file, and you're done.
If your system is hosed with the second one, your system is hosed. All the APIs in the world won't fix it, because the system has to boot before you can use them.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2)
Plain text ALREADY has enormous sets of tools available to modify it, including every text editor, parser, etc. There is not one tool that is critical (and in this case you can note the tool is the Windows library to access the Registry).
Sort of a least common denominator. You can spill the text file into a console with cat, view it and edit it with Notepad, or vi, or Word, or whatever you like to use to edit text. You can do this all remotely with ease.
Certainly all of this can be done with a binary registry IF the OS provides you the tools. But you still lose a lot of common function by migrating away from plain text, and it remans to be seen what gain, if any, comes from not having a plain text registry. I think the only real change is that the OS provider CONTROLS EXACTLY how you can interact with the Registry, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your opinion.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2, Informative)
Now, taking that away in order to have a binary registry that has exactly one painful tool to manipulate is like highway robbery. No remote admin, not easy write your own utils, etc. Just crap.
Actually, not only can you connect to remote machines (more or less--the domain) using the graphical tool provided from another workstation, you can ssh into the machine you want to admin, and use command line tools (dwrite and friends) to change NI. Also, the API is available (or at least it used to be) so you can write your own tools.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
I realize that probably no one will read this (too old) but I can't let this slide.
OS X configuration files are plain text. They're XML formatted, but you can edit them by hand as easily as any .ini or fstab.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2)
Using a registry for user setting, though, is a PITA, IMHO. Nothing beats the unix method of '.' files/directories in the users home directory interms of KISS-ness. You can very easy backup your settings, copy them to a different machine, or try out a friends settings, etc, all on a per program basis. A registry (esp Windows registry), makes it very difficult to do such a thing.
For example, I've been using the same .emacs file now for 5+ years now on a ton of different machines (solaris, linux, HP-Ux - at school, home and work). In the same time, I've had to reconfigure Office to my liking a countless number of times.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
<key name=""><key name=system><int name=version value=1>
etc...
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Find
This is an option. You can turn the hiding of the Unix directories on and off. It's off by default.
likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.
This is just plain wrong. There exists a utility called open (/usr/bin/open). To open something, simply run it with the path to whatever you want to run.
ie: open ./iTunes.app
There is none of the tight CLI-GUI integration seen in AmigaOS or BeOS or even Windows.
Bah, just look at the consumer Apple is marketing to. They don't even want to see the CLI. Apple is attempting to make it possible for people to use the environment efficiently without a person ever having to use a shell.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2)
Now if only Mac apps took flags...
The functionality is there, but it is rarely used (unfortunately). Only utility that comes to mind that takes flags is the OSXVnc server which is configurable via the CLI and the GUI.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as NetInfo goes, it's just like the NIS your familiar with on other UNIX's. (and can be hooked into NIS or LDAP). In fact, everything in NetInfo, except for maybe printers, is found in NIS. And if you don't think NIS is UNIX-like, you've never ran more than 3 machines.
As far as the other two, others have countered that.
There is some integration (Score:1)
Also, maybe the reason why everything is not viewed as a file under Mac OS X is because not everthing is a file in reality.
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:1)
Depends on what you mean by "tight CLI-GUI integration." With the AppleScript do shell commend, or Realbasic's shell method, you can write GUI wrappers for CLI commends.
For example, I wrote a Realbasic program that calls TeTeX's texexec macro for combining PDF's. Now I can drag and drop PDF files onto an icon, and out pops my concatenated PDF
Re:Not very Unixlike at all, I'm afraid. (Score:2)
ls
There's no
Yes, everything above the kernel is propreitary. I don't see the connection between openness and level of integration. Carbon/Cocoa/Quartz/Aqua could be GPL and still not have a lick of integration. That was a poor choice of words on your part.
Windows hardley has CLI-GUI integration. What does that even mean? Just because you can start something with a command? Again, poor choice of words...but as someone pointed out, you _can_ open apps (or files even) from the CLI. The "open" command performs the equivalent of a double-click (or Command-O in the Finder). 'open Mail.app" opens Mail, and 'open foo.mp3' opens foo.mp3 in iTunes.
Lastly, you misuse FUD. Not only is MacOSX's Unixness just as is vaunted, but even if it weren't, the words "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" would not in anyway describe the situation. Misleading Commercial Hype maybe. But it's moot. It's perfectly Unixy.
try it out (Score:1)
make sure the dev tools are installed (Score:2)
However...
CompUSA didn't have the developer tools (gcc, gdb, libs, the awesome GUI debugger and IDE, etc) installed. Have the manager fetch the CD or bring in your own:
http://developer.apple.com/tools/macosxtools.html [apple.com]
Re:try it out (Score:2)
I'm a webmaster that uses OS X for my desktop, and I love it. For Java/Web development, OS X is fantastic. It has java, perl, and all of your unix tools built in by default. Apache comes standard as well, but you'll probably want to compile your own flavor to match your production environment. If you're doing design work, you get the benefit of the Macintosh graphics apps like Photoshop and Illustrator.
I can't really speak for C++, since I use Apple's Cocoa dev environment which is built for Java or Objective C. However gcc comes with the free developer's tools, so I imagine you can do all your C++ stuff with the standard unix tools. For my purposes, I've found OS X to easily match Linux for dev work once you get used to the idiosyncracies.
It helps to think of it as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP (Score:3, Informative)
Here are three better URLs:
http://developer.apple.com/unix/index.html [apple.com]
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ [apple.com]
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ [apple.com]
Re:It helps to think of it as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP (Score:2, Funny)
But not a native one though [osxzone.com]...
Re:It helps to think of it as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP (Score:1)
I dont think they have this one [lapam.org] either.
The difference between MacOS X and Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
MacOS X on the other hand is more like a perfectly ergonomic, intuitivley simple yet surprisingly flexible single bladed knife. It doesn't have a corkscrew or scissors, But the handle grip doubles as a file and it is perfectly balanced along every axis. Ninjas use it for throwing, Butchers use it for cutting meat. Carpenters use it to score material and Master chefs use it to prepare dishes, but you wont be able to open a wine bottle, it wont loosen most phillips screws and you'll just make a mess if you try to open a can of peas or bottle of beer with it. It also wont fit in your pocket. However, if there was ever a knife that was a perfect balance of asthetics, utility, and well executed engineering, this is it. Again, a wonderful design philosophy.
Re:The difference between MacOS X and Linux (Score:1)
If I had only one dissent--OS X may only be at present a single, yet versatile knife, but it will soon have attachments and future uses that Paul Popeil could only imagine.
Re:The difference between MacOS X and Linux (Score:2)
Re:The difference between MacOS X and Linux (Score:1)
in a word, yes (Score:1)
yes, yes. (Score:2, Informative)
So... yes. Absolutely (at least on a PB Ti)
Re:in a word, yes (Score:1)
The bad news: the iBook only supports video mirroring (the same image on both the LCD and monitor), and you can't use ONLY the external monitor; the iBook must be open (and thus the LCD on) in order to use an external monitor.
"Mac Monitors" (Score:4, Informative)
However, older macs used a DB-15 (two rows of pins rather than three rows) connector for the monitor. These require a $10 - $30 adapter to offer the proper connector and pin routing if a PC monitor is to be used.
All current Apple monitors use ADC, the Apple Display Connector... a single cable that carries power, signal, and usb to the montior. ADC is based on some obscure standard that nobody else adopted. Macs with ADC have a second alternate connector for SVGA HD15, but only one connector can be used at a time.
The PowerBook G4 has a SVGA HD15 monitor connector.
The iBook has a funky monitor connector, but a SVGA HD15 adapter is included.
Current desktop Macs have both SVGA HD15 and ADC connectors on their gfx cards. An ADC -> DVI adapter is included for use with a DVI flat panel. (Should you choose not to buy an Apple flat panel). THough, I have been told by more than one person that they had to buy the ADC -> DVI adapter as it's not included with all new G4s. Go figure.
Hope this helps.
Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) (Score:4, Informative)
I myself have a 22" Apple Cinema Display DVI model.. so I bought a combiner that takes the DVI+USB+Power and makes it into ADC.
I'll admit, ADC isn't the norm (though you can buy PC video cards with ADC connectors).. but it's not a half bad idea to take the 3 connections from the monitor and combine it.
It's just nothing wildly proprietary.
Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.volex.com/products/ind_evc.html
Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) (Score:1)
This is not the same as the EVC connector.
According to Apple (and verified by my own research), the connector is unique to Apple, although the signals are similar to DVI, so adapters may be used. (I believe Apple sells such an adapter.)
Re:"Mac Monitors" (ADC) (Score:1)
Re:"Mac Monitors" (Score:1)
If you browse the Apple store web site [apple.com], and configure a G4 tower system, you will see three video options. One is a single-head GeForce2-MX board, one is a dual-head GeForce2-MX board (aka "TwinView"), and one is a single-head GeForce3 board.
The "TwinView" board will let you run two (non-mirrored) monitors off of one card - one on the HD15 and one on the ADC.
If you choose one of the other two video cards, then only one connector may be used at a time.
Re:"Mac Monitors" (Score:2)
Yes, it's a unix (Score:5, Informative)
It runs nearly all of my favorite open source unix apps, including the X applications. I am personally using mutt, gvim (that's vim with the GTK frontend), nethack and a few others. I like the new operating system very much, and even though bits of it don't look like unix, that's usually because they're NeXTish instead.
It's also probably reelevant to mention that the GNUstep libraries are mostly source-compatible with Apple's Cocoa API, so you can compile GNUstep apps and they'll work just like "native" OS X apps. Plus the development tools are all completely free (unlike the other major commercial desktop OS).
Check /usr/include (Score:2)
Very happy Mac OS X user (Score:3, Interesting)
1) I previously worked for a large Linux and Solaris based ISP. I'm still able to work with all of my favorite command line utilities and perl scripts.
2) It's boss friendly, It's geek friendly. -- I can compile and run the stuff I want. My boss can run Microsoft Office v.X. It's a "commercial, supported OS", whatever the hell that means (important to some people I guess). And the full, complete developer environment is free....
http://developer.apple.com/tools/macosxtools.ht
These questions are getting old... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:These questions are getting old... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:These questions are getting old... (Score:1)
Re:These questions are getting old... (Score:2)
Yes, there are bonuses. (Score:2, Interesting)
Pluses to Apple Hardware:
Fairly nice power management, I have not done the comparison, but I get decent (2.5 hours on a battery) off an old walstreet powerbook in OS X.
Nice wireless, Airport is a just another standard wireless card, but it works well out of the box.
I have had no problems attaching PBs to a number of external monitor and projectors.
In general they make nice hardware.
dual monitor support built in... (Score:2)
and this is a COOL thing. you can run the monitor as a mirror to your lcd, or have it as a separate screen that can be positioned anywhere around the powerbook's screen. great for presentations - you can move the presentation notes to the 'book's screen and have the presentation come out the svga port.
Re:dual monitor support built in... (Score:2)
dual monitor is built in on the powerbooks, i would guess also on the iBook, but i'm speculating there.
My iBook lets me mirror the LCD on the external monitor, but that's all.
Whether OS X seems like Unix or not depends on you (Score:5, Informative)
on whether you look at OSX from a kernel perspective, as a development
platform, a unix user, or a unix administrator, it can vary between
being a "true unix" to something very foreign.
It most looks like unix if look at a system call interface (aka
section 2 of the man pages. Things like open, read, write, close,
fork, and exec). The user commands (section 1 of the man pages. Things
like ls,cp, and rm) exist but all of
entirely hidden from the GUI. For actual user commands, they are in
some ways rather spartan (traditional BSD versions, not all-singing,
all-dancing GNU versions.) but there are some rather interesting
additions (emacs, tcsh, pico, gcc, autoconf, and gnu tar.)
Standard Unix system libraries (section 3 of the man pages
fopen,fread,printf,system,and popen) exist as a "non-preferred"
interface. The command line utilities are built against them, but
building an arbitrary tarball developed under linux might show some
compatiblity quirks. (those same quirks might exist trying to port to
FreeBSD) Most of the file and process oriented tasks can be done in
the OS X specific libraries with an API entirely unlike the POSIX ones
in libc. (This isn't anything new really, these OS X libraries are the
updated versions of what came with the first NextStations in 1987.)
Shared libraries are somewhat different than what probably currently
exists in FreeBSD. I bet it started because NeXT implemented shared
libraries before the became standard in BSD, but they need to continue
their own system because it hooks into the object oriented IPC
framework that is much of what the makes the system interesting.
From a system administrators standpoint (I guess to keep my analogies,
section 4 (device files) and section 5 (configuration files)) things
are radically different.
no
/var, or
(like
/home, instead there is
merges
inherited from NeXT.
As a user, its a modern mouse and windows type of system. Its slightly
more interapplication oriented, less monolithic application oriented.
Like my friends who used NeXT systems in the past, there seem to be
two ways to deal with the system peculiarities. The first is to assume
that the system is a very stripped down Unix system, ignore whats in
/Library and
/usr/local/{bin,lib,share}. The other way is to buy into its
weirdness.
deja vu (Score:1)
The answer is "yes" (Score:2, Informative)
I'm currently using OSX running on a G4 Cube at home and a G4 Black and White in my office for most of my writing and research programming (my laptop still run linux and sees a good deal of use).
I do all of writing in LaTeX (using teTeX) and occasionally use mutt. OSX comes with GNU emacs installed, but I've started to use bbedit as my text editor of choice. X11 will run rootless in OSX, so you can use the X-enabled GNU emacs and xemacs if you want (and I have). All my documents end up in CVS, and transitioning them from one machine to another requires no changes what-so-ever.
I haven't touched mutt or fetchmail, my home mail server is still a linux box, which I ssh into, and the same in my office. I assume they work, however. I'm pretty sure there are fink packages available.
OSX isn't Linux, it is based on NeXT, and, therefore, does have a number of quirks. Besides one issue with the GUI [1], I have not found any issues that make me want to switch back to a Linux box as a primary machine. Yes, updates are not weekly, and the debacle of OSX 10.1 being released without Developer Tools was annoying (though we were clearly warned before hand). However, none of these things are insurmountable.
ProjectBuilder is
-Seth
[1] I miss virtual workspaces that I can ctrl->right-arrow to terribly. The only current contender (a docklet called Spaces) doesn't have keyboard bindings and doesn't quite work 100%.
Comparisons (Score:1)
John Carmacks Opinion [slashdot.org]
Considering Carmack made this statement when x86 had just broken the gigahertz barrier and The G4 was actually faster than it is now due to the 512k cache, and that Apple has crippled both the Titanium and new iMac G4s with 100mhz front side busses, PPC has got to be eons behind x86 in performance by now...
usefull links:
Ars Technica G4 -vs- K7 Analysis [arstechnica.com]
Ars Technica G4 -vs- P4 Analysis [arstechnica.com]
Re:Comparisons (Score:1)
performance, packet filtering (Score:1, Redundant)
one thing it does, is it tries very hard to keep the mac concept of 'ease of use' - easy to just plug in a device and have it work. but this ease is defined by the types of devices. Steve Jobs wants the Mac to be a Digital Hub. that means, cameras, camcorders, mp3 players, cd burners, dvd burners - these all work well. there are some that dont, but a majority of them do. Macs have always been good at external storage - firewire drives plug in, and work. on osX, nfs, samba, appletalk file servers all are accessable.
what exactly is a good performance number? well, if you do photoshop, you want some plugin to run fast. well, thats gonna run damn nicely on a g4. and you will pay for it, you'll pay cuz you also get a really nicely packaged piece of machinary around it. but that machinery, and its osX will also do oodles of nice things for you. you'll be able to easily suck photos from your digital camera into iPhoto, and have iPhoto zap together a nice thumbnail web gallery.
you'll be able to create movies with iMovie and burn em to dvd with iDVD and your dvd superdrive.
you'll be able to rip cds, shove the mp3s into your mp3 player (iPod or other) with iTunes. or, you can burn an audio cd with it too.
thats the nice thing - it all works. sure, linux is coming along nicely, and maybe on kernel 2.6 firewire drives will work w/o kernel panics. thing is, osX does it all now.
and for all its evils, the mac division at Microsoft does put out software that kicks ass over the Windows lines. IE works well. ('cept for a few javascript incompatibilities it works damn well in this windows IE based net of ours) Office works great.
course, if you want to eschew microsoft, you can buy Appleworks for less than 1/4 the price of Office v.X, the only thing you dont get is PowerPoint.
yeah, theres tonnes of issues - one of them is that the BSD its based on is old. certain packet filtering things dont work. but theres stuff that does work well. and yeah theres lots of obvious showy things like the bouncing icons and the magnifying icons that most
the reality is, if you want a really nice non microsoft os, and you want it to have nice easy tools for the consumer side of your life, but still have the stability and programability of a unix, its a good choice. sure, its different from linux, its different from solaris, but you dont really notice that after a while. you just get used to it being its own set of things.
Re:performance, packet filtering (Score:1)
Actually, AppleWorks 6 comes with a presentation module, although I haven't had a chance to try it out yet so I can't tell you how much it rocks or blows.
Also, AppleWorks costs $0.00 with an iBook.
My experiences in MacOS as a Unix desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
About 3 weeks ago, I purchased an Apple Titanium PowerBook G4 with the intent of installing Linux on it. Since then, my experiences with OS X have made me reconsider.
I started out quite skeptical, but was pleasantly surprised to find many of my favorite Linux/UNIX applications available. Step 1 was to install Fink. Fink is a source and binary distribution of UNIX applications and utilities for OS X. I installed it quickly, and was able to use the debian-like commands (apt-get install!) to get Python, rootless XFree86, and bash installed. Fink can be found at http://fink.sourceforge.net.
Since then, I have grown used to the excellent environment that they have built, Its very refreshing to see such a usable and powerful desktop environment based around a standard UNIX kernel!
Now, there are some caveats. Some of the standard locations for things don't make sense. For example, the
I am extremely happy with the UNIX side of Mac OS X, but I am equally impressed with the amazing usability and cool technology of Aqua and Quartz. Very cool stuff.
If you have any questions about my experience, feel free to post them here and I will do my best to respond.
Re:My experiences in MacOS as a Unix desktop (Score:1)
Could you please e-mail me at dt_rules@hotmail.com? I don't want to use my main e-mail address here because I'm getting increasing amounts of spam. I have tried to find your e-mail address, but I couldn't. This is why I'm asking you this.
Thank you very much for your comments.
as for the question of vga montors on macs (Score:2, Insightful)
Powerbook vs ibook & PPC vs x86 processors (Score:2)
AMD's "1800+" type labels, while cheesy, are essentially accurate in comparing in to the latest P4 generation. I normally give G4 hardware about a 2x advantage clock-for-clock to a P4 - so an 800 Mhz G4 ~ AMD 1600+ ~ P4 1.6 Ghz. I don't have a handle on Transmeta. PIIIs and G3s seem to not be significantly clock-for-clock worse than the newer generations, but the G4 and P4 achieved much higher clocks.
Is this perfectly accurate? No. Could you spend hours listing things that affect speed? Yes. Are various bus and interface speeds probably more important than the CPU? Yes, especially if one of them is slow, because the bottleneck has the most prominent effect.
The upshot is that the fastest x86 chips are faster these days, and cheaper. OTOH, raw CPU is probably not your bottleneck.
Laptop wise, you should be aware the PPC chips are fairly power friendly, and x86 chips are hogs. iBooks have ludicrious battery life, and that's good. Also, "SpeedStep" is tricky: SpeedStep does NOT reduce the power consumption of the CPU by idling it when it's not being maxed - it reduces the power consumption AND the clock rate WHENEVER the laptop is unplugged. There might be a way to supress this, but it would make your battery work even less time than they start with.
I'd certainly get a Powerbook G4 before I'd get an iBook, if I could afford it. The flexibility is awesome. But I'd be able to afford an iBook sooner...
Great as a developer environment (Score:1)
Java apps are like native code.
Unix perf sucks & there is a packet filter (Score:2, Informative)
http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-kernel/200
Toward the bottom there's lmbench output indicating that Darwin is roughly an order of magnitude slower than Linux or NetBSD on the same hardware for things like syscalls, context switch, file creation, etc.
There is a packet filter (as well as a bpf):
~>uname -a
Darwin g4 1.4 Darwin Kernel Version 1.4: Sun Sep 9 15:39:59 PDT 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
~>sudo kmodstat | grep Firewall
59 0 0x15053000 0x4000 0x3000 com.apple.nke.IPFirewall (1.1)
~>sudo ipfw list
65535 allow ip from any to any
~>sudo tcpdump -i en0
tcpdump: listening on en0
13:15:13.707607 g4.22 > thunder.1357: P 2129343678:2129343722(44) ack 994474742 win 33304 (DF) [tos 0x10]
Emacs already installed. (Score:1)
OSX as a Web Server (Score:1)
NetInfo vs /etc (Score:1)
If you take a normal OS X system and dump the NetInfo info into
This UNIX-like (Score:1)
Re:Unix or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
The titanium powerbook is an awesome piece of kit. Shame on those that don't have one.
Yes, the Ti PowerBook has a lot going for it. Yup, it's thinner than thin. Uh-huh, beautiful screen. Ooh, built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Pretty fast, too, and it comes with a combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW. Hard to beat.
But it's not perfect. To install an AirPort card, you have to skin it completely. And the sexy titanium skin is so thin, it scratches and dents very easily. And titanium is one of the most conductive metals on the periodic table; after an hour, the bottom of the laptop gets hot enough to make your thighs and the palms of your hands really uncomfortable. The joke going around the office after we bought ours was that Apple was planning to make the next one out of copper.
It's an awesome laptop, but in my opinion it's just a little bit too delicate. I love my iBook. I throw it in my backpack and hit the road. Over $1,000 cheaper, too.
Re:Unix or not... (Score:1)
Re:Unix or not... (Score:1)
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2)
Bzzt. The Ti PowerBook has an AirPort antenna built in already, just like the iBook and iMac. You can purchase PowerBooks from Apple that have the AirPort installed at the factory, but that's not the same as built-in.
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2, Insightful)
The "consumer" level models do, in fact, offer VGA out -- however it's mirrored video of the main display ONLY. This includes the iBook and iMac series.
The "pro" level models (TiBook, G4 tower) allow you to tile displays, and the TiBook also allows for s-video out (which can also be had on the consumer models via USB converters).
If you're worried about the overhead of the GUI/Aqua, you'll be happy to know that you can launch into "single-user mode" -- command line only, if you'd like. That said, the 10.1.2 version of the Finder, etc. does a great job of being friendly to CPU cycles.
As mentioned above, OS X is a "real" unix -- but several directories (etc, bin ad nauseum) are hidden from the Finder (hidden from Grandma, actually -- who'd throw them away on accident if given the opportunity). You can make them visible with an indispensible little piece of shareware called Tinkertool which can also customize (or turn off) several extraneous features of the Aqua interface.
You still have access to those directories via the command-line/Terminal, though.
My first week under OS X, I was able to download and compile all the latest versions of Apache, PHP, mySQL, SSH with minimal problems.
Today, most of the popular packages are available as double-clickable installs, FWIW.
If you're an Apache user who is considering to move to OS X, do yourself a favor and check out Tenon's iTools.
That allows for full customization of the httpd.conf from the GUI, with a few extra goodies thrown in.
--dr00g
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2)
I know that MacOS apps don't need that 2nd button, but WTF are you supposed to do if you want to run Linux or run *nix apps on OSX? It's bad enough working with -only- two buttons, going to one button would destroy functionality.
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2)
The right-mouse-button click is emulated by holding down the "control" key and clicking. (Actually, it's the other way around. The right mouse button sends the computer a control-click.) So for OS X apps, do a control-click instead of a right-click.
XDarwin takes it one step further, offering mappable keyboard-mouse combos for X button event emulation. Go to the XDarwin screenshots page [xdarwin.org] and look at the second screenshot.
And, of course, there is the favorite option of one-button-basher-haters: spend the $30 and buy a f*cking external three-button USB mouse.
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2)
Re:Unix or not... (Score:2)
As was pointed out, not only do you not NEED an external mouse to get the same functionality, but ctrl-click gives you contextual menus and XFree86 (XDarwin) lets you do add additional mappings.
He told you that if you really wanted to 'right click' that you should go fucking buy one.