Mac OS X

[dogwoodlover]

I would like to hear the opinions of some of the more technically-minded users here.

Currently, I'm running FreeBSD on my laptop. In about a year or so, I'll probably look into investing in another laptop (the one I have is getting old...) and I've been eyeing some of Apple's offerings, mainly because of OS X. I haven't had the chance to try OS X myself, but I have been impressed with what I've read about OS X's guts (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(operating_system)), coupled with its commercial support from Apple (it would be nice to view youtube videos without having to enable Linux Binary Compatibility and compile Linux Flash plugins).

So, what say you?

[nacht]

It works, it has a full and very powerful command line interface, and it tends to be very stable. Any specific questions?

[dogwoodlover]

I just wanted some general feedback on it.

Really, I suppose I am interested in OS X's underlying design and its relation to the traditional UNIX design philosophy, though I've found some materials online to help answer this.

[nacht]

I just wanted some general feedback on it.

Really, I suppose I am interested in OS X's underlying design and its relation to the traditional UNIX design philosophy, though I've found some materials online to help answer this.

It is a certified, POSIX compliant Unix. It incorporates DTrace at a very low level and provides a variety of bridges for scripting languages as well.

Basically it works well as a Unix platform.

[Anumidium]

You might wanna check out To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Many common X11 applications have been ported to Apple's X11 implementation.

[Chilifoot]

I just wanted some general feedback on it.

Really, I suppose I am interested in OS X's underlying design and its relation to the traditional UNIX design philosophy, though I've found some materials online to help answer this.

OS X has a XNU microkernel based on the Mach microkernel. Furthermore it has a BSD layer borrowed from FreeBSD as core underpinnings. But you have seen the Wikipedia Darwin page already.
I personally use Linux at work and Mac at home. Although I only have an old ibook G4, I love my Mac. Its simple, easy and still elegant to work with. And if there is a need the Console is at hand and Darwinports has plenty of Open-Source Gnu-Unix flavoured stuff prepared. Although I am fine with the programs offered for the Mac natively (with Aqua-GUI).
If it would be always my decision, I would avoid MS-Stuff like a plague.
*BSD is a bit to uncommercial for my taste - I would need to run it with the Linux compatability layer and whats the point then. Therefore I prefer Linux-Opensuse as a more commercial distribution.

[Synapse]

Yes, like others have said, Mac OS X is a stable OS built off of UNIX. The stability is great, you almost never hang or crash on something, and yes, it does offer support for a UNIX-flavored command line if that's what you are truly interested in.

[Imposcillator]

I'm personally more into Mac OS X for the quality of the programs made for it and the excellent UI, but I do admit I enjoy being able to do some command line hacking with familiar commands every once in a while. Definitely the superior OS for me at this moment. Strictly from a subjective perspective so no Linux fanboy attacks please. :P

I've used at least 5 flavors of Linux, a few different versions of Windows and both Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard and Leopard has been the best at combining a fluid UI and enough power under the hood.

[nacht]

Recently I interviewed for a job where they wanted to try out my "UNIX experience" and so were asking questions about linux syntax for things like ps, top, etc. PITA >_<

[WanderLust]

You'll love it up until the point where something about it annoys you that you'd need the source to fix.

[nacht]

You'll love it up until the point where something about it annoys you that you'd need the source to fix.

Comments like this always give me a headache.

Your average person, hell, your average software engineer with a degree and years of experience cannot simply reach into most modern applications or operating systems and "fix" something.

A source code base the size of, say, KHTML or KJS, requires a long time to even develop a basic familiarity with how it is laid out and how data flows through the program. Let alone the ins and outs of how something like the Linux Kernel is laid out or a browser like FireFox.

That assumes you even know the component that is actually responsible for the bug.

[firebee]

Your average person, hell, your average software engineer with a degree and years of experience cannot simply reach into most modern applications or operating systems and "fix" something.


Hey, but remember -- there are 10 types of computer users: l33t kernel hackers and grandmothers who have completely simple computing needs and zero understanding, and merely need to have a completely locked-down machine prepared for them by the former.

Because of course, everyone can discover that their motherboard has a funny undocumented issue that affects how it works with the USB drivers in Linux, trawl through the source code to find the conditions under which the error occurs, determine what the problem is given minimal documentation of the software and no documentation of the hardware, rewrite the involved code without screwing up something else, verify that nothing else is screwed up despite not having tests, then either submit the code for inclusion (GLHF) or maintain their own happy personal version of linux except with minor change to one little thing, which will surely not bite them in the ass later. And of course, it's worth their time to do this as opposed to spending the money they earn from what they're good at doing on a computer on which all the parts work without having to take up an entirely new profession.

[Imposcillator]

To the OP: This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) might interest you.

[WanderLust]

Your average person, hell, your average software engineer with a degree and years of experience cannot simply reach into most modern applications or operating systems and "fix" something.



Actually, there are plenty of customizations you can do that involve modifying only one line of code; I'm talking about mostly aesthetic things, not major bug fixes. That's the reason I switched back to Linux when my powerbook died. There were just too many times I found myself wanting to see the source.

[Synapse]

Actually, there are plenty of customizations you can do that involve modifying only one line of code; I'm talking about mostly aesthetic things, not major bug fixes. That's the reason I switched back to Linux when my powerbook died. There were just too many times I found myself wanting to see the source.

True. Although a Linux/UNIX based OS is much more difficult to manage than say Windows, the rewards are much greater as you can customize more characteristics of your system.

You can't do that as much with Windows without downloading various programs and executing these bizarre and archaic steps. It is easier than many think to modify source, I certainly agree with you.

Bugs are another issue, but the source code isn't some cryptic text reserved for uber-advanced computer users.

[nacht]

True. Although a Linux/UNIX based OS is much more difficult to manage than say Windows, the rewards are much greater as you can customize more characteristics of your system.

You can't do that as much with Windows without downloading various programs and executing these bizarre and archaic steps. It is easier than many think to modify source, I certainly agree with you.

Bugs are another issue, but the source code isn't some cryptic text reserved for uber-advanced computer users.

I do this for a living. "Uber-advanced" has absolutely jack to do with it. Your average large application takes months to learn the ins and outs--I've seen people go over a year without ever fully knowing the data flow in an application they helped to build from the ground up, simply because there were so many moving parts.

Poor documentation is rampant, poorly managed source is everywhere, and even assuming you actually manage to make the modification you want it will--at best--go away when you upgrade. Many times you can cause unexpected behavior by tweaking things in ways that weren't meant to be tweaked.

Never mind how poorly documented most projects are. There are some notable exceptions, but by and large most of them have documentation in two categories: "Nonexistent" and "well documented" (e.g., the documentation can be found at the bottom of a well).

Your level as a computer user is simply irrelevant to the question.

Meanwhile, if you know what you are doing, you don't need to see the source to modify a great many apps. I can modify the front end of a lot of MacOS X software simply by using interface builder and a few XML files if the need arises.

So, go ahead and change the color of the font if that makes you happy, but don't pretend that it is some huge advantage that everyone--or even most people--will ever actually want or use.

ETA:

For the record, MacOS X is UNIX, fully POSIX compliant, and the underpinnings--including the kernel--are open source and based on BSD.

[dogwoodlover]

Thank you for the replies, they've been quite informative.

I agree with nacht on the source debate--while I enjoy having access to it and occasionally examine it, it simply isn't of necessity for me. If I do look at source it's generally for educational purposes.

I think I might try and pickup an old Mac, seeing as how I'm completely broke right now. I spotted some old G4s online for ~ $100-300.