When a Linux user buys Apple's Mac mini

bitrot ^ | 27 November 2005 | Thomas Driemeyer

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

As far as the general user experience and graphical user interfaces are concerned, overall I put MacOS first, Linux/KDE second, Windows third. For networking and operating systems, it's Linux first, Apple second, Windows third. Since Apple appears to follow Microsoft's mindset closely, I don't see Apple's OS ever catching up to Linux.

With this background, I don't see Apple making big inroads into the server market, but they have everything that is needed to win the desktop, something Linux has not been able to do because it only recently achieved a coherent GUI with the KDE desktop. If Apple would reconsider its view of networking, MacOS and Linux could happily coexist.

[Swordmaker]

When a Linux user buys a Mac Mini PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[HAL9000]

And that's not the only error they repeated: much of the MacOS APIs are in a language called Objective C, a forerunner of C++.

Nope, they're two totally separate languages. The C language was their common forerunner. Objective-C is older than C++, but the horsepower to really use Objective-C effectively has emerged only in recent years.

In many ways it's cleaner than C++, even though it's just some object-oriented features grafted on C with very peculiar syntax, but it's now a failed language that nobody uses.

Objective-C is hardly a failed language. It is growing in popularity, on Macs and on Gnustep for Linux. When used with a good framework, Objective-C gets the job done with fewer programmers compared to C++. Objective-C is easier to use, and it's a more powerful language for true object-oriented programming.

A couple of other points the author fails to mention - Mac programmers can also use plain old C++ with the Carbon library. And another language - Objective-C++ - combines the two languages. So it's difficult to understand why the author is complaining.

It's all in the XCode development tools, included in every copy of Mac OS X.

I also have serious problems with Apple's proprietary graphics engine. They should have used X11.

Generally, noone wants to run X11 on the Mac - but it's there if needed. Apple's Quartz technology produces far better results for native Mac apps.

If Apple would reconsider its view of networking, MacOS and Linux could happily coexist.

They co-exist together just fine - Mac on the desktop, and Linux on the server. There is no reason for Apple to reconsider its view of networking.

[SunkenCiv]

"don't see Apple making big inroads into the server market"

Huh?

[N3WBI3]

For networking and operating systems, it's Linux first, Apple second

I would put OSX as the best I think what hold its back in the server arena is only time. In time when it establishes itself and in that time they need to make up their mind go after Solaris and IBM targets or try to hit Linux..

[N3WBI3]

Generally, noone wants to run X11 on the Mac - but it's there if needed. Apple's Quartz technology produces far better results for native Mac apps.

Agreed, I think X11 is a great graphical layer but some competition in the UNIX world is very nice to have. Im pretty happy with quartz but it is a bit of a hog..

[N3WBI3]

I dont know anyone who has a mac server in their datacenter. I know there are some sweet OSX supercomputers out there and the horses are definatly under the hood but they have yet to build up enough momentium to overcome the zero interita they have in enterpirse datacenters..

[SunkenCiv]

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I hear the intel Mac is VERY sweet.

[mathluv]

fyi

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I noticed alot of things wrong with the article as well. I got a good laugh about the x11 comment, though he tried to recover through qualifying.

His point about how macs handle a network was a good one though, though I think he misunderstands. They think of them as islands for a reason. They want to sell one copy of software per island, so they purposely make it un-intuitive.

^^^^^^^^^^You are supposed to start all your programs on the workstation in front of you. At most you can use data on other workstations, using an awkward "Connect to server" dialog that is like a flashback to the early days of mainframe networking.^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's no secret that home networks are becoming prevalent. Ease of use? Linux is the frontrunner here.

How many people do you know with a home network?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Part of why he put apple second was not just how it treats the network, but also about how the kernel and BSD layers are purposely casterated.

Things weren't broke and apple fixed it.

In both cases, windows was dead last.

[antiRepublicrat]

I originally though that this is a totally bogus idea because the menu is so far removed from the window that it controls. ... I still don't think it's a good idea

Now we establish that the guy doesn't know squat about HCI. The single menu is the best for usability.

It tries to sell you an iPod and a iTunes shop membership more than I'd like

Go into the preferences and turn off the store stuff.

I also don't write programs for MacOS because I don't want to write in a quasi-proprietary language (Objective C, see below)

Tried Java?

Microkernels were all the rage fifteen years ago, but the idea totally crashed and burned because performance and resource usage was pitiful. All implementations failed, and today it's deeply buried and forgotten.

Meanwhile Minix just hit version 3, and is probably the most robust non-mainframe OS available. He should remember Minix -- his beloved Linux is based on it.

Unix and Linux prove that you can build a modern GUI on top of X11, including 3D effects and hardware acceleration, and gain complete network transparency without compromising the user experience.

Those UIs are a far cry from Quartz. Yippie, they're accelerated, but not to the extent of Quartz, nor do they use a full compositing engine.

However, he is right that Apple needs to work out their kernel innards. You'd think they'd have it right by 10.4.

[HAL9000]

His point about how macs handle a network was a good one though, though I think he misunderstands. They think of them as islands for a reason.

I think his "island" comment was referring to X11's remote terminal capabilities in client-server systems. The author is apparently unaware of the Apple Remote Desktop system. ARD is a very efficient solution, but most users don't need it. An alternate solution is VNC, which is less efficient, but it costs nothing and is interoperable on all platforms.

It's no secret that home networks are becoming prevalent. Ease of use? Linux is the frontrunner here.

Could you give an example of a common situation where desktop Linux has better ease of use? I've set up plenty of mixed networks with Linux, Windows and Macs. In my experience, Macs are much easier to set up and use than Linux or Windows for desktop usage, especially on wireless networks. Linux networking is more difficult to setup, but has the advantage of better performance for servers.

[opticks]

Interesting arguments even if some of them are a bit wrong. Some of his criticisms about the GUI are legit; I've had similar ones since switching from Linux to OS X in 2001.

I'm not an operating system guru, so I cannot comment on the merits of why Apple chose Mach or why they decided to use a BSD instead of Linux. I just asks that it works, and for 99% of the time it does.

Still, if I had a choice, I'm always going to choose OS X over Linux for my home desktop. I still stand by to mantra, "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing."

[adam_az]

Try this on for size:

"Windows is only cheap if your time is worth nothing."

[opticks]

Windows is only cheap if you are a pirate. Otherwise it burns up your time and money. Don't get me wrong. Linux is lots of fun, but it's more fun when you are getting paid to play around with it rather than having your wife asking why "x, y, and z don't work like before." OS X has been a godsend for my household.