So yes, get a mac. Use boot-camp and triple-boot Linux, OS X, and Vista, and have it all in one sexy aluminum box, and see which OS you really end up using more.
You mean quadruple-boot Linux, OS X, Vista, and *BSD, right?
It seems to me that the answer is yes. You are even emphasizing that Mac OS X is actually real UNIX with 10.5, which is a good thing!
Some people's retoric try to deny that fact, in the same way that some Linux fanatics deny that Linux is UNIX. Oh well!
No, the answer is still no. OSX is not 'UNIX + GUI'. It's not JUST that it's MORE than that. The UNIX core is one part of OSX. The Aqua GUI is another. Core Animation is another. Core Foundation is another. Core Video is another. Cocoa is another. Carbon is another....
Linux is not UNIX. It's UNIX-like. It's not certified as being compatible with UNIX's API. OSX is.
You're making as much sense as calling Ubuntu, 'Linux + a Window Manager'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
What I mean is that, in my case, I barely use any of the high level tools when I am in a UNIX environment. As an example, I do my backups with tar/gzip rather than letting some high level backup utility do it for me. Call me paranoid if you want, but to me (and to most expert users) that's the beauty of UNIX (which Windows lacks), I have full control of the OS from the shell.
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
So, while I am sure many of the non expert users will appreciate the pro grade tools, I couldn't care less because I'll will not use them in most cases.
So you use Linux's mail command instead of Thunderbird or another GUI tool, you browse the web with Lynx, you do all your image manipulation with ImageMagick on the command line instead of the GIMP and write all your docs in vi instead of AbiWord or OpenOffice???
Hardcore!!!
Seriously, GUI tools are there to make life easier, even for UNIX grey beards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
I have already played with Mac OS X, and the impression that I got is Mac OS X = UNIX with a GUI. And all the answers I've gotten so far, including yours, seem to agree with that statement (save a couple of pointless technicalities).
You'll not get to understand how something works simply by playing with it. If that were the case you'd think Linux was no different to DOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
That isn't true. Windows is still by a huge margin the most widely supported platform for both HW and SW. And as I said, achieving such level of support is not a trivial task.
I never said it wasn't. But you're confusing how Microsoft have reached that today with how you'd do it now knowing the hard work it's been in the last few decades to get here. I'm sure looking back, Microsoft would define much stricter standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
But even if I limited myself only to MS applications (Word/PowerPoint/Outlook), I still run the risk that I receive (or I send) a file to one of the many 90%+ who use Windows that has format conversion problems. Wasting 10 min to correct each such potential problems is not worth to me the change. Windows already takes care of that stuff. And for other stuff (like scientific computing), I have Linux. So, as I said, I really don't see the benefit of switching, for a user like me, unless Mac OS X was adopted by 40% + of users (which is unlikely to happen due to the strict control that Apple has on Mac OS X and the hardware).
What does it matter? If MacOSX does the job for you, what does it matter if it's not the most popular platform? As long as it interacts well with other platforms, gets your job done and runs the apps you need then that's all it has to do.
Format conversion problems between Mac Office and Windows Office are no worse than between different versions of Windows Office IME. If the person you're sending stuff to only needs to read it, send it as a PDF and then it's platform agnostic and comes out exactly like you sent it.
At the end of the day, the Mac is the only platform that runs all Mac software, all Windows software and all Linux software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acr4
My first computer (I was five) was my father's old Amiga Commodore 1000. I had two 3-1/2" floppies and no hard-drive. In fact, I used the VGA monitor from that system for another 10-15 years as TV. I swear the best versions of Tron and Breakout (just to name a few of the classics) were on my Amiga. What an awesome machine.
A1000's use 15Khz NTSC/PAL composite monitors (same frequency as a TV), not VGA. You needed an expensive Flickerfixer to get 31Khz VGA output and IIRC the A1000 didn't have a slot for the Flickerfixer cards. A2000's only. I know, still got one.
No, the answer is still no. OSX is not 'UNIX + GUI'. It's not JUST that it's MORE than that.
There will always be people who claim that Windows 98 is not Windows 95 (even that Windows 95 doesn't run on top of MS-DOS 7.X) or people who claim that Windows XP is not Windows NT, oh well!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
This type of idiotic fanaticism is one of the reasons I run away from Mac OS zealots. No, I hope I'll never have to work with you. You come accross as a totalitarian bully, and that's totally disgusting. As a matter of fact, I try to stay away from people like you.
I am sure there are many down to earth Mac users. It's people like you who scare away the non fanatics who are just interested in evaluating an OS (which might I remind you, that's what Mac OS X is: a fucking OS, a fucking UNIX with a fucking GUI).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
What does it matter? If MacOSX does the job for you, what does it matter if it's not the most popular platform? As long as it interacts well with other platforms, gets your job done and runs the apps you need then that's all it has to do.
Format conversion problems between Mac Office and Windows Office are no worse than between different versions of Windows Office IME. If the person you're sending stuff to only needs to read it, send it as a PDF and then it's platform agnostic and comes out exactly like you sent it. At the end of the day, the Mac is the only platform that runs all Mac software, all Windows software and all Linux software.
Now that you showed up your deep Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I understand that for you it doesn't really matter since I am sure you interact minimally with non Mac users (something like 90% + of the computer users). Have you ever read about the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink? For those like me who interact mostly with non Mac users, I refuse to waste a single second with these formatting issues, which can be very annoying and wasteful when one has to edit, as do, those .doc and .ppt files back and forth.
Anyway, the veredict from most of those who have spoken is clear: Mac OS X = UNIX + GUI/UI. Then is a question of taste. Vegans will never understand why people like me see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak (geeeeee!, only thinking about it makes me hungry), as I will never understand how is possible that some people can live their entire lives without eating meat....
There will always be people who claim that Windows 98 is not Windows 95 (even that Windows 95 doesn't run on top of MS-DOS 7.X) or people who claim that Windows XP is not Windows NT, oh well!
And those people would be right to an extent. 95 and 98 share similar technology, as do NT and XP but there's more to an OS than just it's core.
fyi. I've been writing Windows/DOS applications since Windows 2.11 and DOS 3.1. I worked on Windows NT before it was called NT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
This type of idiotic fanaticism is one of the reasons I run away from Mac OS zealots. No, I hope I'll never have to work with you. You come accross as a totalitarian bully, and that's totally disgusting. As a matter of fact, I try to stay away from people like you.
I think you're just trolling.
I cut my UNIX teeth on an AT&T 3B2 and now run four Linux servers hosting hundreds of websites. I know my UNIX and Linux inside out and if someone suggested tar as a backup program for production use I'd show them where the door is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
I am sure there are many down to earth Mac users. It's people like you who scare away the non fanatics who are just interested in evaluating an OS (which might I remind you, that's what Mac OS X is: a fucking OS, a fucking UNIX with a fucking GUI).
ok, step away from the coffee cup...
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Now that you showed up your deep Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I understand that for you it doesn't really matter since I am sure you interact minimally with non Mac users (something like 90% + of the computer users). Have you ever read about the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink? For those like me who interact mostly with non Mac users, I refuse to waste a single second with these formatting issues, which can be very annoying and wasteful when one has to edit, as do, those .doc and .ppt files back and forth.
Bearing in mind the what I've said above, I avoid those annoying and wastful formatting issues by NOT HAVING ANY and sending PDFs instead. Problem solved. Really, you're overthinking though. There's no more an issue Mac to PC than PC to PC IME. How many times have you been sent a Word document where the author has used some font you don't have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Anyway, the veredict from most of those who have spoken is clear: Mac OS X = UNIX + GUI/UI.
And it's obviously not true since you can't take the Mac version of Photoshop and run it on top of any UNIX OS.
You can however do the reverse with any UNIX 03 certified application and usually most Linux apps are only a recompile away from running too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Then is a question of taste. Vegans will never understand why people like me see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak (geeeeee!, only thinking about it makes me hungry), as I will never understand how is possible that some people can live their entire lives without eating meat....
Perhaps you should cut out the red meat too. Vegans perfectly understand why people like you see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak. They just think you're wrong. If you fail to understand how it's possible to live without meat then that's also your issue, not theirs.
I know my UNIX and Linux inside out and if someone suggested tar as a backup program for production use I'd show them where the door is.
Sure, and since you have a website, and therefore I know how you look like, I 'll make sure I don't cross paths with you :-)). I feel pity for those who work for/with you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Bearing in mind the what I've said above, I avoid those annoying and wastful formatting issues by NOT HAVING ANY and sending PDFs instead. Problem solved. Really, you're overthinking though. There's no more an issue Mac to PC than PC to PC IME. How many times have you been sent a Word document where the author has used some font you don't have?
As it seems evident, your contact with the 90%+ people outside your world is zero. How many non fanatic people care about being able to edit PDFs? And no, with most PC users, I don't have any formatting problems. I might have had font problems, but there must have been so few so long ago (maybe with the very first versions of Word in the early nineties?) that at this time I don't remember a single instance of such problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
And it's obviously not true since you can't take the Mac version of Photoshop and run it on top of any UNIX OS.
As obvious that the Solaris versions of Oracle software don't run on top of HP-UX. But only fanatics take it as an offense to claim that both Solaris and HP-UX are UNIX-es with GUIs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
You can however do the reverse with any UNIX 03 certified application and usually most Linux apps are only a recompile away from running too.
Porting software, like the one mentioned, from Solaris to HP-UX or AIX requires more than just "recompile", especially if you want to have an optimized application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Perhaps you should cut out the red meat too.
No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Vegans perfectly understand why people like you see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak. They just think you're wrong. If you fail to understand how it's possible to live without meat then that's also your issue, not theirs.
Again, you might be talking about "repressed Vegans" (maybe I hear a little bit of that in you???). The Vegans I was referring to were those, whom I have met, who honestly believe that meat is not healthy not even tasty.
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion ).
The Mac is a machine. It has no correlation whatsoever with religion. There's your confusion.
You know, curious_about_mac, this was quite an interesting thread before you started being incredibly rude to Aegis. He brought up several valid points, he was not rude to you and to respond in the way you did was not at all necessary.
It does bear repeating that saying that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is too simplistic. You may not like that, but it's a fact. It's missing a major, major part of the equation:
Mac OS X is UNIX+frameworks+GUI.
I strongly suggest that if you are genuinely curious, you take the time (and it would be a considerable amount of time) to read all of the arstechnica reviews of OS X from 10.0 onwards (if you get bored, read just the 10.4 and 10.5 ones; if you've more time available you could even go further back and start at the DP (developer preview) 2 review):
On the specific issue of whether you personally should be switching to Mac OS X, I'd say it sounds like probably not. Although for a computer-literate guy like you, a Mac triple-booting OS X + Linux + Windows would enable you to always use the best solution for whichever job you might be doing. And after a while, you'd probably be surprised by how much you were using OS X.
You know, curious_about_mac, this was quite an interesting thread before you started being incredibly rude to Aegis. He brought up several valid points, he was not rude to you and to respond in the way you did was not at all necessary.
He is the one who turned the discussion nasty. I am not the type of guy who lets himself bullied without responding.
it's like,
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
Whomever has worked in large UNIX environments with tenths or hundreds of machines doing mission critical stuff (like myself) knows that for production the backup tools are mandatory (combined with high-end hardware like EMC's Symmetrix).
From this whole thread it was clear that we were talking about my desktop. Any additional software layer brings in the possibility of additional bugs, and therefore the possibility of corruption of data during the backup/restore operations. So, while I wouldn't suggest the use of tar/gzip for the massive backup/restore operations that go on in complex organizations, since it wouldn't be practical and the minimum risk of a bug is worth the amount of work saved by having the extra software layer, for my own data, I prefer to use tar/gzip because I know what I am doing.
So, the fact that Mac OS X has backup/restore tools is irrelevant from the point of view that it is a deskup running a UNIX with a GUI. Most expert users in such desktop will rather write a shell script with tar/gzip than use a high level backup utility.
The previous comment, and similar he did in the same line, were intented to be derrogatory. He got what he deserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
It does bear repeating that saying that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is too simplistic. You may not like that, but it's a fact. It's missing a major, major part of the equation:
Mac OS X is UNIX+frameworks+GUI.
Again, it's a question of how you define GUI. Are CDE/KDE/Gnome "plain" GUIs or do they add "frameworks"? A more interesting question, was Windows 3.X just a "GUI" (deserving a copyright lawsuit from Apple for stealing the look and feel) or was it a GUI + a framework totally different from the Mac GUI?
Most people are comfortable (and the most honest ones in the thread made it clear) with saying that Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX with a GUI/UI, like there are other UNIX-es with GUI/UIs out there: HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, RedHat/Ubuntu, etc... You are free to disagree with that statement but if you make derrogatory comments to those who don't see thinks like you do, you should expect some kind of answer (unless you are a bully accustomed to abuse people without getting any response).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I strongly suggest that if you are genuinely curious, you take the time (and it would be a considerable amount of time) to read all of the arstechnicha reviews of OS X from 10.0 onwards (if you get bored, read just the 10.4 and 10.5 ones; if you've more time available you could even go further back and start at the DP (developer preview) 2 review):
On the specific issue of whether you personally should be switching to Mac OS X, I'd say it sounds like probably not. Although for a computer-literate guy like you, a Mac triple-booting OS X + Linux + Windows would enable you to always use the best solution for whichever job you might be doing. And after a while, you'd probably be surprised by how much you were using OS X.
As a matter of fact, I am. And while I was having these discussions I found the following(based on Panther),
I read through it, some sections in more detail than others. From reading The Architecture section, and from the different responses, I am more convinced than ever that Mac OS X is a UNIX with a GUI (and since Leopard has been officially certified as UNIX, so this claim makes even more sense with the 10.4 version of Mac OS X).
I believe the critical question here is, "What makes a Unix system a Unix System?". As I see it, OS X uses a *BSD kernel and implements its own application framework, most notably Carbon and Quartz, on top of it. In addition, it supports the traditional unix biosphere with the common selection of terminal programs, plus the whole X stuff. Most applications running on the Mac however do not need any any of the unix stuff except for kernel calls (which will usually be handled by the framework, and not the application directly).
Here is also the difference to Gnome/KDE. They are completely dependent on the X Server, and even though they add functionality outside the graphical subsystem, all display functions are based on X (as a side note, the X server itself is not limited to Unix enviroments, for instance VMS uses X + Motif for its graphical interface).
Now, if Microsoft layed open its sources for ntkernel32, you could also rewrite a unix kernel to be compatible with it, and thus have Windows running on top of a Unix kernel. Or you could port the NT kernel to OS X. This is of course an simplified concept, but a kernel is simply meant to encapsulate all the tricky hardware control and supply a clean interface for higher levels of the OS to interact.
In summary, OS X contains a lot of unix code both for the kernel and the command tools. But practically all the interaction with the user is through Apple's own frameworks. So ask yourself, if for some reason Apple had adopted the NT or BeOS kernel instead of the BSD one, would OS X be BeOS or Vista with a GUI?
In summary, OS X contains a lot of unix code both for the kernel and the command tools. But practically all the interaction with the user is through Apple's own frameworks. So ask yourself, if for some reason Apple had adopted the NT or BeOS kernel instead of the BSD one, would OS X be BeOS or Vista with a GUI?
Good point. To me, and I am OK if other people disagree, what makes UNIX be UNIX is its kernel and the minimum surrounding framework it provides: multi user, multi-process, (multi thread in the most recent versions), time sharing, IPC's, memory management (including but not limited to virtual memory and process context independence), hardware interaction, the filesystem and services provided to processes through System Calls (I am sure I am forgetting stuff but I hope you get the idea). Even networking services, that most UNIX kernels include by default, it's borderline to me. I mean, a UNIX kernel without the TCP/IP drivers/stack is still UNIX to me. In terms of user interaction, the minimum thing UNIX provides is the console or a shell. Why I think that's it? Because all the advantages that are cited for UNIX: stability, security come from its kernel and the minimum framework surrounding it. The higher level stuff provided to facilitate the interaction with the user (what Apple provides) it's not essential for a good OS from the robustness point of view. In terms of user interaction Vista and Mac OS X are very similar (I am already hearing the religious followers of each side screaming) but at core, Vista is NT and Mac OS X is UNIX, which gives Apple something to brag about in its battle with Windows but which leaves unimpressed those who are familiar with other UNIX-es with GUIs: "and your point is?" "ever since I met a UNIX for the first time when I was a little kid I knew UNIX was superior to either Windows 3.X/95 or NT".
To give an analogy with physics. It's like if you have lived your whole life thinking that Newton's law of physics were the state of the art in terms of knowledge of the physical world (which is what many people whose last contact with physics was an elementary class they took in high school might believe). Then suddenly and by chance, in your thirties, you discover the work of Einstein or the more recent work on String theory, which explains better certain phenomena and you try to gain adepts to your cause. Most physics professors will be unimpressed with you and will even look at you with a smile that it took you so long to learn that Newton's Laws of physics were archaic and incomplete. Still, the engineers working at Boeing or Airbus building planes will tell you: sure your Einstein staff is cute, but for us designers of planes Newton's Laws are just fine and much simpler to deal with.
Well, in this analogy: the guy who discovered Einstein's work in his thirties is the type of Mac user whose universe is limited to whatever Apple utters (therefore until the release of Mac OS X he didn't know much about UNIX), the physics professors are the expert computers users, and the engineers working for Boeing are the pragmatic computer users who might or might not know about Einstein's work.
No, no, I am not the one confused. To me it's just a machine!
It's Mac users like aegisdesign who make it appear to the non Mac users that the Mac is a religion. And as such, I am very cautious/suspicious.
Oh I see, you don't have a problem with the machine, it is the opinions of those who use the machine that is preventing you from using it. Good luck with that.
Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance ? complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software.
Stay away from Superstring Theory/String Theory (if you're trying to show your knowledge), as it was always "iffy" though very virulently spread by its practitioners (I was never one of them) -- and the holes that were there when first put forth are really, really showing nowadays. It was math first, physics second from the word go (as opposed to 7-D Superplanar outlooks and suchlike).
On the other hand, the people who bandy it about at the upper levels are truly gung-ho, so maybe you could use Superstring Theory as an analogy for the Mac owners who put you off from buying.
Anyone who doesn't think OS X is a UNIX 03 certified operating system from the ground up with an industry leading Windowing API/WindowServer/Graphics Subsystem needs to get back on their meds.
Anyone who doesn't think OS X is a UNIX 03 certified operating system from the ground up with an industry leading Windowing API/WindowServer/Graphics Subsystem needs to get back on their meds.
Thanks for this authoritative remark. Nothing better than the opinion of one of the contributors to the core technology of Mac OS X to settle the issue. And as I said several times, this fact is indeed a very good thing for Mac OS X.
A different question is that of the benefits for the end user of using a UNIX + GUI OS, with probably the best UI among those those UNIX-es, in the desktop world when 90% + users are on Windows. I'll give it a try though!
Cheers!
PS: BTW, I didn't post my contact info because I am suspicious of spam/who knows what. Those intereested in getting it, I'll be happy to share it with you.
A1000's use 15Khz NTSC/PAL composite monitors (same frequency as a TV), not VGA. You needed an expensive Flickerfixer to get 31Khz VGA output and IIRC the A1000 didn't have a slot for the Flickerfixer cards. A2000's only. I know, still got one.
I was five at the time. All I know is my monitor said "Amiga", and I used the RCA outputs of a VCR to drive it. To switch from TV to computer, I had to flip a switch on the front panel. For all I know that monitor could have come from the Amiga 2000 that replaced my 1000. Who knows, but it lasted me until probably 2000.
Thanks for this authoritative remark. Nothing better than the opinion of one of the contributors to the core technology of Mac OS X to settle the issue. And as I said several times, this fact is indeed a very good thing for Mac OS X.
A different question is that of the benefits for the end user of using a UNIX + GUI OS, with probably the best UI among those those UNIX-es, in the desktop world when 90% + users are on Windows. I'll give it a try though!
Cheers!
PS: BTW, I didn't post my contact info because I am suspicious of spam/who knows what. Those intereested in getting it, I'll be happy to share it with you.
One of the focal points to Spotlight is to have people uncomfortable with UNIX to have a searching tool that doesn't require one to have any understanding of sed, awk and grep.
Great tools, but for the general consumer a meta tagged searching system from the BeOS days makes more sense.
However, I wish Apple would hook in a tagging system we had at NeXT that if I needed to go to a user's folder which was someone across the mapped network, regardless of domain I could just command->tilde and a textfield would make key and order front allowing me to type in the user's name and I was immediately taken to their publically accessible files/folders under their account. Then if I wanted to keep their public folder accessilbe [dev teams used this a lot for reports that didn't need to be in a revision control system] I just dragged the folder to the WorkspaceManager.app Shelf [resizeable of course to my choice].
Comments
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
The user interface sitting on top of OS X is tied down to the NEXTStep Operating System foundations.
OS X is indeed Unix (Apple's Unix) with Apple's GUI and related frameworks.
So yes, get a mac. Use boot-camp and triple-boot Linux, OS X, and Vista, and have it all in one sexy aluminum box, and see which OS you really end up using more.
You mean quadruple-boot Linux, OS X, Vista, and *BSD, right?
You mean quadruple-boot Linux, OS X, Vista, and *BSD, right?
that's just perverted.
It seems to me that the answer is yes. You are even emphasizing that Mac OS X is actually real UNIX with 10.5, which is a good thing!
Some people's retoric try to deny that fact, in the same way that some Linux fanatics deny that Linux is UNIX. Oh well!
No, the answer is still no. OSX is not 'UNIX + GUI'. It's not JUST that it's MORE than that. The UNIX core is one part of OSX. The Aqua GUI is another. Core Animation is another. Core Foundation is another. Core Video is another. Cocoa is another. Carbon is another....
Linux is not UNIX. It's UNIX-like. It's not certified as being compatible with UNIX's API. OSX is.
You're making as much sense as calling Ubuntu, 'Linux + a Window Manager'.
What I mean is that, in my case, I barely use any of the high level tools when I am in a UNIX environment. As an example, I do my backups with tar/gzip rather than letting some high level backup utility do it for me. Call me paranoid if you want, but to me (and to most expert users) that's the beauty of UNIX (which Windows lacks), I have full control of the OS from the shell.
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
So, while I am sure many of the non expert users will appreciate the pro grade tools, I couldn't care less because I'll will not use them in most cases.
So you use Linux's mail command instead of Thunderbird or another GUI tool, you browse the web with Lynx, you do all your image manipulation with ImageMagick on the command line instead of the GIMP and write all your docs in vi instead of AbiWord or OpenOffice???
Hardcore!!!
Seriously, GUI tools are there to make life easier, even for UNIX grey beards.
I have already played with Mac OS X, and the impression that I got is Mac OS X = UNIX with a GUI. And all the answers I've gotten so far, including yours, seem to agree with that statement (save a couple of pointless technicalities).
You'll not get to understand how something works simply by playing with it. If that were the case you'd think Linux was no different to DOS.
That isn't true. Windows is still by a huge margin the most widely supported platform for both HW and SW. And as I said, achieving such level of support is not a trivial task.
I never said it wasn't. But you're confusing how Microsoft have reached that today with how you'd do it now knowing the hard work it's been in the last few decades to get here. I'm sure looking back, Microsoft would define much stricter standards.
But even if I limited myself only to MS applications (Word/PowerPoint/Outlook), I still run the risk that I receive (or I send) a file to one of the many 90%+ who use Windows that has format conversion problems. Wasting 10 min to correct each such potential problems is not worth to me the change. Windows already takes care of that stuff. And for other stuff (like scientific computing), I have Linux. So, as I said, I really don't see the benefit of switching, for a user like me, unless Mac OS X was adopted by 40% + of users (which is unlikely to happen due to the strict control that Apple has on Mac OS X and the hardware).
What does it matter? If MacOSX does the job for you, what does it matter if it's not the most popular platform? As long as it interacts well with other platforms, gets your job done and runs the apps you need then that's all it has to do.
Format conversion problems between Mac Office and Windows Office are no worse than between different versions of Windows Office IME. If the person you're sending stuff to only needs to read it, send it as a PDF and then it's platform agnostic and comes out exactly like you sent it.
At the end of the day, the Mac is the only platform that runs all Mac software, all Windows software and all Linux software.
My first computer (I was five) was my father's old Amiga Commodore 1000. I had two 3-1/2" floppies and no hard-drive. In fact, I used the VGA monitor from that system for another 10-15 years as TV. I swear the best versions of Tron and Breakout (just to name a few of the classics) were on my Amiga. What an awesome machine.
A1000's use 15Khz NTSC/PAL composite monitors (same frequency as a TV), not VGA. You needed an expensive Flickerfixer to get 31Khz VGA output and IIRC the A1000 didn't have a slot for the Flickerfixer cards. A2000's only. I know, still got one.
No, the answer is still no. OSX is not 'UNIX + GUI'. It's not JUST that it's MORE than that.
There will always be people who claim that Windows 98 is not Windows 95 (even that Windows 95 doesn't run on top of MS-DOS 7.X) or people who claim that Windows XP is not Windows NT, oh well!
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
This type of idiotic fanaticism is one of the reasons I run away from Mac OS zealots. No, I hope I'll never have to work with you. You come accross as a totalitarian bully, and that's totally disgusting. As a matter of fact, I try to stay away from people like you.
I am sure there are many down to earth Mac users. It's people like you who scare away the non fanatics who are just interested in evaluating an OS (which might I remind you, that's what Mac OS X is: a fucking OS, a fucking UNIX with a fucking GUI).
What does it matter? If MacOSX does the job for you, what does it matter if it's not the most popular platform? As long as it interacts well with other platforms, gets your job done and runs the apps you need then that's all it has to do.
Format conversion problems between Mac Office and Windows Office are no worse than between different versions of Windows Office IME. If the person you're sending stuff to only needs to read it, send it as a PDF and then it's platform agnostic and comes out exactly like you sent it. At the end of the day, the Mac is the only platform that runs all Mac software, all Windows software and all Linux software.
Now that you showed up your deep Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I understand that for you it doesn't really matter since I am sure you interact minimally with non Mac users (something like 90% + of the computer users). Have you ever read about the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink? For those like me who interact mostly with non Mac users, I refuse to waste a single second with these formatting issues, which can be very annoying and wasteful when one has to edit, as do, those .doc and .ppt files back and forth.
Anyway, the veredict from most of those who have spoken is clear: Mac OS X = UNIX + GUI/UI. Then is a question of taste. Vegans will never understand why people like me see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak (geeeeee!, only thinking about it makes me hungry), as I will never understand how is possible that some people can live their entire lives without eating meat....
Cheers!
There will always be people who claim that Windows 98 is not Windows 95 (even that Windows 95 doesn't run on top of MS-DOS 7.X) or people who claim that Windows XP is not Windows NT, oh well!
And those people would be right to an extent. 95 and 98 share similar technology, as do NT and XP but there's more to an OS than just it's core.
fyi. I've been writing Windows/DOS applications since Windows 2.11 and DOS 3.1. I worked on Windows NT before it was called NT.
This type of idiotic fanaticism is one of the reasons I run away from Mac OS zealots. No, I hope I'll never have to work with you. You come accross as a totalitarian bully, and that's totally disgusting. As a matter of fact, I try to stay away from people like you.
I think you're just trolling.
I cut my UNIX teeth on an AT&T 3B2 and now run four Linux servers hosting hundreds of websites. I know my UNIX and Linux inside out and if someone suggested tar as a backup program for production use I'd show them where the door is.
I am sure there are many down to earth Mac users. It's people like you who scare away the non fanatics who are just interested in evaluating an OS (which might I remind you, that's what Mac OS X is: a fucking OS, a fucking UNIX with a fucking GUI).
ok, step away from the coffee cup...
Now that you showed up your deep Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I understand that for you it doesn't really matter since I am sure you interact minimally with non Mac users (something like 90% + of the computer users). Have you ever read about the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink? For those like me who interact mostly with non Mac users, I refuse to waste a single second with these formatting issues, which can be very annoying and wasteful when one has to edit, as do, those .doc and .ppt files back and forth.
Bearing in mind the what I've said above, I avoid those annoying and wastful formatting issues by NOT HAVING ANY and sending PDFs instead. Problem solved. Really, you're overthinking though. There's no more an issue Mac to PC than PC to PC IME. How many times have you been sent a Word document where the author has used some font you don't have?
Anyway, the veredict from most of those who have spoken is clear: Mac OS X = UNIX + GUI/UI.
And it's obviously not true since you can't take the Mac version of Photoshop and run it on top of any UNIX OS.
You can however do the reverse with any UNIX 03 certified application and usually most Linux apps are only a recompile away from running too.
Then is a question of taste. Vegans will never understand why people like me see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak (geeeeee!, only thinking about it makes me hungry), as I will never understand how is possible that some people can live their entire lives without eating meat....
Perhaps you should cut out the red meat too. Vegans perfectly understand why people like you see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak. They just think you're wrong. If you fail to understand how it's possible to live without meat then that's also your issue, not theirs.
I know my UNIX and Linux inside out and if someone suggested tar as a backup program for production use I'd show them where the door is.
Sure, and since you have a website, and therefore I know how you look like, I 'll make sure I don't cross paths with you :-)). I feel pity for those who work for/with you!
Bearing in mind the what I've said above, I avoid those annoying and wastful formatting issues by NOT HAVING ANY and sending PDFs instead. Problem solved. Really, you're overthinking though. There's no more an issue Mac to PC than PC to PC IME. How many times have you been sent a Word document where the author has used some font you don't have?
As it seems evident, your contact with the 90%+ people outside your world is zero. How many non fanatic people care about being able to edit PDFs? And no, with most PC users, I don't have any formatting problems. I might have had font problems, but there must have been so few so long ago (maybe with the very first versions of Word in the early nineties?) that at this time I don't remember a single instance of such problems.
And it's obviously not true since you can't take the Mac version of Photoshop and run it on top of any UNIX OS.
As obvious that the Solaris versions of Oracle software don't run on top of HP-UX. But only fanatics take it as an offense to claim that both Solaris and HP-UX are UNIX-es with GUIs.
You can however do the reverse with any UNIX 03 certified application and usually most Linux apps are only a recompile away from running too.
Porting software, like the one mentioned, from Solaris to HP-UX or AIX requires more than just "recompile", especially if you want to have an optimized application.
Perhaps you should cut out the red meat too.
No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vegans perfectly understand why people like you see Nirvana when they eat a good beef steak. They just think you're wrong. If you fail to understand how it's possible to live without meat then that's also your issue, not theirs.
Again, you might be talking about "repressed Vegans" (maybe I hear a little bit of that in you???). The Vegans I was referring to were those, whom I have met, who honestly believe that meat is not healthy not even tasty.
Cheers Bully!
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion
The Mac is a machine. It has no correlation whatsoever with religion. There's your confusion.
The Mac is a machine. It has no correlation once so ever with religion. There's your confusion.
No, no, I am not the one confused. To me it's just a machine!
It's Mac users like aegisdesign who make it appear to the non Mac users that the Mac is a religion. And as such, I am very cautious/suspicious.
It does bear repeating that saying that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is too simplistic. You may not like that, but it's a fact. It's missing a major, major part of the equation:
Mac OS X is UNIX+frameworks+GUI.
I strongly suggest that if you are genuinely curious, you take the time (and it would be a considerable amount of time) to read all of the arstechnica reviews of OS X from 10.0 onwards (if you get bored, read just the 10.4 and 10.5 ones; if you've more time available you could even go further back and start at the DP (developer preview) 2 review):
Mac OS X 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.3
Mac OS X 10.4
Mac OS X 10.5
On the specific issue of whether you personally should be switching to Mac OS X, I'd say it sounds like probably not. Although for a computer-literate guy like you, a Mac triple-booting OS X + Linux + Windows would enable you to always use the best solution for whichever job you might be doing. And after a while, you'd probably be surprised by how much you were using OS X.
You know, curious_about_mac, this was quite an interesting thread before you started being incredibly rude to Aegis. He brought up several valid points, he was not rude to you and to respond in the way you did was not at all necessary.
He is the one who turned the discussion nasty. I am not the type of guy who lets himself bullied without responding.
it's like,
Then I do hope you're never a sys admin where I work. No enterprise uses tar/gzip for a backup strategy - it'd be too slow and unreliable, try rsync at least or BRU - and you've obviously not found the command shell in Windows (hint: it's not the Run... command in the start menu).
Whomever has worked in large UNIX environments with tenths or hundreds of machines doing mission critical stuff (like myself) knows that for production the backup tools are mandatory (combined with high-end hardware like EMC's Symmetrix).
From this whole thread it was clear that we were talking about my desktop. Any additional software layer brings in the possibility of additional bugs, and therefore the possibility of corruption of data during the backup/restore operations. So, while I wouldn't suggest the use of tar/gzip for the massive backup/restore operations that go on in complex organizations, since it wouldn't be practical and the minimum risk of a bug is worth the amount of work saved by having the extra software layer, for my own data, I prefer to use tar/gzip because I know what I am doing.
So, the fact that Mac OS X has backup/restore tools is irrelevant from the point of view that it is a deskup running a UNIX with a GUI. Most expert users in such desktop will rather write a shell script with tar/gzip than use a high level backup utility.
The previous comment, and similar he did in the same line, were intented to be derrogatory. He got what he deserved.
It does bear repeating that saying that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is too simplistic. You may not like that, but it's a fact. It's missing a major, major part of the equation:
Mac OS X is UNIX+frameworks+GUI.
Again, it's a question of how you define GUI. Are CDE/KDE/Gnome "plain" GUIs or do they add "frameworks"? A more interesting question, was Windows 3.X just a "GUI" (deserving a copyright lawsuit from Apple for stealing the look and feel) or was it a GUI + a framework totally different from the Mac GUI?
Most people are comfortable (and the most honest ones in the thread made it clear) with saying that Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX with a GUI/UI, like there are other UNIX-es with GUI/UIs out there: HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, RedHat/Ubuntu, etc... You are free to disagree with that statement but if you make derrogatory comments to those who don't see thinks like you do, you should expect some kind of answer (unless you are a bully accustomed to abuse people without getting any response).
I strongly suggest that if you are genuinely curious, you take the time (and it would be a considerable amount of time) to read all of the arstechnicha reviews of OS X from 10.0 onwards (if you get bored, read just the 10.4 and 10.5 ones; if you've more time available you could even go further back and start at the DP (developer preview) 2 review):
Mac OS X 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.3
Mac OS X 10.4
Mac OS X 10.5
On the specific issue of whether you personally should be switching to Mac OS X, I'd say it sounds like probably not. Although for a computer-literate guy like you, a Mac triple-booting OS X + Linux + Windows would enable you to always use the best solution for whichever job you might be doing. And after a while, you'd probably be surprised by how much you were using OS X.
As a matter of fact, I am. And while I was having these discussions I found the following(based on Panther),
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/
I read through it, some sections in more detail than others. From reading The Architecture section, and from the different responses, I am more convinced than ever that Mac OS X is a UNIX with a GUI (and since Leopard has been officially certified as UNIX, so this claim makes even more sense with the 10.4 version of Mac OS X).
Cheers!
Here is also the difference to Gnome/KDE. They are completely dependent on the X Server, and even though they add functionality outside the graphical subsystem, all display functions are based on X (as a side note, the X server itself is not limited to Unix enviroments, for instance VMS uses X + Motif for its graphical interface).
Now, if Microsoft layed open its sources for ntkernel32, you could also rewrite a unix kernel to be compatible with it, and thus have Windows running on top of a Unix kernel. Or you could port the NT kernel to OS X. This is of course an simplified concept, but a kernel is simply meant to encapsulate all the tricky hardware control and supply a clean interface for higher levels of the OS to interact.
In summary, OS X contains a lot of unix code both for the kernel and the command tools. But practically all the interaction with the user is through Apple's own frameworks. So ask yourself, if for some reason Apple had adopted the NT or BeOS kernel instead of the BSD one, would OS X be BeOS or Vista with a GUI?
In summary, OS X contains a lot of unix code both for the kernel and the command tools. But practically all the interaction with the user is through Apple's own frameworks. So ask yourself, if for some reason Apple had adopted the NT or BeOS kernel instead of the BSD one, would OS X be BeOS or Vista with a GUI?
Good point. To me, and I am OK if other people disagree, what makes UNIX be UNIX is its kernel and the minimum surrounding framework it provides: multi user, multi-process, (multi thread in the most recent versions), time sharing, IPC's, memory management (including but not limited to virtual memory and process context independence), hardware interaction, the filesystem and services provided to processes through System Calls (I am sure I am forgetting stuff but I hope you get the idea). Even networking services, that most UNIX kernels include by default, it's borderline to me. I mean, a UNIX kernel without the TCP/IP drivers/stack is still UNIX to me. In terms of user interaction, the minimum thing UNIX provides is the console or a shell. Why I think that's it? Because all the advantages that are cited for UNIX: stability, security come from its kernel and the minimum framework surrounding it. The higher level stuff provided to facilitate the interaction with the user (what Apple provides) it's not essential for a good OS from the robustness point of view. In terms of user interaction Vista and Mac OS X are very similar (I am already hearing the religious followers of each side screaming) but at core, Vista is NT and Mac OS X is UNIX, which gives Apple something to brag about in its battle with Windows but which leaves unimpressed those who are familiar with other UNIX-es with GUIs: "and your point is?" "ever since I met a UNIX for the first time when I was a little kid I knew UNIX was superior to either Windows 3.X/95 or NT".
To give an analogy with physics. It's like if you have lived your whole life thinking that Newton's law of physics were the state of the art in terms of knowledge of the physical world (which is what many people whose last contact with physics was an elementary class they took in high school might believe). Then suddenly and by chance, in your thirties, you discover the work of Einstein or the more recent work on String theory, which explains better certain phenomena and you try to gain adepts to your cause. Most physics professors will be unimpressed with you and will even look at you with a smile that it took you so long to learn that Newton's Laws of physics were archaic and incomplete. Still, the engineers working at Boeing or Airbus building planes will tell you: sure your Einstein staff is cute, but for us designers of planes Newton's Laws are just fine and much simpler to deal with.
Well, in this analogy: the guy who discovered Einstein's work in his thirties is the type of Mac user whose universe is limited to whatever Apple utters (therefore until the release of Mac OS X he didn't know much about UNIX), the physics professors are the expert computers users, and the engineers working for Boeing are the pragmatic computer users who might or might not know about Einstein's work.
Cheers!
No, no, I am not the one confused. To me it's just a machine!
It's Mac users like aegisdesign who make it appear to the non Mac users that the Mac is a religion. And as such, I am very cautious/suspicious.
Oh I see, you don't have a problem with the machine, it is the opinions of those who use the machine that is preventing you from using it. Good luck with that.
Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance ? complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software.
or the more recent work on String theory
Stay away from Superstring Theory/String Theory (if you're trying to show your knowledge), as it was always "iffy" though very virulently spread by its practitioners (I was never one of them) -- and the holes that were there when first put forth are really, really showing nowadays. It was math first, physics second from the word go (as opposed to 7-D Superplanar outlooks and suchlike).
On the other hand, the people who bandy it about at the upper levels are truly gung-ho, so maybe you could use Superstring Theory as an analogy for the Mac owners who put you off from buying.
Otherwise, carry on.
Anyone who doesn't think OS X is a UNIX 03 certified operating system from the ground up with an industry leading Windowing API/WindowServer/Graphics Subsystem needs to get back on their meds.
Thanks for this authoritative remark. Nothing better than the opinion of one of the contributors to the core technology of Mac OS X to settle the issue. And as I said several times, this fact is indeed a very good thing for Mac OS X.
A different question is that of the benefits for the end user of using a UNIX + GUI OS, with probably the best UI among those those UNIX-es, in the desktop world when 90% + users are on Windows. I'll give it a try though!
Cheers!
PS: BTW, I didn't post my contact info because I am suspicious of spam/who knows what. Those intereested in getting it, I'll be happy to share it with you.
A1000's use 15Khz NTSC/PAL composite monitors (same frequency as a TV), not VGA. You needed an expensive Flickerfixer to get 31Khz VGA output and IIRC the A1000 didn't have a slot for the Flickerfixer cards. A2000's only. I know, still got one.
I was five at the time. All I know is my monitor said "Amiga", and I used the RCA outputs of a VCR to drive it. To switch from TV to computer, I had to flip a switch on the front panel. For all I know that monitor could have come from the Amiga 2000 that replaced my 1000. Who knows, but it lasted me until probably 2000.
Thanks for this authoritative remark. Nothing better than the opinion of one of the contributors to the core technology of Mac OS X to settle the issue. And as I said several times, this fact is indeed a very good thing for Mac OS X.
A different question is that of the benefits for the end user of using a UNIX + GUI OS, with probably the best UI among those those UNIX-es, in the desktop world when 90% + users are on Windows. I'll give it a try though!
Cheers!
PS: BTW, I didn't post my contact info because I am suspicious of spam/who knows what. Those intereested in getting it, I'll be happy to share it with you.
One of the focal points to Spotlight is to have people uncomfortable with UNIX to have a searching tool that doesn't require one to have any understanding of sed, awk and grep.
Great tools, but for the general consumer a meta tagged searching system from the BeOS days makes more sense.
However, I wish Apple would hook in a tagging system we had at NeXT that if I needed to go to a user's folder which was someone across the mapped network, regardless of domain I could just command->tilde and a textfield would make key and order front allowing me to type in the user's name and I was immediately taken to their publically accessible files/folders under their account. Then if I wanted to keep their public folder accessilbe [dev teams used this a lot for reports that didn't need to be in a revision control system] I just dragged the folder to the WorkspaceManager.app Shelf [resizeable of course to my choice].