He is the one who turned the discussion nasty. I am not the type of guy who lets himself bullied without responding.
Sorry, I can be sarky at times. No offence intended. It just seemed like you'd already made up your mind and this wasn't a discussion at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
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.
And I disagree that you know what you're doing, even on the desktop. Rsync works better for me there too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
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.
Or rsync
However, you're missing out on the advantages of the GUI tools in OSX (which normally all have command-line access too btw) such as TimeMachine's snapshots and easy interface to view snapshots chronologically. It's a lot easier than hunting back through directories full of .tar.gz files.
That doesn't say you shouldn't still do complete backups as well though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
The previous comment, and similar he did in the same line, were intented to be derrogatory. He got what he deserved.
How do you know what I intended?
They weren't. I just disagreed. You didn't like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
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?
I don't know why you're even conflating the two things. There are Graphical Frameworks and there are non-graphical frameworks. I've already given you many examples of non-graphical frameworks and technologies which are unique to Mac OSX and that are not part of 'UNIX + GUI'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
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'm obviously not free to disagree with that statement without you being a knobend back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
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).
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.
Now I'm confused being as I've more Linux machines than Macs.
Look, I'm just trying to answer your question. You're the one who brought cults and religion into it.
In my time I've used PC-DOS 1 to 7, CP/M, AmigaOS 1 to 4, Windows 2 to Vista, FlexOS, Concurrent CP/M, B-TOS, C-TOS, MS-DOS, OS/2 1.0 to Warp, UNIX (on 3B2s, DG Aviions, OKI i860s, Suns, Texas Instruments, IBM RTs, AS/400s, 370s and god knows what more), XENIX, Linux, SCO, RiscOS, BeOS, PalmOS, Symbian, EPOC and probably a load more I've forgotten. And I've written software for all of them too.
Really, I'm the least likely of people to have some kind of brainwashed cult idea about Macs that is based on ignorance of other systems.
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.
Yep. But that's not what was asked...
"So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
I think Mac OS X is a UNIX-like (compliant, whatever) O/S with a tightly integrated GUI, many tightly integrated frameworks, and lots of decent (not great, but still pretty good) included applications intended for *all* audiences.
I think it's difficult to say the Mac product line targets one specific demographic or computer competency level. Programs like Adobe Photoshop are not intended for your grandmother who wants to see pictures of her great-grandchild. However, it's pretty hard for me to find a program that doesn't serve some use as-is in a professional environment. Maybe the iLife applications?
I think the thesis of this thread proposes a question that does not adequately answer the query you intended to make. (However some great discussion was had by all.)
Q: Is OS X a *nix-derived/*nix-like operating system with a full-featured GUI+tool/application-bundle that has adequate industry support in the form of quality third-party applications and is usable in a production/commercial environment with minimal learning curve and interaction quirks when communicating with Windows and other *nix-based systems?
To me this issue is settled now: Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX + a GUI.
Since I am not (and was never) interested in talking about splitting hairs (which seems to be what attracts posters like aegisdesign), I will not be answering this thread in the future.
To me this issue is settled now: Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX + a GUI.
Since I am not (and was never) interested in talking about splitting hairs (which seems to be what attracts posters like aegisdesign), I will not be answering this thread in the future.
Cheers!
Why did you even bother asking since you've ignored everyone in this thread, and excellent articles like those on Ars and Kernelthread that explains why OSX isn't just 'UNIX + a GUI' and stuck with your original and wrong assumption.
I'm not splitting hairs. There are significant additions to OSX over an above what you get from 'UNIX + a GUI' that you're simply dismissing out of hand.
Good or bad arguments aside, I think we all know why he asked. Some people ask questions to find out answers, others ask questions to pontificate the answers they already "know." You get a lot of that on these boards... people just like to talk. No big deal.
Why did you even bother asking since you've ignored everyone in this thread, and excellent articles like those on Ars and Kernelthread that explains why OSX isn't just 'UNIX + a GUI' and stuck with your original and wrong assumption.
I'm not splitting hairs. There are significant additions to OSX over an above what you get from 'UNIX + a GUI' that you're simply dismissing out of hand.
He's not dismissing it. He's asked about the core of the operating system.
Being one of only 3 UNIX 03 systems vendors in the world, plus having a world class GUI is, in short, UNIX + GUI that isn't the traditional UNIX + X11/Motif of old.
To go in and talk about the the extensions to OS X that add to its separation from other operating systems doesn't diminish the fact that it first and foremost is UNIX + GUI that is world class.
The whole point of Rhapsody was to bring a UNIX operating system with a world class GUI to Apple and allow Apple to expand into other market segments completely untouchable by them with their prior operating system.
He's asked about the core of the operating system.
Er, no he hasn't. He asked: "So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
And I've got to agree with Aegis and others that that is a gross oversimplification. Many of the frameworks in OS X do not require a GUI to operate and are not part of UNIX. Stating that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is incorrect as you can remove all GUI-related parts of OS X and still remain with something that is more than UNIX. I can't think of a simpler way of putting it.
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff, but I don't believe that anyone in this thread has done that.
Well, to throw in my $0.02, I would say that for curious' needs, yes, OS X is 'just' UNIX + GUI. That GUI is not to be underestimated, but in essence, that is what OS X is.
From curious' perspective, ie: life in shells, there's little benefit to OS X for him besides:
1.) Tight hardware integration, ie: keyboards that light up when a room is dark, battery life that far exceeds what a laptop running linux will get, ability to er, quadruple-boot, and so on. If you are content with digging through /etc/ to edit config files, OS X's System preferences offers little value. For a man who spends all his time in BASH, OS X is just another BASH box.
That said, after using OS X for a month or so, I'd love to know curious_about_mac's opinion of OS X is. I suspect that, like Mono and Gnome developers, he will find himself seduced more and more by OS X.
I myself have used linux extensively (and love it! And it is by no means slow at all, contrary to one poster here!), use Windows professionally (XP), and obviously am right at home on OS X. All the IT guys at Electronic Arts Black Box use Macs at home. It's not just newbies who appreciate the ease of use! Witness the slew of Open Source developers who are flocking to our fav. OS.
BTW: curious_about_mac: Peep Cygwin. It helps with the linux withdrawal on Windows
edit:
Quote:
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff,
Even if you lived in bash world, there's still loads of stuff that is unique to Mac OSX like launchd, mdutil, ditto that you need to know. Of particular relevance would be ditto if the OP wants his backups to work.
Even if you lived in bash world, there's still loads of stuff that is unique to Mac OSX like launchd, mdutil, ditto that you need to know. Of particular relevance would be ditto if the OP wants his backups to work.
As I said, to me (and to other people whose remarks I really appreciate) this issue is settled.
Your remarks boil down to talking about splitting hairs which frankly doesn't appeal to me at all. All UNIX + GUIs systems (even those who are UNIX compliant) have proprietary commands/subsystems. HP-UX for instance had a very nice System Administration GUI called SAM, which is now targeted for obsolescence, among other things. If you read http://docs.hp.com/en/5991-5535/5991-5535.pdf, you'll learn a lot about features that HP-UX but other UNIX-es with GUIs lack. In particular, HP-UX is very strong supporting enterprise class hardware (up to 256 cores running a single instance of the OS, high end multi vendor store support, etc), rivaled only by IBM's AIX these days among the other UNIX03 compliant OS-es (Mac OS X 10.5 cannot compete with either HP-UX or AIX in high end enterprise systems). That said, HP-UX is essentially a UNIX with a GUI.
I said I wasn't going to reply to this thread, and I intend to do so. However, this morning I felt I could make a funny analogy about how aegisdesign comes accross:
Er, no he hasn't. He asked: "So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
And I've got to agree with Aegis and others that that is a gross oversimplification. Many of the frameworks in OS X do not require a GUI to operate and are not part of UNIX. Stating that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is incorrect as you can remove all GUI-related parts of OS X and still remain with something that is more than UNIX. I can't think of a simpler way of putting it.
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff, but I don't believe that anyone in this thread has done that.
There are two Foundations that sit on top of Darwin. Darwin is UNIX to the core. There is CoreFoundation and Foundation (Cocoa).
CoreFoundation is legacy.
Foundation Cocoa is NeXT foundation and future of OS X.
Developers, for now, have a choice of low level communication for their Application (Command line, GUI, Service) to and from the Kernel. That is either through CoreFoundation or Foundation.
With each revision of OS X Applications in all categories will either be moved to legacy or moved forward to current using Foundation.
Carbon and Cocoa are the GUI level abstraction above CoreFoundation and Foundation.
The same goes for each of these.
Splitting hairs aside, the Operating System (Darwin) is UNIX + GUI.
The Kernel of the Operating System (i.e., without the various Filesystems) is UNIX in origin.
If you want to search for an API who doesn't have it's origins from UNIX/NeXT and then proclaim victory on splitting hairs then go for it.
It doesn't change the fact that any non-UNIX based API which isn't GUI dependent still talks eventually to Darwin and it's UNIX brethren.
So by analogy, is a Lexus just a a Ford with a fancy GUI?
I think not. Same with Mac OS X just being UNIX + GUI. The problem is with the word "just". Mac OS X is Unix, no question. It also has a great GUI. But that is not all it is. Throw in apps, frameworks, etc and that still is not all it is. I think Apple is more than the sum of its parts. I would explain it as good design. It is hard to quantify and we can try, but don't get angry if we fall short.
Good design does not mean just some outer shell that candy coats the outside. So many people think this is what is different about a Mac. But like a Lexus and all well designed things, there is a balance between form and function, yet maximizing both as much as possible. I would call it elegance. It is what a good dancer does when he or she moves across the floor. They are athletic and artistic and both never seem to get in the way of the other.
Now the Mac is not perfect. But it is head and shoulders above the rest. Tech geeks rarely understand the art side of things. After all, how many elegant geeks have you met? But having geeks talk about elegance in design is like most construction workers discussing Plato or Beethoven. It take two, or more, vastly different areas of expertise to knowledgeably discuss the whole.
Architecture is another discipline that balances form and function. You can compare square footage, rooms, and appliances, and still have two equal houses on paper be totally different houses. The good house just hits the sweet spot and you immediately fall in love with it. The bad house misses so badly that for somebody who understands elegance, makes you want to puke.
Flatland. If you have never read the book, get it and read it.
As for the Amiga, what a machine! I never thought of those machines as super elegant but man did they have super high function. It was way ahead of its competition. And their GUI was still head and shoulders above DOS and Windows.
I also am one of the few who got to work on a Next Computer. In its day, it truely was an elegant machine, both high on form and function. It just was expensive and lacking software. I am glad the Mac has inherited Nextstep, is reasonably priced and has great software.
So Mac is to a PC what a Lexus is to an average Ford. Not to knock Ford either since it costs way less. However, most PCs cost very similar to equal Macs, why get the Ford? Some people need a van or truck and the Lexus is not the right solution for them. However, for most people, they choose the Ford over the Lexus even when the price is the same.
Yes it is a great OS, for many the best even, but just look back at your post, your defending an operating system (.........) against an attack that wasn't even made in the first place. Go ahead, read the original post again. Now find the word 'just'......
Whenever 'liking' grows into 'worshipping' something goes wrong IMHO.
BTW, I just looked at the lexus website:
Yes, it's just an engine encased in a metal shell with some added wheels.
As I said, I think you'd settled it in your own mind before you even asked your first question even though everybody disagreed with you.
Agreed. He just came in here to call us all Zealots and brand us as members of a cult - both his words. His own question in his very first post was splitting hairs. Who gives a monkeys if OSX is UNIX with a GUI or whatever?
What started as an apparently civilized, "agnostic" inquisitive thread, quickly dissolved in ad-hominem, and useless banter.
All questions were adequately answered long ago, but an insistence on hailing what 90% of the computing community uses solely based on numbers cut the discussion short.
I think you were dubbed a totalitarian, but what should we call one who defends an inferior OS on the premise that it is the most widely adopted? OS X's share has been increasing of late, that, though, had no bearing on my decisions years ago to purchase Macs for our home use, nor on my intent to continue to purchase macs in the future.
I started buying Macs for my wife and kids years ago, made my life much simpler, no more "Honey, how do you do that?", "Dad can you fix this?", etc..., and eventually converted myself. The only truly windows box at home is a company owned box I have at home, and I own a license to run one Windows app (a game) using VMWare's Fusion on my Mac Pro.
I'm earning a living in large part thanks to Microsoft, but when I use a computer outside of work, it's OS X, and a couple of Linux boxes for my home servers. Doing so, I find no issue interacting with the 90% of the world who use a MSoft OS, but I'll be damned if I buy more than 1 bloated, overpriced, buggy, power hogging license of MS's current OS (I have to ) based on other's adoption criteria.
Comments
He is the one who turned the discussion nasty. I am not the type of guy who lets himself bullied without responding.
Sorry, I can be sarky at times. No offence intended. It just seemed like you'd already made up your mind and this wasn't a discussion at all.
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.
And I disagree that you know what you're doing, even on the desktop. Rsync works better for me there too.
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.
Or rsync
However, you're missing out on the advantages of the GUI tools in OSX (which normally all have command-line access too btw) such as TimeMachine's snapshots and easy interface to view snapshots chronologically. It's a lot easier than hunting back through directories full of .tar.gz files.
That doesn't say you shouldn't still do complete backups as well though.
The previous comment, and similar he did in the same line, were intented to be derrogatory. He got what he deserved.
How do you know what I intended?
They weren't. I just disagreed. You didn't like that.
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?
I don't know why you're even conflating the two things. There are Graphical Frameworks and there are non-graphical frameworks. I've already given you many examples of non-graphical frameworks and technologies which are unique to Mac OSX and that are not part of 'UNIX + 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'm obviously not free to disagree with that statement without you being a knobend back.
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).
So you read this section...
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_sys.html
...but skipped all the boxes in the architecture diagram that described all the services that sit on top of the kernel that aren't 'UNIX + GUI'?
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.
Now I'm confused being as I've more Linux machines than Macs.
Look, I'm just trying to answer your question. You're the one who brought cults and religion into it.
In my time I've used PC-DOS 1 to 7, CP/M, AmigaOS 1 to 4, Windows 2 to Vista, FlexOS, Concurrent CP/M, B-TOS, C-TOS, MS-DOS, OS/2 1.0 to Warp, UNIX (on 3B2s, DG Aviions, OKI i860s, Suns, Texas Instruments, IBM RTs, AS/400s, 370s and god knows what more), XENIX, Linux, SCO, RiscOS, BeOS, PalmOS, Symbian, EPOC and probably a load more I've forgotten. And I've written software for all of them too.
Really, I'm the least likely of people to have some kind of brainwashed cult idea about Macs that is based on ignorance of other systems.
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.
Yep. But that's not what was asked...
"So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
To which the answer is no.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
I think Mac OS X is a UNIX-like (compliant, whatever) O/S with a tightly integrated GUI, many tightly integrated frameworks, and lots of decent (not great, but still pretty good) included applications intended for *all* audiences.
I think it's difficult to say the Mac product line targets one specific demographic or computer competency level. Programs like Adobe Photoshop are not intended for your grandmother who wants to see pictures of her great-grandchild. However, it's pretty hard for me to find a program that doesn't serve some use as-is in a professional environment. Maybe the iLife applications?
I think the thesis of this thread proposes a question that does not adequately answer the query you intended to make. (However some great discussion was had by all.)
Q: Is OS X a *nix-derived/*nix-like operating system with a full-featured GUI+tool/application-bundle that has adequate industry support in the form of quality third-party applications and is usable in a production/commercial environment with minimal learning curve and interaction quirks when communicating with Windows and other *nix-based systems?
A: Yes. Enjoy.
To me this issue is settled now: Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX + a GUI.
Since I am not (and was never) interested in talking about splitting hairs (which seems to be what attracts posters like aegisdesign), I will not be answering this thread in the future.
Cheers!
To all,
To me this issue is settled now: Mac OS X is essentially a UNIX + a GUI.
Since I am not (and was never) interested in talking about splitting hairs (which seems to be what attracts posters like aegisdesign), I will not be answering this thread in the future.
Cheers!
Why did you even bother asking since you've ignored everyone in this thread, and excellent articles like those on Ars and Kernelthread that explains why OSX isn't just 'UNIX + a GUI' and stuck with your original and wrong assumption.
I'm not splitting hairs. There are significant additions to OSX over an above what you get from 'UNIX + a GUI' that you're simply dismissing out of hand.
Why did you even bother asking
Good or bad arguments aside, I think we all know why he asked. Some people ask questions to find out answers, others ask questions to pontificate the answers they already "know." You get a lot of that on these boards... people just like to talk. No big deal.
I think Mac OS X is a UNIX-like (compliant, whatever) ...
No. MacOS X 10.5 is certified by the Open Group as UNIX 03. UNIX 03 certification makes MacOS X an official port of UNIX, not Unix-like.
Why did you even bother asking since you've ignored everyone in this thread, and excellent articles like those on Ars and Kernelthread that explains why OSX isn't just 'UNIX + a GUI' and stuck with your original and wrong assumption.
I'm not splitting hairs. There are significant additions to OSX over an above what you get from 'UNIX + a GUI' that you're simply dismissing out of hand.
He's not dismissing it. He's asked about the core of the operating system.
Being one of only 3 UNIX 03 systems vendors in the world, plus having a world class GUI is, in short, UNIX + GUI that isn't the traditional UNIX + X11/Motif of old.
To go in and talk about the the extensions to OS X that add to its separation from other operating systems doesn't diminish the fact that it first and foremost is UNIX + GUI that is world class.
The whole point of Rhapsody was to bring a UNIX operating system with a world class GUI to Apple and allow Apple to expand into other market segments completely untouchable by them with their prior operating system.
He's asked about the core of the operating system.
Er, no he hasn't. He asked: "So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
And I've got to agree with Aegis and others that that is a gross oversimplification. Many of the frameworks in OS X do not require a GUI to operate and are not part of UNIX. Stating that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is incorrect as you can remove all GUI-related parts of OS X and still remain with something that is more than UNIX. I can't think of a simpler way of putting it.
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff, but I don't believe that anyone in this thread has done that.
From curious' perspective, ie: life in shells, there's little benefit to OS X for him besides:
1.) Tight hardware integration, ie: keyboards that light up when a room is dark, battery life that far exceeds what a laptop running linux will get, ability to er, quadruple-boot, and so on. If you are content with digging through /etc/ to edit config files, OS X's System preferences offers little value. For a man who spends all his time in BASH, OS X is just another BASH box.
That said, after using OS X for a month or so, I'd love to know curious_about_mac's opinion of OS X is. I suspect that, like Mono and Gnome developers, he will find himself seduced more and more by OS X.
I myself have used linux extensively (and love it! And it is by no means slow at all, contrary to one poster here!), use Windows professionally (XP), and obviously am right at home on OS X. All the IT guys at Electronic Arts Black Box use Macs at home. It's not just newbies who appreciate the ease of use! Witness the slew of Open Source developers who are flocking to our fav. OS.
BTW: curious_about_mac: Peep Cygwin. It helps with the linux withdrawal on Windows
edit:
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff,
Bingo!
Quick Google and here's a big list...
http://www.matisse.net/OSX/darwin_commands.html
Even if you lived in bash world, there's still loads of stuff that is unique to Mac OSX like launchd, mdutil, ditto that you need to know. Of particular relevance would be ditto if the OP wants his backups to work.
Quick Google and here's a big list...
http://www.matisse.net/OSX/darwin_commands.html
As I said, to me (and to other people whose remarks I really appreciate) this issue is settled.
Your remarks boil down to talking about splitting hairs which frankly doesn't appeal to me at all. All UNIX + GUIs systems (even those who are UNIX compliant) have proprietary commands/subsystems. HP-UX for instance had a very nice System Administration GUI called SAM, which is now targeted for obsolescence, among other things. If you read http://docs.hp.com/en/5991-5535/5991-5535.pdf, you'll learn a lot about features that HP-UX but other UNIX-es with GUIs lack. In particular, HP-UX is very strong supporting enterprise class hardware (up to 256 cores running a single instance of the OS, high end multi vendor store support, etc), rivaled only by IBM's AIX these days among the other UNIX03 compliant OS-es (Mac OS X 10.5 cannot compete with either HP-UX or AIX in high end enterprise systems). That said, HP-UX is essentially a UNIX with a GUI.
I said I wasn't going to reply to this thread, and I intend to do so. However, this morning I felt I could make a funny analogy about how aegisdesign comes accross:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKJonM0fM54
I feel like Jesus in minute 3:37 telling Arnold "you just don't get it, do you?".
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you!
As I said, to me (and to other people whose remarks I really appreciate) this issue is settled.
As I said, I think you'd settled it in your own mind before you even asked your first question even though everybody disagreed with you.
As I said, I think you'd settled it in your own mind before you even asked your first question even though everybody disagreed with you.
Hear! Hear!
Er, no he hasn't. He asked: "So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?"
And I've got to agree with Aegis and others that that is a gross oversimplification. Many of the frameworks in OS X do not require a GUI to operate and are not part of UNIX. Stating that Mac OS X is UNIX + GUI is incorrect as you can remove all GUI-related parts of OS X and still remain with something that is more than UNIX. I can't think of a simpler way of putting it.
Of course, you'd have to be a special sort of moron to deny that Mac OS X is UNIX + some other stuff, but I don't believe that anyone in this thread has done that.
There are two Foundations that sit on top of Darwin. Darwin is UNIX to the core. There is CoreFoundation and Foundation (Cocoa).
CoreFoundation is legacy.
Foundation Cocoa is NeXT foundation and future of OS X.
Developers, for now, have a choice of low level communication for their Application (Command line, GUI, Service) to and from the Kernel. That is either through CoreFoundation or Foundation.
With each revision of OS X Applications in all categories will either be moved to legacy or moved forward to current using Foundation.
Carbon and Cocoa are the GUI level abstraction above CoreFoundation and Foundation.
The same goes for each of these.
Splitting hairs aside, the Operating System (Darwin) is UNIX + GUI.
The Kernel of the Operating System (i.e., without the various Filesystems) is UNIX in origin.
If you want to search for an API who doesn't have it's origins from UNIX/NeXT and then proclaim victory on splitting hairs then go for it.
It doesn't change the fact that any non-UNIX based API which isn't GUI dependent still talks eventually to Darwin and it's UNIX brethren.
Get over it.
Mac OS is dead.
OS X is alive and well.
I think not. Same with Mac OS X just being UNIX + GUI. The problem is with the word "just". Mac OS X is Unix, no question. It also has a great GUI. But that is not all it is. Throw in apps, frameworks, etc and that still is not all it is. I think Apple is more than the sum of its parts. I would explain it as good design. It is hard to quantify and we can try, but don't get angry if we fall short.
Good design does not mean just some outer shell that candy coats the outside. So many people think this is what is different about a Mac. But like a Lexus and all well designed things, there is a balance between form and function, yet maximizing both as much as possible. I would call it elegance. It is what a good dancer does when he or she moves across the floor. They are athletic and artistic and both never seem to get in the way of the other.
Now the Mac is not perfect. But it is head and shoulders above the rest. Tech geeks rarely understand the art side of things. After all, how many elegant geeks have you met? But having geeks talk about elegance in design is like most construction workers discussing Plato or Beethoven. It take two, or more, vastly different areas of expertise to knowledgeably discuss the whole.
Architecture is another discipline that balances form and function. You can compare square footage, rooms, and appliances, and still have two equal houses on paper be totally different houses. The good house just hits the sweet spot and you immediately fall in love with it. The bad house misses so badly that for somebody who understands elegance, makes you want to puke.
Flatland. If you have never read the book, get it and read it.
As for the Amiga, what a machine! I never thought of those machines as super elegant but man did they have super high function. It was way ahead of its competition. And their GUI was still head and shoulders above DOS and Windows.
I also am one of the few who got to work on a Next Computer. In its day, it truely was an elegant machine, both high on form and function. It just was expensive and lacking software. I am glad the Mac has inherited Nextstep, is reasonably priced and has great software.
So Mac is to a PC what a Lexus is to an average Ford. Not to knock Ford either since it costs way less. However, most PCs cost very similar to equal Macs, why get the Ford? Some people need a van or truck and the Lexus is not the right solution for them. However, for most people, they choose the Ford over the Lexus even when the price is the same.
It's a unique masterpiece of os architecture!!!!
All hail the holy OS standard!!!!!
Behold the cult of mac in action...
Yes it is a great OS, for many the best even, but just look back at your post, your defending an operating system (.........) against an attack that wasn't even made in the first place. Go ahead, read the original post again. Now find the word 'just'......
Whenever 'liking' grows into 'worshipping' something goes wrong IMHO.
BTW, I just looked at the lexus website:
Yes, it's just an engine encased in a metal shell with some added wheels.
Oh, and a pretty lame audi-ripoff at that
As I said, I think you'd settled it in your own mind before you even asked your first question even though everybody disagreed with you.
Agreed. He just came in here to call us all Zealots and brand us as members of a cult - both his words. His own question in his very first post was splitting hairs. Who gives a monkeys if OSX is UNIX with a GUI or whatever?
I think you, curious_for_mac, are just trolling.
Agreed!
What started as an apparently civilized, "agnostic" inquisitive thread, quickly dissolved in ad-hominem, and useless banter.
All questions were adequately answered long ago, but an insistence on hailing what 90% of the computing community uses solely based on numbers cut the discussion short.
I think you were dubbed a totalitarian, but what should we call one who defends an inferior OS on the premise that it is the most widely adopted? OS X's share has been increasing of late, that, though, had no bearing on my decisions years ago to purchase Macs for our home use, nor on my intent to continue to purchase macs in the future.
I started buying Macs for my wife and kids years ago, made my life much simpler, no more "Honey, how do you do that?", "Dad can you fix this?", etc..., and eventually converted myself. The only truly windows box at home is a company owned box I have at home, and I own a license to run one Windows app (a game) using VMWare's Fusion on my Mac Pro.
I'm earning a living in large part thanks to Microsoft, but when I use a computer outside of work, it's OS X, and a couple of Linux boxes for my home servers. Doing so, I find no issue interacting with the 90% of the world who use a MSoft OS, but I'll be damned if I buy more than 1 bloated, overpriced, buggy, power hogging license of MS's current OS (I have to