The GNU/Linux thread

Zuhaib

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
855
Location
San Francisco, CA
Car(s)
19 BMW X3
I am a long time Linux fan, I was one of the first Mods of the *nix forums over at DSLR forums and currently admin a handful of Red Hat boxes and in the past done CentOS and Ubuntu so I am no n00b at Linux. That being said I prefer OS X as an desktop/daily OS. It just gives me enough *nix when I need it but enough abstraction that on days I dont want to care if I am using the propriety drivers or open source drivers for my WiFi card. I still think Linux is not end user/desktop ready and any attempts to get it to that level is like trying to get a square peg in a round hole. You can build a new OS that is *nix compatible that is end user friendly (see OS X, Android, and Chrome OS) but Linux was built by hackers for hackers and for the most part found its home on Servers and high power workstations.

Ubuntu goes a long way to try to plug up issues for end users and personally I love ubuntu server and use it exclusively for my personal servers but right now as a test i gave my mom an older laptop with Ubuntu loaded on it. And while it has reduce the amount of trouble of malware/crapware (I remember after some Family came to visit her I found a bunch of .exe a few of them tried running and most of them turned out to be viruses) I find myself hitting the wall trying to get a proper photo/video manager. Windows in even XP had a decent way of importing images and video and managing them but right now I have not found one that works for my mom. Yeah I can setup a workflow that works great for photos and video on Linux but it fails the mom test which is what is important as a desktop OS.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,044
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
For servers I prefer FreeBSD. It works, is well documented (every command in the base system has a man page), and has a community that actively helps (opposed to the RTFM asshats who think that a useless GNU info page or a .c header constitutes a manual).
 

Nugget

Fuck Cancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
631
Location
Houston Texas USA
Car(s)
'07 GT3 RS, '15 Cayenne, '60 Bugeye Sprite
I agree with argatoga. I like Unix and the unavoidable truth is that Linux is not a very good Unix. I use FreeBSD for servers and OS X for desktops and Linux only when I absolutely cannot avoid it (asterisk). this is a great article that explains the core differences between the Linuxes and the BSDs.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I understand the general linux vs *nix argument, I just can't understand how some of you are saying OSX is your OS of choice to tend to your *nix needs? OSX and Apple have like the most closed software development mentality in the world, now surpassing Microsoft by far, where all apps and programs have to be actually approved by Apple... Anyone explain? (never used OSX and I rarely see any reason to even try it)
 

Psirus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
592
Location
Berlin, Germany
God damn hippy, shave you're beard!
/ Richard "Yeti" Stallman
Fucking Razors, how do they work? ;)

Is there closed source programs in Ubuntu?
When you install Debian (or most distributions for that matter), your graphic card drivers, mp3-listening and flash for example won't work out of the box. And I agree that it should be as easy as possible to get this stuff working, but when you install Ubuntu, you're not even made to think about stuff like this anymore.

If what you all mean by "real" linux is problem solving and tinkering why not write a script that deletes 150 random files from your computer, then do a reboot, and then making a game out of finding out which files are missing and why is X not starting... :p
Sounds like fun :lol:

It's FREE for gods sake!
That doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize anymore, there are a lot of free OS out there.
 
Last edited:

Nugget

Fuck Cancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
631
Location
Houston Texas USA
Car(s)
'07 GT3 RS, '15 Cayenne, '60 Bugeye Sprite
OSX and Apple have like the most closed software development mentality in the world
I think you'd have a really tough time supporting this position with fact. Quite a bit of OS X is open source from the darwin kernel to wildly popular components like webkit. Since the move to OS X, Apple has fostered a rich and productive relationship with the open source community. They release and utilize plenty of open source code. The FreeBSD commit logs are full of Apple contributions, and there's widespread use of Apple open source technologies like webkit, Bonjour (zerocon), NAT-PMP, and others.

So how do you figure this is "the most closed software mentality in the world?"

...where all apps and programs have to be actually approved by Apple...
That's just not true. It's not even close to being true. It doesn't even rhyme with true.

OS X has gcc and you can compile and run 99.99% of all the software you'd consider "Linux software." Apple has a powerful development environment (Xcode) for developing native OS X applications in a half dozen different languages. It's even free, unlike the development tools on some other platforms. There's a thriving ecosystem of Free, Shareware, and Commercial OS X software -- none of which requires approval from Apple.

OS X is a great blend of both worlds. I can compile and run all of my favorite open source software, it ships with bash/tcsh and the Unix command line environment I need, I can ssh in and out -- it's a great Unix. But I can also run Photoshop and Microsoft Office and other commercial applications that the real world often requires. My laptop can sleep, hibernate, and plug in to the projector at work without drama or reading any HOWTOs. The OS X UI is cutting-edge and leading HCI innovation rather than just being a pale, unstable clone of what Apple was doing two years ago.

All that, and my mom can use it. OS X is approachable to non-technical users in an unparalleled way. She's able to do more with her computer with less help and training from me than she could with Windows. There's no way I could give her a Gentoo box and expect the same sort of success.

never used OSX and I rarely see any reason to even try it
Whether or not OS X is a good fit for you, your lack of exposure to it has led to some erroneous conclusions, I think.
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Ok how about this. OSX is meant to work only with the Apple released hardware configurations. That right there is a no-no for me. Yes there are ways to get it to run in other systems ... so called Hackintosh... but that's doesn't fly with me for some reason. This means that to get OSX you have to purchase at least a new mac, no cheap thing. That doesn't yell unix to me at all...
 

equiraptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
Car(s)
2006 Mazda MX-5, 2007 Suzuki SV650
Ok how about this. OSX is meant to work only with the Apple released hardware configurations. That right there is a no-no for me.
That does nothing to support your claim that "OSX and Apple have like the most closed software development mentality in the world," especially as Darwin runs on a variety of hardware. You don't have to choose to use OS X, you don't have to like OS X. Just try to do a tiny bit of research before opining about OS X, so you can avoid sticking your foot in your mouth.

This means that to get OSX you have to purchase at least a new mac, no cheap thing.
You don't have to purchase a new Mac. You could purchase a used Mac. One of the great things about Apple hardware is they're often useable, and even fast, for an extended period. My Mac Pro is from 2006, and it's still a quick, stable, useable machine. I continue to do everything I need to do on it, and it does quite well. It's actually better at handling my work tasks than my much newer machine at work. As a result of this long-term usability and durability, buying a used Mac is often quite workable. I'm not trying to say "used is the same or new," or that the long term usability and durability of Apple hardware is equivalent to OS X being able to run on more hardware. All I'm trying to say is it's possible to have a good experience with Apple and OS X, and pay a lot less than Apple's new hardware prices.

That doesn't yell unix to me at all...
You mean "That doesn't yell Linux to me." Try getting AIX, HPUX, etc. to run on your laptop. Hell, even OpenSolaris is likely to cause you headaches.

Linux and Unix are not the same thing. Unix, barring BSD, actually came from a closed, corporate environment. Linux is a relative newcomer that tries to mimic a lot of what Unix offers, but applies an open mentality. There's a lot of history here, around 4 decades of it. There's a lot more to know before you understand what actually is "unix-like" and what isn't.
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
That does nothing to support your claim that "OSX and Apple have like the most closed software development mentality in the world," especially as Darwin runs on a variety of hardware. You don't have to choose to use OS X, you don't have to like OS X. Just try to do a tiny bit of research before opining about OS X, so you can avoid sticking your foot in your mouth.
What I meant, and perhaps I outed it the wrong way, is that Apple likes keeping everything in a quite closed environment. Apple is the only company making the computers that will run OSX, and selling them at quite high price, used or not. If you want OSX compatible software your best bet is the Apple stores. This contrasts with what most people call "PCs", which are made by a huge number of companies or yourself if you so wish, software is all over, free or not... It's just the image they project, to me at least, that when you get OSX you also accept to be a little bit controlled and bound to Apple's will.

And about research and what not that's what I was asking at first, wasn't it? I wanted to know why people seemed to be saying OSX satisfied their need for unix-ness, so I asked why that's all.

I just want to clarify I have nothing against OS X, just the way it's marketed doesn't appeal to me. I like building my own computers and Apple likes building theirs, and not giving me permission to install their OS on mine, for their own legitimate reasons, but because of those reasons I'm not gonna try it so I won't know I guess.
 
Last edited:

equiraptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
Car(s)
2006 Mazda MX-5, 2007 Suzuki SV650
If you want OSX compatible software your best bet is the Apple stores.
That hasn't really been my experience. Most of the software installed on my machines that wasn't developed by Apple came from a website or a gaming store (yes, believe it or not, a gaming store). Perhaps for the ignorant consumer, the Apple store is the place to go, but for the computer nerd, the person already comfortable with finding their own applications, that's not the case. If I remember correctly, you were asking about the computer nerd, not the ignorant consumer.

And about research and what not that's what I was asking at first, wasn't it? I wanted to know why people seemed to be saying OSX satisfied their need for unix-ness, so I asked why that's all.
You asked a question, but it wasn't a simple question. It was a pointed question combined with a lot of poor assumptions. You could have asked or done some research, instead of assuming.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I agree with argatoga. I like Unix and the unavoidable truth is that Linux is not a very good Unix. I use FreeBSD for servers and OS X for desktops and Linux only when I absolutely cannot avoid it (asterisk). this is a great article that explains the core differences between the Linuxes and the BSDs.
This guy posted what is in fact a great article and I've just finished reading it, and the author flat out refused talking about OS X, so don't tell me I didn't do any research.
I don't know if I poked the wrong nerve here or something but chill out. Don't get all Mac-fan on me.
 
Last edited:

Nugget

Fuck Cancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
631
Location
Houston Texas USA
Car(s)
'07 GT3 RS, '15 Cayenne, '60 Bugeye Sprite
...Apple likes keeping everything in a quite closed environment.
Yes, you've said this several times. It's still not true, though. OS X is not a closed operating system. There is a thriving ecosystem of third-party software for OS X. That's the hallmark of an open operating system.

Apple is the only company making the computers that will run OSX
This is correct, and it's perfectly understandable why some people might not like this aspect of OS X.

If you want OSX compatible software your best bet is the Apple stores.
This is totally incorrect. Why do you think this is true?

...so I asked why that's all.
Asking questions is fine, obviously. It would be nice if you'd stop saying incorrect things, though. Misinformation doesn't help anyone.

I like building my own computers and Apple likes building theirs, and not giving me permission to install their OS on mine, for their own legitimate reasons, but because of those reasons I'm not gonna try it so I won't know I guess.
There's nothing wrong with that attitude at all. If you like building your own computers then OS X is definitely not for you. One area where we agree is on the subject of "Hackintosh" machines. I don't understand why anyone would want to try using OS X on non-Apple hardware. Sounds like a lot of stress and frustration for me -- half-working drivers and living in fear that the next OS release or security update will completely break your system. Sounds crazy to me.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Yes, you've said this several times. It's still not true, though. OS X is not a closed operating system. There is a thriving ecosystem of third-party software for OS X. That's the hallmark of an open operating system.
This is what you don't understand. I never said OS X doesn't have any third party software. But if you talk about thriving environment for applications, aren't Windows and Linux (just to stick to the 3 "main" OSs) even more open than Apple's?
 

equiraptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
Car(s)
2006 Mazda MX-5, 2007 Suzuki SV650
This is what you don't understand. I never said OS X doesn't have any third party software. But if you talk about thriving environment for applications, aren't Windows and Linux (just to stick to the 3 "main" OSs) even more open than Apple's?
OS X offers the same development environment as Linux. It also offers additional OS X specific development environments. This has already been mentioned to you.

You "struck a nerve" by posting statements of fact that were based on ignorance and are wrong. You continue to do so.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
OS X offers the same development environment as Linux. It also offers additional OS X specific development environments. This has already been mentioned to you.

You "struck a nerve" by posting statements of fact that were based on ignorance and are wrong. You continue to do so.
So a piece of software developped for linux will just compile and work 100% on OSX?
 

equiraptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
Car(s)
2006 Mazda MX-5, 2007 Suzuki SV650
Often, yes. Every piece of software won't. It depends on exactly what part of the environment the software uses. The scripts I use on my FreeBSD machines work on my OS X machines without any modifications.

It's possible to code a piece of software in a non-portable way, in which it will work on only one specific unix-based OS (or even only one specific Linux distribution). However, it's also possible to code a piece of software in a portable way, in which it will compile and run on any number of unix-based OSes. The software coded in a portable way will often compile (or run without a need for a separate compile processes) without modification on OS X.
 
Last edited:

Nugget

Fuck Cancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
631
Location
Houston Texas USA
Car(s)
'07 GT3 RS, '15 Cayenne, '60 Bugeye Sprite
I never said OS X doesn't have any third party software.
Not in those words, no, but you did say that "all apps and programs have to be actually approved by Apple" (false) and "If you want OSX compatible software your best bet is the Apple stores" (also false).

OS X is an open platform allowing anyone to create and release software. It has a rich developer toolkit, published APIs, and a thriving developer community that produces open and closed source software. You've made several comments in this thread that imply you're unaware of these facts, so people have replied to correct you. That's all.

So a piece of software developped for linux will just compile and work 100% on OSX?
The vast, vast majority of it, sure. The only exceptions are software which require direct interaction with the kernel or kernel modules. Many times this software also works on OS X, but only because the developer has taken the time to port those parts of the code to Darwin as well.

Even absent package management, just a simple ./configure && make && make install will get you there most every time.

OS X is Unix. Heck, it's even more Unix than Linux is. Any software that's POSIX enough to compile in Linux will almost certainly compile in OS X too. There are even package management tools like you're familiar with. Darwinports is a clone of the FreeBSD ports environment, Fink is a clone of the Debian dpkg/apt-get toolset for OS X, and there are a few others as well.
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Well then I stand corrected, it's still too bad they charge you for the whole computer to 'join the club' instead of making a little effort/compromise and making it compatible with a wider computer base so you could just purchase the OS and install it.

And about the approved by apple statement, it just came from a series of times I've seen over the years that a new version of some software was about to be released but was awaiting approval from Apple. Perhaps that changed, I dunno.
 

Nugget

Fuck Cancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
631
Location
Houston Texas USA
Car(s)
'07 GT3 RS, '15 Cayenne, '60 Bugeye Sprite
And about the approved by apple statement, it just came from a series of times I've seen over the years that a new version of some software was about to be released but was awaiting approval from Apple. Perhaps that changed, I dunno.
I suspect if you revisit those times you'll discover that they were referring to software releases for the iPhone/iPod Touch IOS and not OS X software for computers.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,403
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I suspect if you revisit those times you'll discover that they were referring to software releases for the iPhone/iPod Touch IOS and not OS X software for computers.
I think it was a commercial product something along the lines of Photoshop (a professional tool of some sort)
Doesn't matter really, just a wrong assumption from my part that they still conduct business like that.
 
Top