3 ms·

On your blog, you wrote: As far as I’m concerned, Apple is completely out of touch with my segment (call it UNIX-centric pros, if you will), so I’m going to ser

by SiVal 10y ago

On your blog, you wrote: As far as I’m concerned, Apple is completely out of touch with my segment (call it UNIX-centric pros, if you will), so I’m going to seriously rethink my options over the next couple of weeks. I would guess that just here on HN there are tens of thousands of us who could describe ourselves as "Unix-centric pros", who want powerful unixy client machines that match our unixy servers and who also want all the client-side stuff everyone needs (excellent video, audio, wifi, battery mgt., etc., drivers perfectly matched to hardware and working out of the box) plus a full range of apps. We can get the unixy client from Linux, BSD, or Mac. We can get the reliable, everything works consumer client stuff from Windows or Mac. The only overlap is Mac. Unfortunately for us, this power user unix workstation stuff is just a historical accident for Apple, not a corporate objective. They're trying to get out of the computer business so they can focus on fashionable, high-margin, designer "lifestyle" products and services for the hip ones who consume stuff, not the old drudges in the back room who make stuff. Microsoft holds their Windows legacy so dear that they'll slap more layers on the papier-mache balloon that is Windows but never put unix at its core, and all the nifty client-side Linux systems out there seem to have the motto "before you complain, realize that how much of it ends up working depends on how smart you are". I would wish for Google to develop a line of powerful Linux-based workstations, but they would just spy on me until Google canceled the project altogether. I wish Apple would create a wholly-owned subsidiary called "Apple Computer, Inc." that would have access to Apple's manufacturing expertise but would build a line of computers for power users who produce stuff--computers that weren't "thinner".

ralusek 10y ago
Windows linux subsystem, it's legit. I tried it yesterday, it is no joke. It is full on bash in windows, running on Linux. Not in a VM. Look into it, Microsoft released it earlier this year specifically for unix developers.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I can't see the point, I'd rather just run Linux in a VM.
pcwalton 10y ago
> Microsoft holds their Windows legacy so dear that they'll slap more layers on the papier-mache balloon that is Windows but never put unix at its core But they just did, with Bash on Windows.
- SiVal 10y ago
  Bash on Windows isn't at all the same as Windows on Linux. I do appreciate that they are trying to do as much as they think they can without throwing away the thing that they believe is the most valuable corporate asset they have: the mountain of stuff built over the years for Windows. They have carefully preserved this asset by making huge efforts to ensure than anything that worked on Windows in the past will keep working forever. The thing is, what I wish they would do for me (which might not be what they need to do for themselves) is to take the equivalent of my Linux server and wrap a Windows API around it, the way a Mac is like a Linux server inside with a Mac API wrapped around it for client software usefulness. I'd be just as happy with a Windows GUI/API as a Mac GUI/API, but what I want is for it to resemble my servers under the GUI, so I can leverage whatever unixy skills and tools I may have. Having a simulation of a unix shell on top of an NT core makes Windows more useful than it would otherwise be, but it's not the same as a Windows shell on a Linux kernel.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > the way a Mac is like a Linux server inside with a Mac API wrapped around it for client software usefulness No, Darwin is Mach with BSD welded to it; it is not a pure Unix design. Likewise, WSL is the NT kernel with the Linux syscall interface on top, via the Pico Process interface. The NT kernel was designed for portability; in fact, POSIX compatibility was a design goal from the early days, in contrast to Mach where the idea of mashing together Mach and BSD was never considered. In many ways, WSL is a much cleaner design than Darwin is.
pjmlp 10y ago
> Unfortunately for us, this power user unix workstation stuff is just a historical accident for Apple, not a corporate objective. Many that went Apple when they showed OS X to the world, never really understood Apple, or for that matter, NeXT culture. The POSIX layer never mattered, what mattered were the Objective-C frameworks on top and a workflow based on Xerox PARC ideas, that Steve Jobs brought to Apple and NeXT. The UNIX compatibility was there, because NeXT was competing against Sun and Irix workstations, so it needed to be compatible to a certain extent. Later Apple trying to promote the same compatibility because after the Copland failure, they needed to sell computers or close shop, so the UNIX with nice GUI was a way of doing it. For those of us that develop native applications, it never really mattered.

by SiVal 10y ago

ralusek 10y ago

Windows linux subsystem, it's legit. I tried it yesterday, it is no joke. It is full on bash in windows, running on Linux. Not in a VM. Look into it, Microsoft released it earlier this year specifically for unix developers.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I can't see the point, I'd rather just run Linux in a VM.

pcwalton 10y ago

> Microsoft holds their Windows legacy so dear that they'll slap more layers on the papier-mache balloon that is Windows but never put unix at its core But they just did, with Bash on Windows.

SiVal 10y ago
Bash on Windows isn't at all the same as Windows on Linux. I do appreciate that they are trying to do as much as they think they can without throwing away the thing that they believe is the most valuable corporate asset they have: the mountain of stuff built over the years for Windows. They have carefully preserved this asset by making huge efforts to ensure than anything that worked on Windows in the past will keep working forever. The thing is, what I wish they would do for me (which might not be what they need to do for themselves) is to take the equivalent of my Linux server and wrap a Windows API around it, the way a Mac is like a Linux server inside with a Mac API wrapped around it for client software usefulness. I'd be just as happy with a Windows GUI/API as a Mac GUI/API, but what I want is for it to resemble my servers under the GUI, so I can leverage whatever unixy skills and tools I may have. Having a simulation of a unix shell on top of an NT core makes Windows more useful than it would otherwise be, but it's not the same as a Windows shell on a Linux kernel.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > the way a Mac is like a Linux server inside with a Mac API wrapped around it for client software usefulness No, Darwin is Mach with BSD welded to it; it is not a pure Unix design. Likewise, WSL is the NT kernel with the Linux syscall interface on top, via the Pico Process interface. The NT kernel was designed for portability; in fact, POSIX compatibility was a design goal from the early days, in contrast to Mach where the idea of mashing together Mach and BSD was never considered. In many ways, WSL is a much cleaner design than Darwin is.

pjmlp 10y ago

> Unfortunately for us, this power user unix workstation stuff is just a historical accident for Apple, not a corporate objective. Many that went Apple when they showed OS X to the world, never really understood Apple, or for that matter, NeXT culture. The POSIX layer never mattered, what mattered were the Objective-C frameworks on top and a workflow based on Xerox PARC ideas, that Steve Jobs brought to Apple and NeXT. The UNIX compatibility was there, because NeXT was competing against Sun and Irix workstations, so it needed to be compatible to a certain extent. Later Apple trying to promote the same compatibility because after the Copland failure, they needed to sell computers or close shop, so the UNIX with nice GUI was a way of doing it. For those of us that develop native applications, it never really mattered.