4 ms·

I feel like Ubuntu has been the F/OSS replacement for OSX for some time. Unfortunately, I feel like the strengths of a Free *nix (Don't like the UX? Change it.)

I feel like Ubuntu has been the F/OSS replacement for OSX for some time. Unfortunately, I feel like the strengths of a Free *nix (Don't like the UX? Change it.) are exactly the things that prevent a critical mass. Sadly, a critical mass of support seems to be crucial for things like hardware drivers and commercial software with roots in the shrinkwrap era (Photoshop, Office, etc?).

lucideer 10y ago
elementaryOS seemed to be angling more directly for that market (Ubuntu was always quite Mac-ish, at least up until Unity, but still very much looked to attract a more general userbase - e.g. targeting installers at Windows users, etc.), but I think elementaryOS is probably a bit young to take full advantage right now. They may have gone a little too far on the "simplicity" side for power users coming from MacOS.
- peatmoss 10y ago
  I always felt that ElementaryOS was a skin-deep clone. I'm not sure that having a little bit different UX is the reason Ubuntu hasn't achieved blessed third OS status from the Adobes of the world. I think it has more to do with there not being a unified homogenous target to code for. If the FOSS world wanted to reimplement our own Mac, I've always thought that doubling down on GNUStep would have made the most sense. If Linux + GNUstep were closer to source-compatible with the Mac, with a comparable desktop environment to boot, more of those apps would have likely made the jump. Even that I'm not sure about now though. Had GNUstep been a viable daily-use platform back in the early 2000s when OSX was ascendant, I think we'd have a different landscape today. Now with the web dominating so much, native app compatibility is less important than it was. You just need to be a big enough target for commercial vendors to care about. With luck, Chromebooks will help sort out the hardware compatibility issues as more and more of the chipsets are mainlined into the Linux kernel. In terms of software compatibility, I don't know, maybe desktop Android apps will ultimately be what we coalesce around.
- rcarmo 10y ago
  I'm good with it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12830761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12830761 for more. Then again, I am not the typical macOS power user and just want a good, stable UNIX with an interface I don't (ever) have to tweak.
- dkuntz2 10y ago
  What do you mean by "up until Unity"? Unity has always looked like a macOS desktop clone, from having the menu bar always on top, and integrating a dock by default. Unity seems significantly closer to the macOS desktop compared to the old Gnome 2 setup.
  - lucideer 10y ago
    Unity still has its macish elements, true, but I think the post-Unity GTK+ and general in-default-app experiences tended to move toward "doing their own thing", rather than aping Windows or macOS. Also, while the Unity side dock is iconified like macOS', I think it's functionality more different than the old Gnome2 bottom panel was from the macOS dock. All subjective I guess.
kyriakos 10y ago
I think Microsoft's move to add bash on Windows was very well calculated. They have an OS that runs on a huge number of devices giving buyers options, with mainstream driver support, compatibility with most commercial software, and good development tools for the platform. By adding bash gives OSX users who are dissatisfied with the latest Apple hardware a chance to jump ship. At the same time Windows/Linux dual-boot users who also happen to be gamers will find themselves using Linux less.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  The thing is that this backslash is mainly driven by the vocal UNIX developers that migrated to Apple hardware due to the underlying UNIX. However for those of us that actually care about macOS software written in Objective-C and Swift, macOS is as good as always.
- Yetanfou 10y ago
  Sooo.... if Microsoft really wants to be 'smart'... they sort-of allow someone to develop a 'Mac OS' subsystem to run on Windows. They can not do this officially as they'd have layers of lawyers upon them in an instant but since they have extensive experience with subversive operations it should be possible to get the thing running in a rather short time. Maybe they should have a chat with the GNUStep folks to see if they have some converging targets. Having a Mac OS compatibility layer on other systems would enable gradual migration, not something Apple will be wildly enthusiastic about but - if implemented correctly - not something they can do much about either apart from restricting access to Apple-created software to Apple-created hardware and operating environments (something they already do as far as I know).
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    I don't see the reason for this. OSX (or Windows) at this time are not something special, dev tools except the platform specific stuff are cross platform. Creative software exists for both (more on Windows actually). What would a compatibility layer with OSX on Windows offer that you can't already do other than ios app packaging and deployment (cause even that you can already develop on other platforms if you don't use the official tools). So even if technically is doable it's really not worth the legal backfire.

lucideer 10y ago

elementaryOS seemed to be angling more directly for that market (Ubuntu was always quite Mac-ish, at least up until Unity, but still very much looked to attract a more general userbase - e.g. targeting installers at Windows users, etc.), but I think elementaryOS is probably a bit young to take full advantage right now. They may have gone a little too far on the "simplicity" side for power users coming from MacOS.

peatmoss 10y ago
I always felt that ElementaryOS was a skin-deep clone. I'm not sure that having a little bit different UX is the reason Ubuntu hasn't achieved blessed third OS status from the Adobes of the world. I think it has more to do with there not being a unified homogenous target to code for. If the FOSS world wanted to reimplement our own Mac, I've always thought that doubling down on GNUStep would have made the most sense. If Linux + GNUstep were closer to source-compatible with the Mac, with a comparable desktop environment to boot, more of those apps would have likely made the jump. Even that I'm not sure about now though. Had GNUstep been a viable daily-use platform back in the early 2000s when OSX was ascendant, I think we'd have a different landscape today. Now with the web dominating so much, native app compatibility is less important than it was. You just need to be a big enough target for commercial vendors to care about. With luck, Chromebooks will help sort out the hardware compatibility issues as more and more of the chipsets are mainlined into the Linux kernel. In terms of software compatibility, I don't know, maybe desktop Android apps will ultimately be what we coalesce around.
rcarmo 10y ago
I'm good with it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12830761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12830761 for more. Then again, I am not the typical macOS power user and just want a good, stable UNIX with an interface I don't (ever) have to tweak.
dkuntz2 10y ago
What do you mean by "up until Unity"? Unity has always looked like a macOS desktop clone, from having the menu bar always on top, and integrating a dock by default. Unity seems significantly closer to the macOS desktop compared to the old Gnome 2 setup.
- lucideer 10y ago
  Unity still has its macish elements, true, but I think the post-Unity GTK+ and general in-default-app experiences tended to move toward "doing their own thing", rather than aping Windows or macOS. Also, while the Unity side dock is iconified like macOS', I think it's functionality more different than the old Gnome2 bottom panel was from the macOS dock. All subjective I guess.

kyriakos 10y ago

I think Microsoft's move to add bash on Windows was very well calculated. They have an OS that runs on a huge number of devices giving buyers options, with mainstream driver support, compatibility with most commercial software, and good development tools for the platform. By adding bash gives OSX users who are dissatisfied with the latest Apple hardware a chance to jump ship. At the same time Windows/Linux dual-boot users who also happen to be gamers will find themselves using Linux less.

pjmlp 10y ago
The thing is that this backslash is mainly driven by the vocal UNIX developers that migrated to Apple hardware due to the underlying UNIX. However for those of us that actually care about macOS software written in Objective-C and Swift, macOS is as good as always.
Yetanfou 10y ago
Sooo.... if Microsoft really wants to be 'smart'... they sort-of allow someone to develop a 'Mac OS' subsystem to run on Windows. They can not do this officially as they'd have layers of lawyers upon them in an instant but since they have extensive experience with subversive operations it should be possible to get the thing running in a rather short time. Maybe they should have a chat with the GNUStep folks to see if they have some converging targets. Having a Mac OS compatibility layer on other systems would enable gradual migration, not something Apple will be wildly enthusiastic about but - if implemented correctly - not something they can do much about either apart from restricting access to Apple-created software to Apple-created hardware and operating environments (something they already do as far as I know).
- kyriakos 10y ago
  I don't see the reason for this. OSX (or Windows) at this time are not something special, dev tools except the platform specific stuff are cross platform. Creative software exists for both (more on Windows actually). What would a compatibility layer with OSX on Windows offer that you can't already do other than ios app packaging and deployment (cause even that you can already develop on other platforms if you don't use the official tools). So even if technically is doable it's really not worth the legal backfire.