4 ms·

There was never a right time for Apple to make such a switch. NeXTSTEP predates Linux, and when it was adapted into Mac OS X, Apple couldn't afford a wholesale

There was never a right time for Apple to make such a switch. NeXTSTEP predates Linux, and when it was adapted into Mac OS X, Apple couldn't afford a wholesale kernel replacement project on top of everything else, and Linux in the late 1990s was far from being an obviously superior choice. Once they were a few versions in to OS X and solidly established as the most successful UNIX-like OS for consumer PCs, switching to a Linux base would have been an expensive risk with very little short-term upside. Maybe if Apple had been able to keep classic MacOS going five years longer, or Linux had matured five years earlier, the OS X transition could have been very different. But throwing out XNU in favor of a pre-2.6 Linux kernel wouldn't have made much sense.

swatson741 2y ago
I agree with all of this. Moreover depending on what Torvalds chooses to do Apple may have ended up with a more expensive XNU in the end which would have been a disaster. Although I think Apple can deal with Torvalds just fine who really knows how that would have played out.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  It would not be fine. It would have never been fine. It would have been a titanic clash of egos and culture, producing endless bickering and finger-pointing, with little meeting of minds. Apple runs the most vertically integrated general systems model outside of mainframes. Linux and its ecosystem represent the least. In any case, as others have noted, the timeline here w.r.t nextstep is backwards.
lunarlull 2y ago
Making a switch is one thing, but using Linux from the start for OS X would have made more sense. The only reason that didn't happen is because of Jobs' attachment to his other baby. It wasn't a bad choice, but it was a choice made from vanity and ego over technical merit.
- andrewf 2y ago
  This presumes that Apple brought in Jobs as a decision maker, and NeXTSTEP was attached baggage. At the time, the reverse was true - Apple purchased NeXTSTEP as their future OS, and Jobs came along for the ride. Given the disaster that was Apple's OS initiatives in the 90s, I doubt the Apple board would have bought into a Linux adventure.
  - lunarlull 2y ago
    Why wouldn't Apple have been interested in a Linux option? They bought NeXTSTEP because of Jobs. Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000, and they could have added in the UX stuff and drivers for their particular macs on top of it. There wouldn't have been any downsides for them, and it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival.
    - musicale 2y ago
      > Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000 Apple made its decision in 1996.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Not only was the acquisition during the 1990's, as someone that happened to be a Linux zealot up to around 2004, usable was quite relative in 2000, if one had the right desktop parts. And it only became usable as Solaris/AIX/HP-UX replacement thanks to the money IBM, Oracle and Compaq pumped into Linux's development around 2000, it is even on the official timeline history.
    - DeathArrow 2y ago
      >it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival. If by biggest rival you mean Microsoft, it was Microsoft who saved Apple from bancrupcy in 1997.
      - kfir 2y ago
        Microsoft did that not out of charity to Apple but as an attempt to fend off the DOJ trial accusing it of being a monopoly

swatson741 2y ago

I agree with all of this. Moreover depending on what Torvalds chooses to do Apple may have ended up with a more expensive XNU in the end which would have been a disaster. Although I think Apple can deal with Torvalds just fine who really knows how that would have played out.

inopinatus 2y ago
It would not be fine. It would have never been fine. It would have been a titanic clash of egos and culture, producing endless bickering and finger-pointing, with little meeting of minds. Apple runs the most vertically integrated general systems model outside of mainframes. Linux and its ecosystem represent the least. In any case, as others have noted, the timeline here w.r.t nextstep is backwards.

lunarlull 2y ago

Making a switch is one thing, but using Linux from the start for OS X would have made more sense. The only reason that didn't happen is because of Jobs' attachment to his other baby. It wasn't a bad choice, but it was a choice made from vanity and ego over technical merit.

andrewf 2y ago
This presumes that Apple brought in Jobs as a decision maker, and NeXTSTEP was attached baggage. At the time, the reverse was true - Apple purchased NeXTSTEP as their future OS, and Jobs came along for the ride. Given the disaster that was Apple's OS initiatives in the 90s, I doubt the Apple board would have bought into a Linux adventure.
- lunarlull 2y ago
  Why wouldn't Apple have been interested in a Linux option? They bought NeXTSTEP because of Jobs. Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000, and they could have added in the UX stuff and drivers for their particular macs on top of it. There wouldn't have been any downsides for them, and it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival.
  - musicale 2y ago
    > Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000 Apple made its decision in 1996.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Not only was the acquisition during the 1990's, as someone that happened to be a Linux zealot up to around 2004, usable was quite relative in 2000, if one had the right desktop parts. And it only became usable as Solaris/AIX/HP-UX replacement thanks to the money IBM, Oracle and Compaq pumped into Linux's development around 2000, it is even on the official timeline history.
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    >it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival. If by biggest rival you mean Microsoft, it was Microsoft who saved Apple from bancrupcy in 1997.
    - kfir 2y ago
      Microsoft did that not out of charity to Apple but as an attempt to fend off the DOJ trial accusing it of being a monopoly