5 ms·

On the desktop side, a good UI on OS X compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things (legacy tech, mix of ..i

On the desktop side, a good UI on OS X compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things (legacy tech, mix of ..ix/Mach/Next/MacOS). On Linux/FreeBSD it's typically the other way around; no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X), nobody seems to be able to put together a great working desktop standard UI supporting modern hardware. Hopefully somebody will be able to provide a good free desktop on top good *ix platforms like Linux/FreeBSD etc, but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago. The OS X packages like Homebrew and MacPorts make it very easy to run most of the standard backend stuff on OS X while developing, which means many developers prefers to work on modern proper functioning hardware while still deploying on standard Linux servers and similar. In addition technologies like virtualization, Chef/Puppet/Docker etc support additional workflows which allow testing server work locally on OS X before deploying on Linux or similar.

tormeh 12y ago
Ubuntu is pretty close, really. Everything that's needed is better drivers, but unless Canonical makes it's own hardware that's never going to become a resolved issue.
- ElectronCharge 12y ago
  The major issue with Linux only development is the lack of proprietary software. Photoshop, for instance. There is also some great Mac-only software, meaning a Mac runs the widest variety of software of any OS - since you can run Linux, Windows and more in VMs. Finally, Mac provides a much nicer UI experience than any Linux so far. That won't change for the foreseeable future given the grab bag of UI technologies Linux apps use.
peatmoss 12y ago
> compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things. . . no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X) I'm not sure that's really an accurate characterization of OSX. In terms of security, I don't see where there have been any great number of exploits attacking the kernel (XNU) or userland (mostly FreeBSD) layers. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities like heartbleed were hardly OSX specific. I'm also not sure that those layers can really be called inefficient relative to Linux. Mach was a great deal more modular in terms of separation of concerns as compared to Linux (good for cleanliness/security, but never had great performance). However, with their XNU kernel, they seem to have made some of the same tradeoffs as Linux with respect to pure microkernel separation of concerns. OSX has also done, in my opinion, a good job of rethinking parts of the traditional Unix infrastructure that needed rethinking. Check out JKH's talk about FreeBSD and potential future directions, and see how much that is informed by his experience leading the Unix technologies group at Apple (for the record, JKH was also one of the cofounders of FreeBSD, so he's not exactly a slouch): http://youtu.be/Mri66Uz6-8Y http://youtu.be/Mri66Uz6-8Y I'd say the biggest reasons OSX never took off as a server OS are 1) licensing 2) coupling to Apple hardware 3) most of Apple's value-add is for desktops, laptops, and smaller portables--in other words, not compellingly better than other free nixen on the server 4) other nixen focussed on integrating the Chef/Puppet/Docker/virtualization/etc tech that you mention makes life for sysadmins easier.
fragmede 12y ago
> but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago. We started being able to breath again when Ubuntu was released. It's far from perfect but so's OS X.
- ElectronCharge 12y ago
  "It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support. Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.
  - fragmede 12y ago
    It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemite-and-how-to-fix-them-1652690924 http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats-with-yosemite-renaming-shared-devices.html http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats... Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support? Yes! Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google? Still yes! All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.
    - ElectronCharge 12y ago
      Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...
ryanmk 12y ago
I see Android as the future of the linux desktop.
- lmedinas 12y ago
  I'm losing my hopes on Steam OS but still keep my hopes on Android and Chrome OS. Still i'm not sure what to think about Ubuntu and Unity8/Mir.

tormeh 12y ago

Ubuntu is pretty close, really. Everything that's needed is better drivers, but unless Canonical makes it's own hardware that's never going to become a resolved issue.

ElectronCharge 12y ago
The major issue with Linux only development is the lack of proprietary software. Photoshop, for instance. There is also some great Mac-only software, meaning a Mac runs the widest variety of software of any OS - since you can run Linux, Windows and more in VMs. Finally, Mac provides a much nicer UI experience than any Linux so far. That won't change for the foreseeable future given the grab bag of UI technologies Linux apps use.

peatmoss 12y ago

> compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things. . . no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X) I'm not sure that's really an accurate characterization of OSX. In terms of security, I don't see where there have been any great number of exploits attacking the kernel (XNU) or userland (mostly FreeBSD) layers. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities like heartbleed were hardly OSX specific. I'm also not sure that those layers can really be called inefficient relative to Linux. Mach was a great deal more modular in terms of separation of concerns as compared to Linux (good for cleanliness/security, but never had great performance). However, with their XNU kernel, they seem to have made some of the same tradeoffs as Linux with respect to pure microkernel separation of concerns. OSX has also done, in my opinion, a good job of rethinking parts of the traditional Unix infrastructure that needed rethinking. Check out JKH's talk about FreeBSD and potential future directions, and see how much that is informed by his experience leading the Unix technologies group at Apple (for the record, JKH was also one of the cofounders of FreeBSD, so he's not exactly a slouch): http://youtu.be/Mri66Uz6-8Y http://youtu.be/Mri66Uz6-8Y I'd say the biggest reasons OSX never took off as a server OS are 1) licensing 2) coupling to Apple hardware 3) most of Apple's value-add is for desktops, laptops, and smaller portables--in other words, not compellingly better than other free nixen on the server 4) other nixen focussed on integrating the Chef/Puppet/Docker/virtualization/etc tech that you mention makes life for sysadmins easier.

fragmede 12y ago

> but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago. We started being able to breath again when Ubuntu was released. It's far from perfect but so's OS X.

ElectronCharge 12y ago
"It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support. Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.
- fragmede 12y ago
  It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemite-and-how-to-fix-them-1652690924 http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats-with-yosemite-renaming-shared-devices.html http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats... Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support? Yes! Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google? Still yes! All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.
  - ElectronCharge 12y ago
    Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...

ryanmk 12y ago

I see Android as the future of the linux desktop.

lmedinas 12y ago
I'm losing my hopes on Steam OS but still keep my hopes on Android and Chrome OS. Still i'm not sure what to think about Ubuntu and Unity8/Mir.