OS X to snuggle up to Linux?

[octane]

This has been on my OS X 10.4 wish list for a while. Only a rumor at this stage, but certainly a highly strategic avenue for Apple to pursue.

Article from Mac OS Rumors:

One of the biggest Mac OS X 10.4 features: Linux? It's that time of year again, folks - last year's big operating system release, Panther, is about to get by far its largest and most mature update yet in the form of 10.3.3 and Safari 1.2 in the next couple of weeks, and Apple's attention is beginning to turn to its next major release.

One of our oldest sources has reported in on the beginning stages of this process, and the first item on his bullet list: Linux. Mac OS X 10.4 will more closely merge the Apple experience with that of Linux in several key ways that will visible to users as well as developers. Panther already implements a number of Linux APIs, but Apple hopes to make 10.4's adoptions higher-profile and therefore mirror (rather than cannibalize, we can hope!) Linux's success in creating an "opening wedge" into the Windows world.

 

[Cat]

That is a very vague statement ... especially considering that Linux properly speaking is "just" a kernel ... Maybe they mean "OpenSource Software"? More OSS? Better X11 / Aqua interaction? A package manager like Fink included per default? Option to use Gnome or KDE instead of Aqua? Midnight Commander instead of the Finder ... ?

What is quite certain is that OS X will include the latest developments on the BSD/Mach front since it is based on them, but BSD is not Linux.

 

[octane]

Option to use Gnome or KDE instead of Aqua?...

I wouldn't go that far! I find Linux front-ends to be the most shambolic, half-arsed contraptions I've ever used in my entire life .. other than Windows, that is!..

 

[Studio Zero]

Macosrumors = pile of crap

 

[nixgeek]

I wouldn't go that far! I find Linux front-ends to be the most shambolic, half-arsed contraptions I've ever used in my entire life .. other than Windows, that is!..

Well, I beg to differ. I use KDE and I think it's wonderful. Granted, it's no Aqua, but it's pretty well integrated. GNOME I think still needs some work. It still has some quirks here and there since the move to 2.4. I've been using KDE 3.2rc1 and I'm happy with it on Linux. However, I would be happier if I could actually find a decent mirror to download KDE 3.2 Final for my Slackware machines...

One other thing: KDE, Gnome, and all the other window managers out there don't only run on Linux. This is a common misconception by many, since Linux the most prominent of the UNIX-like operating systems out there (not including Mac OS X). Solaris uses Gnome and KDE, as do the BSDs. Same goes for all the lighter window managers out there.

 

[gerbick]

I really don't sometimes get this fascination to run Linux on whatever... sometimes like it's all in the vein of "because I can..." - case in point, Linux on an iPod. It initially didn't even play music. What's the use?

 

[octane]

Well, I beg to differ...

This is always going to boil down to how you use a computer and what you expect from it. But I've been vocal before now in my views on Linux.

I can only imagine that you live out of the CLI. The fact is, after just ten minutes of looking at the most inane, poorly rendered, cluttered, jumbled, child-like, mismanaged and clunky UI I've _ever_ seen in all of my born days I liberated my iBook by wiping the hard drive and re-installed OS X .. which by the way _should_ have been on another partition but Yellow Dog Linux decided that this particular symbiosis wasn't going to continue.

I couldn't even search for an application by name for crying out loud! I had to enter a name with a dot-suffix and I could only search within my user account.

The networking 'wizard' cast its magic spell and utterly misidentified my AirPort wireless card, couldn't figure out what to do with Ethernet and took it upon itself to draw pretty [erratic] dotted lines down my screen whenever I moved the mouse pointer.

[author pauses for breath]

Need I go on? It's crap...

 

[octane]

Well, when all's said and done, if anyone can give a Linux a little luvin', Apple can:

Article from Mac Rumors

Apple's 10.4 "Linux initiative" could work both ways. Today's crop of new reports on this topic not only provide considerable confirmation that Apple is indeed pondering a "Linux adoption" move, but hint at an angle we haven't covered yet. It has been suggested that Apple could gain quite a bit of attention and support from the GNU/Linux/OSS communities by porting more of its key pieces of software to Linux: Xcode, Rendezvous, QuickTime, iTunes, and iChat have all been mentioned. More on this later in the week as we continue to analyze this particularly tantalizing line of inquiry....

What I think is interesting here is the applications / technologies mentioned are either non-commercial or are revenue-making; Quicktime, iTunes.

Apple would have little to loose and a great deal to gain...

 

[Ripcord]

I don't think Apple's going to try to turn OS X into Linux, etc, but moving forward it really is in their best interests to make it as easy as possible to run/port apps developed for Linux and integrate OS X into Linux platform environments.

Linux (as a platform, not as a kernel) has been building a lot of momentum, and 2004 is shaping up to be no exception, with the 2.6 kernel, KDE 3.2, Novell/SuSE/Ximian, etc.

Linux is already incredibly popular in the server room and will be seeing expansion onto much higher-end hardware than had been seen before.

Linux is also shaping up to look like the only potential competitor to Windows with any merit on the x86 desktop. It's still terrible as a desktop OS (KDE is leaps and bounds better than it used to be, and a lot of it has to do with how well it's distributed/integrated (look at the worlds of difference in usability between SuSE 9.0 and Fedora.)), but every sign is pointing to it being a serious contender.

It would behoove Apple to take advantage in any way that they can of any holes Linux starts building in Microsoft's armor. Apple is already seen to be on the more OSS-friendly side of the proprietary vendors, so I'm sure a large portion of the OSS community would be open to sharing...

 

[Ripcord]

Well, when all's said and done, if anyone can give a Linux a little luvin', Apple can:

Article from Mac Rumors



What I think is interesting here is the applications / technologies mentioned are either non-commercial or are revenue-making; Quicktime, iTunes.

Apple would have little to loose and a great deal to gain...

If Linux were to garner, say, a 15% market share on the desktop, it would be stupid for ANY vendor -- Apple, Real, even Microsoft -- to ignore it for revenue-generating apps like media players/stores.

Personally, I think Linux (the platform) has at least another year to mature before it becomes even considerable for use on the general-purpose desktop, but 2004 is going to see a lot of pickup on special-purpose desktops (customer service environments, kiosks, etc).

A 15% marketshare by Linux would be automatically good for OS X, since at least 15% of the market will NOT run Windows. Right now, for example, one of the key reasons that websites aren't being developed to support non-Windows-IE browsers is the complaint that "hey, 96% of my potential customers use IE, it's not worth my while to spend the effort for the rest, who should just use IE anyway". It would be a different story if, say, 18% of your potential customers were using Mozilla and/or a Konqueror-based browser, and *couldn't* switch to IE.

Much of the app development happening is following the same mindset, if Linux held a much larger marketshare, and it was trivial to port to OS X, we'd see a lot more OS X apps on the shelves...

 

[octane]

OK, the other stuff you said is fine. I agree with that, but this snippet:

Personally, I think Linux (the platform) has at least another year to mature before it becomes even considerable for use on the general-purpose desktop...

You're having laugh, mate!

Another year! Another lifetime, maybe...

 

[nixgeek]

This is always going to boil down to how you use a computer and what you expect from it. But I've been vocal before now in my views on Linux.

I have high expectation from my computers, be they Mac or PC. I use my Linux machine for basically everything you mentioned there. KDE 3.2 as my desktop environment, Kopete as my multi-protocol IM client, xmms for playing MP3s, noatun for viewing videos. The only thing I miss is iTunes, which I love. Like you said, it's all in how you use it and what you expect from your computer. What I like that I can do in Linux but not in OS X is fine tune my kernel to the way I want. I don't need to, but I am a performance freak so I choose to.

I can only imagine that you live out of the CLI. The fact is, after just ten minutes of looking at the most inane, poorly rendered, cluttered, jumbled, child-like, mismanaged and clunky UI I've _ever_ seen in all of my born days I liberated my iBook by wiping the hard drive and re-installed OS X .. which by the way _should_ have been on another partition but Yellow Dog Linux decided that this particular symbiosis wasn't going to continue.

While Aqua is very beautiful and very intuitive, it's not available for any other Unix-like OS. However, KDE I believe has come very close to making things easy to use on the desktop. My wife is a Windows freak, yet she can navigate herself around my KDE desktop if she needs to and doesn't even have to touch the CLI. I only use the CLI when I need to compile something that's only available through source. Answer me this: where do you go if you have to ping an address in OS X without the help of third-party software? Terminal. How about when you have to see a process that you can't with the Process Viewer?? Terminal. OS X isn't always CLI-free. I believe that the CLI is a benefit, not a detriment, to Unix-like systems like Linux and OS X because of the flexibility it offers. Steve wouldn't have made it available to OS X users if it wasn't beneficial.

I couldn't even search for an application by name for crying out loud! I had to enter a name with a dot-suffix and I could only search within my user account.

I just now did a search for "mozilla" on my Slackware machine with KDE 3.2 using the "Find" selection on the KDE menu. Found it with no problems. The only thing I have to do with spaced-out names is that I have to put them between quotes. Other than that, I'm good.

The networking 'wizard' cast its magic spell and utterly misidentified my AirPort wireless card, couldn't figure out what to do with Ethernet and took it upon itself to draw pretty [erratic] dotted lines down my screen whenever I moved the mouse pointer.

Weird considering that YDL is pretty good with hardware detection, especially with an Airport card. But it's not impossible. Remember that OS X, Macs, and Apple accessories are tailor-made to work with one another...that's what makes everything so seemless on the Mac and Mac OS X. Remember that Linux/PPC isn't only for Apple hardware, but also for those Pegasos motherboards, IBM servers, BeBoxen, old CHRP and PReP workstations... Each of those systems use different components, similar to the x86 boxen in the Windows world. Except that support is a little more obscure in the PPC hardware world.

[author pauses for breath]

Need I go on? It's crap...

I'm sorry that your voyage into LinuxLand ended with a thud. I had moments like that also with Linux, but with perseverence comes proficiency. I learned a lot mucking around with Linux. It's also helped me with OS X and Darwin, NetBSD on my Quadra, and also with my adventure with A/UX. Hopefully Linux, as well as the other open source operating systems by trickle-down-effect, will benefit from Apple's contributions if the rumors are true. Desktop environments may get significant improvements performance-wise as well as prettier desktops. Everyone will benefit, and choice will reign supreme once again. (I can only hope... )

 

[nixgeek]

Another year! Another lifetime, maybe...

Octane, this comment reminds me of how everyone used to think when Windows was back at 3.1. I was one of those people who thought that Windows 3.1 was a joke compared to the Mac OS and that Windows 95 wasn't going to be any better. Windows 95 wasn't all that, but it sure was closer to the Mac than any previous version of Windows was, and we almost witnessed those Death-of-Apple predictions actually come to fruition. Thank goodness Steve Jobs turned the company around. I think if this rumor is true, Apple is learning from its mistakes.

This will benefit everyone, as I said above. Linux will make it on it's prowess, but all Unix-like OSes will benefit from the desktop move made by Linux and the desktop environments that proliferate on it, especially with Apple's help. (And especially since KDE and Gnome run on other operating systems also.)

 

[octane]

Answer me this: where do you go if you have to ping an address in OS X without the help of third-party software? Terminal

Actually, no. I use Network Utility.

I use the Terminal, I have no problem with the Terminal being a part of OS X. How Apple have implemented the CLI within OS X is how it should be; simple, unobtrusive and elegant.

I develop web-based software in PHP and use MySQL for database development. I have to dip into the Terminal every now and then to get things done.

I feel a little guilty in a way because I'm sure you're one of the people who helped me when I was fumbling around trying to figure out how to install Linux in the first place.

What I fail to fathom is how you can use OS X and then some iteration of Linux and not see the shuddering bump that is the night-and-day difference between something looking and working the way it should and something looking so bad that don't know whether to laugh or cry.

After everything that's been said about Linux, all of the hype and build up, I feel utterly and inconsolably deflated and let down by the experience first-hand. It is truly awful.

To quote Doug Brooks, Apple's product manager for server hardware with regards to how Apple have implemented Open Source into their software; "we call it open source made easy."

I have absolutely no doubts as to the prowess of Linux as a server platform. Whenever I source hosting packages for myself or my clients, I insist on Linux or Unix and will not accept any Microsoft Windows system. In the years I've been at this, [cumulatively] I've seen too many lost weeks [yes, weeks not days or even hours] through server down-time when using a Microsoft Windows server platform.

However, with the current state of Linux and the various GUI's, the chances of their being any real penetration into the desktop area are so remote as to be absurd.

I could go on all day about this but the bottom line is, the many-varied GUI's for Linux are a big old bag of bananas .. they're just plain rubbish from beginning to end.

I have to stress that non of this is a slight against yourself, your family [extended or otherwise], any friends, lodgers, pets or strange neighbors you might have.

This is the opinion of someone who lives for usable ergonomics and accessible human interface design .. Linux is not any of that in any way, shape or form...

 

[nixgeek]

I feel a little guilty in a way because I'm sure you're one of the people who helped me when I was fumbling around trying to figure out how to install Linux in the first place.

What I fail to fathom is how you can use OS X and then some iteration of Linux and not see the shuddering bump that is the night-and-day difference between something looking and working the way it should and something looking so bad that don't know whether to laugh or cry.

After everything that's been said about Linux, all of the hype and build up, I feel utterly and inconsolably deflated and let down by the experience first-hand. It is truly awful.

To quote Doug Brooks, Apple's product manager for server hardware with regards to how Apple have implemented Open Source into their software; "we call it open source made easy."

I have absolutely no doubts as to the prowess of Linux as a server platform. Whenever I source hosting packages for myself or my clients, I insist on Linux or Unix and will not accept any Microsoft Windows system. In the years I've been at this, [cumulatively] I've seen too many lost weeks [yes, weeks not days or even hours] through server down-time when using a Microsoft Windows server platform.

However, with the current state of Linux and the various GUI's, the chances of their being any real penetration into the desktop area are so remote as to be absurd.

I could go on all day about this but the bottom line is, the many-varied GUI's for Linux are a big old bag of bananas .. they're just plain rubbish from beginning to end.

I have to stress that non of this is a slight against yourself, your family [extended or otherwise], any friends, lodgers, pets or strange neighbors you might have.

This is the opinion of someone who lives for usable ergonomics and accessible human interface design .. Linux is not any of that in any way, shape or form...

See, this is the problem. NEVER fall for the hype of something. You're SURE to be let-down. I know as Mac users we're used to hype whenever Stevie takes the floor , but we should look at things for what they are, be they from Apple, MS, or anyone. Linux is great, no doubt about that (at least IMHO ). And yes, the desktop environments and how they interact with the actual OS can leave something to be desired. However, there has been improvement, and remember that not until recently has the push for Linux on the desktop really taken off. The more people you have helping you out, the quicker things evolve. If you asked me a year or two ago whether Linux was ready for the desktop, I would have said no. Now, I think it has a chance...even though it's nowhere near the level of the Mac OS.

Personally, I love using mostly all operating systems. I don't expect the Second Coming from any of them. I have a Windows box, a LinBook, a Mac OS Classic Quadra box, and an OS X machine and Linux machine at work. For me, Linux with KDE is number one...preferably Slackware on the PC and I guess YDL on the Mac. Mac OS X is a close second. Why is this?? Mainly because Linux feels mine, especially when I tweak the kernel to be optimized for my hardware, be it Mac or PC. This is the only thing that keeps the Mac OS at number 2 for me. The other reason that I like Linux is because it's portable, so I can run it on either a Mac or PC. I ran YDL 1.2 way back when on a Power Mac 8550 and that sucker ran great with GNOME 1.x. The only reason the Quadra isn't running Linux is because I don't have enough drive space (currently 500 MB). All I need is a 50pin-68pin converter for a 4 GB SCSI drive I have...

Mind you, if the Mac supported OS X and ran it fast, I would leave OS X. Linux would only go on a Mac that I knew OS X wouldn't run on, or would perform poorly. The PowerBook that will be ordered for me for work will have OS X, and I'm excited about using it. I don't think I would install Linux on it since OS X can do what I need. However, I am also looking to get a low-end Power Mac and run Linux on it.

I can understand your point, though. Linux isn't for everyone, but neither is Mac OS X or Windows. Heck, there are still people using BeOS in the new Zeta incarnation! People are drawn to different things, and I'm glad that we are able to use what caters to our needs. Imagine if all we ran were Mac OS or Windows or Linux....ugh!

It's a shame that your experience wasn't what you expected. I just hope that this isn't your last venture into something a-little-more-different than Different. I went through the same thing the first time around, but I didn't let that discourage me. And don't feel guilty. I would be willing to help you again if you so desired to go down that path (on another system I would recommend, not your main one...I would have left OS X on the iBook ). If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.

 

[fryke]

Well, let's not go into a flamewar about whether linux works on the Desktop, please. There are plenty of those on slashdot.org and other sites. It also doesn't matter that much to this forum (APPLE News & Rumours).

I think MOSR is just musing about this. I mean: Apple quite surely won't 'adopt linux' as in using the linux kernel instead of the Mach kernel. So even _if_ this rumour were true, it would only mean 'more open source software', as has been said before. And this is not a new strategy, Apple's been doing this for years now (adding more OSS, using bash instead of tcsh, including X11 etc.). The only thing I _could_ think of that would make any of this news-worthy in 10.4: Apple could _promote_ their open source activities more. Both the integration of OSS and what they're giving back.

 

[nixgeek]

I wasn't trying to flame....I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was just engaging in discussion. Sorry about that.

 

[TWRayer]

I support computer networks for a living and I must say that MacOS X is much easier to support than Linux. Linux, although powerful, is difficult to setup, use, configure, maintain, and administrate. It feels like it is a OS made up from thousands of individuals - no continuity. The Mac gives the user a consistant easy to use interface.

I have setup Samba, Sendmail, Squirrelmail, Apache and other common packages on both Linux and OS X. There is no comparison.

It has been my real world experience that MacOS X can equal the power of Linux, but with the ease of use which surpasses even Windows.

It is laughable that businesses are considering Linux desktops to replace Windows. Who is going to train these people? I have suggested Mac desktops to businesses and a common complaint is that the users will have to 'relearn' how to use the computer - This on a Mac which runs Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer!!!! Wait til these users try StarOffice with Konquerer!!!!

Also, when it comes to high end servers, compare Red Hat Advanced Server, with its management tools to Apple's MacOS X Server graphical server tools - no comparison.

 

[nixgeek]

Well, the latest Konqueror received some returns from Apple using the KHTML engine in Safari. A lot of the enhancements that Apple made to Safari has been given back to the KDE community for Konqueror. I'm currently using KDE 3.2 on my Slackware box and it feels much faster and more stable. This arrangement looks to be good for Apple and the Linux community, especially for the desktop environments most *NIX operating systems run (with the exception of OS X, of course, since Aqua is really the inspiration for most of them).