FAQ: Common misconceptions about Mac OS X

[schauerlich]

Within the greater Linux community, and on these forums in particular, I have noticed a great deal of misinformation with respect to Mac OS X and Apple's contributions to the Unix community. I'd like to address these topics in an FAQ-style post. This is by no means a comprehensive list of issues, and I plan on adding to this post in the future. Feel free to suggest topics and I'll address them as I have time.

Have you noticed any "myths" or "misconceptions" about Mac OS X that aren't on this list? Do you think I've said something inaccurate or misleading? Let me know! Respond to this thread, quoting the relevant sections, and you just might see your argument incorporated into this FAQ.

Much of the first few pages of this thread are responses to an older version of this post. Please keep in mind that it has changed a lot since those responses were written.


Commonly stated: Mac OS X only runs on Apple Hardware.
More accurate description: Well, sort of. True, its license states it can only be run on Apple hardware; However, options do exist to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, such as the excellent OSx86 project. Similarly, Psystar and PearC offer prebuilt computers which come with OS X preinstalled. Psystar is in the middle of a suit with Apple over the legitimacy of certain pertinent sections the Apple EULA. UPDATE: both companies have gone under. It's not that OS X doesn't run on non-Apple hardware, it's just not Apple-sanctioned to do so. Currently whether this is legal is up for debate. However, it is true that Mac OS X does not run out of the box on non-Apple hardware, and you have to enter legally murky waters to get there. Depending on your perspective, this may count as running on non-Apple hardware or not. It is not like NetBSD where it is open and ready to be installed on anything. It's more like getting Linux to run on a wrist watch. You can get there, but it takes some finangling. And also, Swatch might sue you for licensing violations. Details...




CS: Mac OS X is closed source.
MAD: Parts of it are, parts of it aren't. Much of the core of OS X is fully open source. Apple maintains a Unix distribution known as Darwin, which serves as the base for each release of OS X. For a while, Darwin was distributed in binary form and available on Apple's website to download. Currently you can download Darwin's source in full here. Apple has never intended Darwin to be a distribution for every day use; however, a community effort called PureDarwin has sprung up to make it more usable. UPDATE: I think it's safe to say the PureDarwin project is no more. Mac OS X is proprietary, there is no doubt about it. However, proprietary does not necessarily mean that it does not contain open source components which are released for modification and redistribution. Mac OS Forge is a community project that helps develop the FOSS components of Mac OS X.

Apple has also released several of their own projects under FOSS licenses. The most recent and most significant example of this is Grand Central Dispatch. GCD is a C library (also useable with C based languages such as Objective-C, C++, etc) which makes it easy for programmers to make their apps multi-threaded. For a summary of the technology, see the Ars Technica review of Mac OS X 10.6, as well as Apple's Developer Connection page on it. Apple's motive for open sourcing one of the main selling points of Snow Leopard is unclear, but the consensus seems to be that their use of blocks is a non-standard extension of C, and encouraging other Unix based systems to adopt it would benefit everyone. GCD has already been ported to FreeBSD, and will most likely make its way to the other BSDs soon.

Another significant FOSS project at Apple is CUPS, the Common Unix Printing System. CUPS has found its way into many Linux distributions, and is licensed under the GNU GPL/LGPLv2 (although it has some exceptions which allow Apple's proprietary code to link against it).



CS: Apple ripped off BSD/GNU/FOSS advocates
MAD: Apple has released all of the open source code it's integrated into Darwin/OS X back to the community. See Apple's Open Source page for more details. While Apple has not released the more "important parts" of the OS (to the end user) such as Cocoa or Aqua, it has released all of the code it used from open source projects back to the community.




CS: Mac OS X is "just BSD with a shiny exterior," or "just an expensive version of Linux."
MAD: Apple has incorporated a good amount of BSD code into Darwin. No one disputes the valuable contributions made to the Unix community at large and indirectly to Apple by the BSD community. However, to say that Mac OS X is simply BSD with a shiny exterior, or an expensive version of Linux, is misleading at best. OS X is based on the XNU kernel, a Mach/BSD hybrid kernel (with Apple's additions in I/O Kit), and incorporates a good amount of the base system from FreeBSD and various Unixes (although there are some GNU programs in there, such as screen, grep and bash). There is a standard POSIX environment, but most of the more visible portions of the OS are either descended from NeXTSTEP or made in-house by Apple.

The most visible contribution Apple has made to OS X is the Cocoa API. Written in Objective-C, Cocoa was based off of the OpenStep API developed for NeXTSTEP. Cocoa provides developers a common palette to give their applications access to many key Core services, and help to standardize the interface across applications. A FOSS implementation of the OpenStep API exists, named GNUstep. The project now aims to match Cocoa's public interface instead of the OpenStep standard, although it has a long way to go.

See here for more information about Mac OS X's architecture.




CS: Mac OS X is bloated and slow.
MAD: This is largely subjective. Sure, if you're installing Leopard on an original iMac, it's going to go slower than RMS in a pool of molasses. I run Lion on a MacBookPro6,2 and find it runs quite smoothly. Like with ANY operating system, your mileage may vary.




CS: Mac OS X caters to grandmas and creative types, not power users.
MAD: While Apple does do its best to make its software simple and easy to use, and provides great multimedia applications, OS X is by no means limited to bearded twentysomethings and their grandmothers. Apple provides the Xcode development suite with every installation of OS X to encourage development on their platform. A fully POSIX compliant environment is provided, making it easy to port applications originally written for other Unix distributions. MacPorts, Fink and homebrew make it relatively painless to install your favorite Unix tools on OS X.

In addition, the great community of developers has made several utilities which simplify daily tasks and center navigation on the keyboard, the most famous example of which is QuickSilver. This excellent tool is what Gnome Do is based on, and it makes it easy to get around with just the keyboard.

It is true that Aqua is not very customizable as far as interfaces go. In the end, it comes down to a decision made by Apple that you may or may not agree with: to sacrifice customizability for consistency. Third party applications and Library hacks have made Mac OS X a little more flexible, and often times editing a plist will reveal a bundle of hidden options (somewhat like the gconf editor in GNOME). However, this customizability pales in comparison to that of Linux. For some, this may not be a big deal. For others, it may be a deal breaker. In the end, it's a matter of preference. Choose what makes you feel comfortable.




CS: Mac OS X isn't REAL Unix.
MAD: With Leopard, Mac OS X has been SUSv3 certified, and is an Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product (when run on Intel processors). Whether this qualifies as a "real" Unix depends on what you mean by "real" Unix. If you mean "it's just like Linux," then it probably doesn't qualify. If you mean that it fits the Open Group's standards for using the Unix trademark, then it does.




CS: "Mac OS X 10.0/10.1/10.2/10.3 was a nightmare, I'll never touch OS X again."
MAD: 10.0-10.3 are quite different from the last few point releases. Apple was struggling to stay afloat when Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, and Apple was stuck using an outdated and slow OS on their computers. After attempts to modernize the OS failed, Apple decided to abandon the OS 9 platform and move to a completely new OS. When Mac OS X 10.0 was released in 2000, it was buggy, slow, feature-poor and pinstripe-rich. It was Apple's effort to put something out to keep their business going. Once Apple had a reliable source of income, it was able to put more time and money into developing OS X into what it should have been. This goal (in my mind) was realized in 10.4, and further refined since. The last few point releases of OS X are radically different from the first four. If you tried any of the earlier versions and were put off by it, I strongly encourage you to plop down in a chair at your local Apple store and check out Mac OS X for 15 minutes or so. You might find your opinion of it has changed. Or, you might not.




CS: Mac OS X doesn't have any good free (libre or beer) software available.
MAD: MacPorts, Fink and homebrew are a few efforts to port Linux/BSD apps to OS X, and make them accessible through repositories. Lots of great software is available through these avenues, and Apple even has an implementation of X11 for GUI applications. X11 support isn't great, and I prefer to wait for apps to be ported to Cocoa, but if you're in a pinch and need to use something, it will do. In addition, sites such as MacUpdate are great for finding OS X freeware. For a given functionality found in a shareware application, there's almost always an equivalent functionality in a free application. I've never run into any trouble finding free (beer) software to do what I need on Mac OS X.




CS: The Mac OS X command line is incomplete/different from Linux/not as good as Linux's.
MAD: It is true that Apple does not put as much effort into refining the command line as it does to the GUI. However, complete access is given to the command line through Terminal.app. Terminal runs GNU bash by default, and a whole host of command line goodies are provided either by default or are easily obtainable through MacPorts/Fink. Apple provides command line versions of many of their GUI Apps, such as Disk Utility (diskutil), Software Update (softwareupdate), Universal Access speech synthesizer (say), and so on.

Linux has a very powerful command line. Most problems that can be fixed from the GUI can be fixed even quicker from the command line. This isn't always going to be the case on Mac OS X. Perhaps this is a case of differing audiences: most OS X users don't want to see the terminal, whereas many Linux users expect it. Whatever the reason, the Mac OS X terminal may not be all you expect it to be when switching from Linux. However, Mac OS X is POSIX compliant and has a wealth of command line tools ported from Linux/BSD available.




That's it for now. Feel free to suggest topics or call me out on inaccurate statements I may have made.

[tubezninja]

+1 your efforts sir.

[Giant Speck]

You're wrong. Just kidding.

[ghindo]

What prompted this?

[schauerlich]

What prompted this?

I refer you to the first sentence of my post.

[Tipped OuT]

You're wrong. Just kidding.

You're wrong. [Invisible Text Goes Here]

[schauerlich]

You're wrong.

I suggest you hit Ctrl+A a read Giant Speck's post again.

[Firestem4]

Great job on the write-out. I found out somet things I never before knew about Mac's/Apple.

+1

[Rainstride]

Within the greater Linux community, and on these forums in particular, I have noticed a great deal of ignorance with respect to Mac OS X and Apple's contributions to the Unix community. I'd like to address these topics FAQ-style post, trying to avoid bias when possible. This is by no means a comprehensive list of issues that are commonly brought up, and I plan on adding to this post in the future. Feel free to suggest topics and I'll address them as I have time.




Misconception: Mac OS X only runs on Apple Hardware.
Truth: Well, sort of. True, its license states it can only be run on Apple hardware; However, Apple has done nothing to discourage the use of OSx86 and similar projects which enable you to run Leopard on non-Apple x86 hardware. Similarly, Psystar and PearC offer prebuilt computers which come with OS X preinstalled. It's not the OS X doesn't run on non-Apple hardware, it's just not Apple-sanctioned to do so. Currently whether this is legal is up for debate. Psystar is in the middle of a suit with Apple over the legitimacy of the Apple EULA.




M: Mac OS X is closed source.
T: Parts of it are, parts of it aren't. Much of the core of OS X is fully open source. Apple maintains a Unix distribution known as Darwin, which serves as the base for each release of OS X. Until recently, Darwin was distributed in binary form and available on Apple's website to download. Currently you can download Darwin's source in full here. Apple has never intended Darwin to be a distribution for every day use; however, a community effort called PureDarwin has sprung up to make it more usable.




M: Apple is evil/ripped off BSD/GNU/FOSS advocates/kills babies.
T: Apple has released all of the code it's integrated into Darwin/OS X back to the community. See Apple's Open Source page for more details.




M: Mac OS X is just BSD with a shiny exterior.
T: Apple has incorporated a good amount of BSD code into Darwin. No one disputes the valuable contributions made to the Unix community at large and indirectly to Apple by the BSD community. However, to say that Mac OS X is simply BSD with a shiny exterior is misleading at best. OS X's kernel, XNU, is a hybrid kernel incorporating the Mach Kernel, components from 4.3BSD, and I/O Kit.

What really makes Mac OS X unique are its Core services: Core OpenGL, Core Image, Core Video, and Core Animation, to name but a few. These frameworks provide a solid foundation upon which applications may be developed, and provide access to key components of the Darwin system lying beneath.

The most visible contribution Apple has made to OS X is the Cocoa API. Written in Objective-C, Cocoa was based off of the OpenStep API developed for NeXTSTEP. Cocoa is what gives Mac OS X applications their "shiny" Apple-y look and feel, and provides a standard across all applications to keep a consistent interface. A FOSS implementation of the OpenStep API exists, named GNUstep.




M: Mac OS X is bloated and slow.
T: This is largely subjective. Sure, if you're installing Leopard on an original iMac, it's going to go slower than RMS in a pool of molasses. I run Leopard on a MacBook2,1 and find it runs quite smoothly. Like with ANY operating system, your mileage may vary, and just because you have a bad experience, it does not mean the rest of the world has the same.




M: Mac OS X caters to grandmas and creative types, not power users.
T: This is not true at all. While Apple does do its best to make its software simple and easy to use, and provides great multimedia applications, OS X is by no means limited to bearded twentysomethings and their grandmothers. Apple provides the Xcode development suite with every installation of OS X to encourage development on their platform. A fully POSIX compliant environment is provided, making it easy to port applications originally written for other Unix distributions.

In addition, the great community of developers has made several utilities which simplify daily tasks and center navigation on the keyboard, the most famous example of which is QuickSilver. This excellent tool is what Gnome Do is based on, and it makes it easy to get around with just the keyboard.




M: Mac OS X isn't REAL Unix.
T: Au contraire. With Leopard, Mac OS X has been SUSv3 certified, and are Open Brand UNIX 03 registered products. That makes them more of a "real" Unix than Linux is.




M: "Mac OS X 10.0/10.1/10.2/10.3 were a nightmare, I'll never touch it again."
T: 10.0-10.3 did suck. Apple was struggling to stay afloat when Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, and Apple was stuck using an outdated and slow OS on their computers. After attempts to modernize the OS failed, Apple decided to abandon the OS 9 platform and move to a completely new OS. When Mac OS X 10.0 was released in 2000, it was buggy, slow, feature-poor and pinstripe-rich. It was Apple's effort to put something out to keep their business going. Once Apple had a reliable source of income, it was able to put more time and money into developing OS X into what it should have been. This goal was realized in 10.4, and further refined in 10.5. The last two point releases of OS X are radically different from the first four.




M: Mac OS X doesn't have any good free (libre or beer) software available.
T: Not true at all. MacPorts and Fink are two efforts to port Linux/BSD apps to OS X, and make them accessible through repositories. Lots of great software is available through these avenues, and Apple even has an implementation of X11 for GUI applications. I use irssi on my MacBook with no trouble. In addition, sites such as MacUpdate are great for finding OS X freeware. For each shareware application, there's almost always an equivalent free application. I've never run into any trouble finding software to do what I need on Mac OS X.




That's it for now. Feel free to suggest topics or call me out on inaccurate statements I may have made.

trolling?

[Firestem4]

trolling?

How is that trolling?