How? The answer is, they couldn't. Sure they had POSIX, but that's only a small part of the overall requirements.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Studio M1 Ultra GPU will be beaten by AMD and Nvidia in just 6-7 months.
- Thread starter exoticSpice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's nice. I don't actually care about video editing or that industry. You do you. We all have your particular fields.
You weren't following that when it was a potential option. It would not have taken much and NT4 was far superior to the MacOS of the period.
I use workstations for scientific computing and engineering purposes. I don't know or really care what you use them for. You're fine with a dated userland. I'm not.
Yes, I am. Also spent a lot of time using the desksides from SillyGee. Good for midrange problems back when the desktop machine was an Indigo1. Still have an Octane for nostaligia.
It isn't dated, you just use Linux. Here's a hint. The unix philosophy is: small tools that you combine to produce the result you want.
The Gnu/linux philosophy is: hey, let's add more and more options to each command line tool. Making them less secure, more bloated, and emulating windows instead of unix because we exist in a bubble and have no knowledge the outside world, or the tools we borrowed.
Gnu: gnu's not unix.
Antiquated? It works. It does the job adequately. Lots of custom tools written over the years that would be cost-prohibitive to port to a new API just because.
Your experience is driven by your own use for the systems as glorified desktops only such that you "lol" at a Cray.
I use Linux as that's the Unix-like OS with better software and hardware support than anything like it these days. I've also used Free and OpenBSD where that made sense. Your point?
With Linux I have a more-or-less common userland from desktop to supercomputer. I get it that you don't like GNU. I find Stallman grating, but the most prevalent OS in technical computing usually uses GNU as the userland.
Last edited:
Once again you are mistaken.
I don't doubt it works. The problem is you are using technology progressing as a tool to bash macOS with. If you are happy with old tools that's fine. As you said it works for you. That doesn't mean other more forward looking os should be insulted.
The lol at Cray was calling them with workstations.
You are confused.
It definitely has the most support, just as Windows does. Both are terrible. Why are you wasting your time on a mac forum if you value linux so much. Don't they have a forum on phoronix?
It's fine to use linux due to its ubiquity and support. I use it and I use Windows.
My issue is with comments where you disparage macOS and state it's not a serious workstation os. It's a deeply ignorant statement.
If I am, then entire industries are.
I'm "bashing" MacOS because they're dropping APIs I find useful (or at least deprecating them), so I find MacOS less useful than it was when I switched personally. If an operating system is "insulted" by that - as if that's a thing, I don't really care.
I didn't call Cray supercomputers "workstations", just that all of them currently run some version of Linux.
I don't have an issue with you being annoyed with api removal. That's totally legitimate. It's just a step too far to say something isn't "serious" or "real" because it doesn't suit your needs. Many things don't suit my needs, I don't disparage them in this way. It's just ignorant.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. I have several other MacOS machines at home, but for personal research, I use Linux for the better software support. I'd like the M1 hardware without MacOS because I DO NOT LIKE the direction they're going OS wise. I still want a good X11 or Wayland server and I want the graphics libraries I've used for work for years because they work and it's MacOS does not give enough benefit otherwise to be worth porting to Metal or whatever their flavor of the month is.
I'm not sure why you (1) care and (2) are so offended by the concept that some users have different requirements. I've been using UNIX systems work work purposes since the 80s. I know what a "Unix workstation" is and also know what *I* use them for.
You're just twisting things now. I'm not offended by your requirements. I'm offended by your insulting other people's requirements. Just because you need X11 and OpenGL, a platform that's moved beyond those things (as Linux will soon) you state it's not "serious".
If you knew what a workstation was, Im not sure you'd be so quick to confuse them with supercomputers/hpc.
Get a grip. You are not the sole arbiter of serious unix computing.
Didn't you state that Linux was maybe only useful for "cheap servers"? Wonder what OS Apple uses for their streaming services... Linux doesn't suit your needs. Fine. MacOS suits my needs as a home computer, but is too much bother to suite my needs as a Unix workstation. Can it be made to work? I already said that it could, but in this day and age the simplest approach is often the best. Apple marketed OS X early on to the technical and scientific market. That is now no longer their focus. I should think that is clear.
Cheap isn't a value statement in this context. Linux runs great on ordinary x86 hardware. It's the main reason Sun etc died.
"Linux" runs on nearly everything.
Sun died because (1) bought by Larry and (2) Solaris no longer really offered an advantage.
But you are the one stating an os isn't serious. I just said gnu tools were anti-unix. Linux is great on the server, not so great on the desktop. Doesn't mean it isn't a serious tool. Just less good than macOS.
ZFS, Dtrace etc were a big advantage. Most people just want the cheapest option, hence linux on x86 won.