macOS OS X Unix

[knightjp]

To be honest, I've got a Hackintosh. It runs OS X just fine without any issues. Recently watching Linux review on youtube, I did think about switching over to Linux because of its variety of software, GUIs, etc... FreeBSD also was tempting.

OS X has one advantage where it can run certain in demand propriety software natively. Speaking of MS Office suite and the media production software like Final Cut and Photoshop, etc. Linux has awesome alternatives, but truth be told, does lag a bit behind the paid stuff.

 

[burne]

You need third party installed software to watch TV in OS X it does not have the drivers to do it all by itself.

You need to install possibly an appropriate set of kernel and drivers and something like Plex or XMBC to watch tv on linux because linux by itself doesn't have the drivers and software to do it all by itself.

Assuming your linux platform is capable of showing TV. None of my several thousand linux machines have a monitor or keyboard installed. You need to bring one if you want to watch TV. Also, you need to bring extra big speakers to drown out the fans in the machines and the external cooling. > 80dbA on average. And you won't like the 80ºF ambient temperature. You could sit in the cold corridor, but the noise is ever louder there, too loud for exposure without hearing protection.

 

[knightjp]

That is an insane setup. I wonder if Tony Stark has something similar. Always wondered what the specs on Jarvis is. Haha. But that discussion is for another thread.

 

[MacUser2525]

This is nonsense, you can by definition do a lot of things apart from driving hardware, NKEs or Mandatory access control filters are two common usages for kernel extensions that have nothing to do with drivers. A kernel extension share address space with the kernel, and are part of the kernel process. It's actally you that have no clue. But all of this is pointless, given that this is the Internet..

plonk.

 

[burne]

That is an insane setup.

It is the first (actually last, row L) of 12 rows in total, 6 pairs. This is room B. Room A is a mirror image. Rooms C-E have different layouts, but the same floorspace and number of cabinets. Beyond that there are four more rooms, currently unused. They have a second similar sized but less well filled facility 35 miles away. And it's one of the smaller facilities that make up the AMS-IX. Some others are 10 times the size of this one. Our equipment is spread over a total of 8 such locations. 98% of the machines in facilities like this are running linux. And I have been managing parks like this for the last 17 or 18 years.

 

[theluggage]

Software proprietary to watching tv, so to say?

No, "proprietary" as in not open source, not free, only available as binaries, only legally available if you pay money to Elgato - as compared to Linux where the DVB API and drivers are part of the standard kernel, and the application software such as MythTV or Kodi + TVHeadEnd is free.

You need to install possibly an appropriate set of kernel and drivers and something like Plex or XMBC to watch tv on linux because linux by itself doesn't have the drivers and software to do it all by itself.

The DVB API and drivers have been part of the mainstream kernel for the last decade and can be found in the Linux kernel repository here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/k....git/tree/drivers/media?id=refs/tags/v3.18.20 - and if you look in the "tuners" or "dvb-frontends" directories you'll see the list of supported DVB tuner chipsets - including PCIe cards (I'd assume they'd work in a CMP running Linux) and DVB-T2 tuners that just aren't supported by Elgato.

None of my several thousand linux machines have a monitor or keyboard installed.

(Actually, you can run the MythTV backend on a headless Linux box then stream TV and recordings to the OS X version of Kodi (XBMC) or MythFrontend on your Mac...)

Of course, one of the features of Linux is that you (or the distro producer) get to compile a custom kernel with just the features you need, so you'd probably not include the TV stuff in a server-oriented distribution. However, desktop-optimised Linux distributions often have the drivers (just checked on the Linux Mint VM I recently installed and, yup, DVB drivers are there.

 

[burne]

No, "proprietary" as in not open source, not free, only available as binaries, only legally available if you pay money to Elgato

Back away, people. We have a bad case of 'free as in free beer' over here!!

 

[knightjp]

It is the first (actually last, row L) of 12 rows in total, 6 pairs. This is room B. Room A is a mirror image. Rooms C-E have different layouts, but the same floorspace and number of cabinets. Beyond that there are four more rooms, currently unused. They have a second similar sized but less well filled facility 35 miles away. And it's one of the smaller facilities that make up the AMS-IX. Some others are 10 times the size of this one. Our equipment is spread over a total of 8 such locations. 98% of the machines in facilities like this are running linux. And I have been managing parks like this for the last 17 or 18 years.

So all of them are just one cluster system? Or each room = 1 cluster system.

 

[displaced]

Devoid of fanboyism, this topic is really very interesting (if you're that way inclined)

The beauty of Unix-style OSes is that applications can be written in such a way as to work on nearly anything. OS X's heritage means that you're often no more than a few #ifdef's (blocks of code that are compiled conditionally depending on the target platform) away from broad OS compatibility.

OS X is sort of special in that so many APIs are first-class citizens (for slightly varying definitions of 'first class').

Let's take networking as an example. If you're writing a native OS X app, you'd code against the CFNetwork framework, which provides all kinds of helpful abstractions and routines in a nice object-oriented manner. But if you want to be cross-platform, OS X's environment provides the full BSD-style networking API. In fact, for networking, it's Linux and Windows which are the outliers. Linux or Windows networking APIs are (fully) compatible with nothing else, whilst OS X, BSD and a few other Unix-style OSes are directly compatible. But even then, it's pretty trivial to write code that's compatible across all systems.

Plus, there's the Apple-supported (but no longer bundled with the OS) implementation of the X Windowing environment, providing another API.

This is a pretty good diagram of OS X's architecture, although a few of these have been deprecated (Classic MacOS for example)

 

[knightjp]

You are correct. This is an interesting topic just as long as all the fanboy stuff is kept out of it. I will admit that like most users of Mac OS X, I don't believe that I'm using the full potential of the OS.
I think that most people who use Mac OS X will use it for media production, photoshop, & basic web surfing, etc.
I would imagine that there are only a handful that truly have exploited the max of the Darwin Core.
Come to think of it, I believe that just a few people would only know the terminal command line.

Truthfully now, I think that I may have inadvertently opened a can of worms. Everyone has varying views on what kind of kernel OS X has and how up to date it is, etc; when compared with the FreeBSD and Linux kernel.

 

[theluggage]

Back away, people. We have a bad case of 'free as in free beer' over here!!

£59.95 (https://www.elgato.com/en/eyetv/eyetv-3) is not even free beer, and if you live in a region that uses DVB-T2 it isn't even beer.

Lets say it again slower and louder: If you want to run popular Unix home theatre software like MythTV, XBMC/Kodi or Plex under OS X you will find that they don't support TV tuner sticks/cards (see e.g. here) unless you run the tuner backend on Linux. Linux has a an open-standard TV tuner API and a shedload of tuner drivers as part of the kernel (see here). OS X has approx. one commercial TV viewer/PVR app, with (AFAIK) a closed API, that has been bundled with a small handful of tuners and doesn't support anything else (and nothing that can receive HD in several EU regions).

So (as the thread starter asked) there is one specialised example of an occasion when it might make sense to run Linux instead of OS X. There will be others (e.g. software written for Gnome or KDE rather than generic X-window, when you want a stripped-down system for restricted hardware, when you've got some random hardware that doesn't support OS/X).

OTOH there are plenty of circumstances where using the Unix features of OS X make more sense.

 

[theluggage]

Come to think of it, I believe that just a few people would only know the terminal command line.

...actually, its worth it for the symbolic links (couple of 'ln' commands and suddenly my web projects in my home folder are also at /var/www/vhosts/domainname/ just like they are on the server). Or, write a bash script, rename in '.command' and you've got an icon you can double-click on to do common tasks, like rsyncing files.

Truthfully now, I think that I may have inadvertently opened a can of worms.

No, you've opened a tiny sachet of worms that came free with your breakfast cereal as a sampler for the huge vat of giant worms that is BSD vs. Linux (was BSD vs. SysV), monolithic kernel vs, microkernel, BSD license vs. GPL, emacs vs vi, git vs. subversion, systemd vs. the world, X11 vs X.Org, Gnome vs KDE vs XFCE, mysql vs. postgresql (or lets all gang up on mongo) .... This thread is nothing: nobody has yet descended to personal insults, four-letter words or invoked Godwin's law.

Just grab the popcorn, stop worrying and love the fact that any flavour of Un*x is great for anything that doesn't involve user-friendly design.

 

[burne]

So all of them are just one cluster system? Or each room = 1 cluster system.

Many of them are individual websites. But most of my machines in that datacenter are sets of redundant components. I have a more or less standard set of dual firewalls, dual loadbalancers, dual or triple database server, and anywhere from two to twelve application servers, often with additional stuff like fileservers, syslog servers and management and deployment servers.

The odd numbers will be in one data-center, and the other set, the even numbers, in another datacenter. Even things like complete power failure in a datacenter will not result in downtime for the customer.

Most of the racks in the picture with machines in them (the racks to the right were empty at the time, the photo is from 2012) are for a government contract to host the application used to request building permits and the surrounding infrastructure. It's a website for citizens, web-software to process permit-applications for smaller counties and a coupling connector for dedicated backends used by larger counties, and stuff like archiving, record keeping and a notary-like way of authenticating the records we keep.

It sounds quite magical, but I can do all of this on linux, freeBSD, OS X, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX and perhaps even UNICOS or AMIX or even Windows (with a few extra add ons). I choose linux because I can use cheap hardware (relatively speaking) and a well-supported distro like RHEL or CentOS. If it wasn't for my colleagues who aren't very OS-agnostic I might choose FreeBSD as well.

Yes, I love generic UNIX

 

[burne]

OS X has approx. one commercial TV viewer/PVR app, with (AFAIK) a closed API, that has been bundled with a small handful of tuners and doesn't support anything else (and nothing that can receive HD in several EU regions).

I count 63 different kinds of tuner made by 11 manufacturers.

I'm not sure about your hands, but mine don't fit, even though I'm 6'9".

Lets turn things around a bit. I was looking for a cheap SDR, so I ordered a DVB-T receiver from China. They claimed RTL2832U compatibility but that turned out to be a lie. The stick works with the provided (Chinese) windows software, and I can watch SD tv. But none of the linux drivers work. What to do? Who will write a working driver for me? Can I complain somewhere? Or is linux for this particular piece of hardware as much a dead end as it is for OS X?

 

[knightjp]

If it wasn't for my colleagues who aren't very OS-agnostic I might choose FreeBSD as well.

Yes, I love generic UNIX

Do you mean they prefer Linux over FreeBSD?

 

[theluggage]

I count 63 different kinds of tuner made by 11 manufacturers.

Where did you count those? There's 8 current products listed on the EyeTV site of which only 4 are terrestrial TV tuners and approximately 0 (I counted, twice) DVB-T2 ones and certainly no quad PCIe DVB-T2 tuners like I have in my HTPC! NB: products discontinued ten years ago don't count, nor do re-counts of the same generic device under different brand names and, no, the one with T2 in the name is ancient and isn't (as far as I can tell) actually DVB-T2 and the "HD Homerun" (about the only thing that does work with free HTPC software under OS X) isn't "HD" where I live.

I do have an EyeTV Diversity and have actually spent some time looking into this, you know...

Can I complain somewhere? Or is linux for this particular piece of hardware as much a dead end as it is for OS X?

Well, if you go on the LinuxTV website to see if its there (or ask nicely on the mailing lists - complaining won't work) there's a fighting chance someone may have got it going, especially if its a minor hack to an existing driver. I wouldn't give good odds, but they're a darn site better than for OS X.

 

[knightjp]

This thread is nothing: nobody has yet descended to personal insults, four-letter words or invoked Godwin's law.

Just grab the popcorn, stop worrying and love the fact that any flavour of Un*x is great for anything that doesn't involve user-friendly design.

Good to know. I know that people can get pretty defensive about their choice of OS.. Just look at the iOS vs Android stuff. That's a huge giant vat in itself. Just for reference though, I know how much more features Android has over iOS, etc.. It is a great mobile OS, but Still you will not find me using an Android phone. Worst comes to worst, if there is no more iOS, I'd rather use an ancient Blackberry.

If you want to know why.. PM me...

 

[displaced]

You are correct. This is an interesting topic just as long as all the fanboy stuff is kept out of it. I will admit that like most users of Mac OS X, I don't believe that I'm using the full potential of the OS.
I think that most people who use Mac OS X will use it for media production, photoshop, & basic web surfing, etc.
I would imagine that there are only a handful that truly have exploited the max of the Darwin Core.
Come to think of it, I believe that just a few people would only know the terminal command line.

I think you might've been right a decade or so ago. But I increasingly see Macs in use in business and development. I'm a programmer (Windows, Python, etc.). Work provides us with some generic Dell boxes to put on our desks, but every single one of us has a Mac at home.

Sure, I've got Windows 10 running in a virtual machine, but I tend to skip between OS X and the virtual machine to get work done -- use the best tool for each task.

Plus, the number of Macbook Airs I see when visiting customers and suppliers is really quite surprising. Especially where companies have migrated to Office 365 which makes the OS irrelevant.

As for 'extracting the max' from Darwin, well, it's all horses for courses. At the moment, I've got OS X running two virtual machines - Win10, WinXP, and I'm remotely connected (ssh'd) in to two Linux hosts in tabs within Terminal. The trick is to not get hung up on the technologies involved (although certainly appreciate them), but to ask 'what does this let me do?'

Right now, even with Windows 10, it's Windows that feels like it lives in its own ghetto. It's a very big ghetto with lots of history and lots of software floating around, but it's still its own world, no matter how big that world is.

OS X, Linux, and the BSDs share enough ideas and technologies that using a Mac feels much more freeing.

Truthfully now, I think that I may have inadvertently opened a can of worms. Everyone has varying views on what kind of kernel OS X has and how up to date it is, etc; when compared with the FreeBSD and Linux kernel.

I've been using OS X since ~2001 with version 10.0.3. It's come a helluva long way since then. Back then, the Mach kernel, BSD environment, NextStep-based API and Aqua GUI really hadn't gelled. I remember turning services like file sharing on and off by editing /etc/rc.conf, just as you would today on FreeBSD. Mach was slow. The NextStep API (Cocoa) was missing vast swathes of functionality. BSD networking was about the only bright spot. It's been really interesting watching Apple build OS X up into what we have now.

 

[CarlJ]

No, you've opened a tiny sachet of worms that came free with your breakfast cereal as a sampler for the huge vat of giant worms that is BSD vs. Linux (was BSD vs. SysV), monolithic kernel vs, microkernel, BSD license vs. GPL, emacs vs vi, git vs. subversion, systemd vs. the world, X11 vs X.Org, Gnome vs KDE vs XFCE, mysql vs. postgresql (or lets all gang up on mongo) .... This thread is nothing: nobody has yet descended to personal insults, four-letter words or invoked Godwin's law.

The correct answers, BTW, are: BSD preferred but Linux is useful, kernel structure matters little if it works, BSD is more free, vi because we want an editor not an OS (and all hail the mighty MacVim!), git for collaboration and subversion for corporate, whatever the platform requires, who uses X any more, who uses X any more, and PostgreSQL because reliability is more important as a core concept than speed.

All without personal insults or four-letter words. You're welcome.

P.S. Hitler.

 

[theluggage]

The correct answers, BTW, are: BSD preferred but Linux is useful,

Actually, its years since I used BSD, I'll give it a go sometime.

kernel structure matters little if it works,

True

BSD is more free,

Didn't you get the memo: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, MacOS is Unix...

vi because we want an editor not an OS (and all hail the mighty MacVim!),

Hmm - Great OS with a lousy editor vs. great text processing language with a lousy editor. What's option C?

PostgreSQL because reliability is more important as a core concept than speed.

You sayin' PostgreSQL is slow?

P.S. Hitler.

Nothing more to say...

 

[brookter1]

Hmm - Great OS with a lousy editor vs. great text processing language with a lousy editor. What's option C?

Option C: Spacemacs. Emacs, but finally made usable with vim editing commands and much more -- you essentially control Emacs with vim-like commands (although the normal Emacs commands are still available). Eg: ,e to bring up an org-mode export buffer. Pressing each key can bring up a helm-HUD giving available options.

Worth looking at if you've not come across it before and have been put off trying Emacs by having to use the editor. No, really. It's very good, if you like that sort of thing ;-)

 

[theluggage]

you essentially control Emacs with vim-like commands (although the normal Emacs commands are still available)

Ah, its a real-world case of this: https://xkcd.com/378/

 

[brookter1]

Ah, its a real-world case of this: https://xkcd.com/378/

I've always liked that cartoon.... Seriously though, for many people who would like to use Emacs but are put off by the chord-sequences and editor, then Spacemacs is worth a try. Personally, I'd like Apple to introduce Vim editing command compatibility throughout OS X, but I suspect this is not going to happen...

 

[theluggage]

Personally, I'd like Apple to introduce Vim editing command compatibility throughout OS X, but I suspect this is not going to happen...

Thing about Vim is that it may be scarily efficient if you've invested a lot of time burning the commands into your muscle memory, but until then, even basic editing is pretty impenetrable. If you are working daily 5-to-9 in vim writing code or markup that might be a viable investment. If you're bouncing between various editors, IDEs and wordprocessors depending on the project then that modality is a killer: really, hence your comment, that you'd like everything in OS X to work like vim. I guarantee that would completely poleaxe 95% of the Apple user community.

I think you also need a slightly different mindset: your first instinct when making an edit needs to be 'can I do this with a series of commands rather than cursoring to the point and entering Insert mode'.

I don't have a problem with vim, so much as vim evangelists who (because they've written 200,000,000 lines in it over the last 20 years and can translate C to Java with an 8-letter command) have forgotten about the learning curve. OTOH, while I can respect the idea that a modal editor like vim is a good thing for the fluent, its harder to see where emacs fits in the modern world when there are friendlier 'non-modal' text editors around, even if they don't run lisp.

 

[brookter1]

Oh I know that OS X is never going to enforce Vim compatibility (nor should it) hence the ironic nature of my post... It would be nice to have a way of choosing to use it in appropriate situations though -- as Quick Cursor used to provide before sandboxing killed it. I think you're overestimating the nature of the learning curve for simple editing -- enough to make you a more efficient editor of basic text, rather than a programming guru -- you can do a lot with a handful of action and movement commands. But of course it's not intuitive and shouldn't be the default choice for anyone.

As for emacs: its strengths aren't in the editor at all but in the rest of the functionality and the way it is extensible, which is why it's still so widely used. Running lisp (and being almost complete extensible through this) is entirely the point of Emacs, not an add-on. (This is a very very reductive way of speaking about it, BTW. It's far more than that). Adding a decent editor (ahem...) widens the appeal for the sort of programmer who would otherwise be attracted but is put off. Spacemacs is a very good attempt at this.