Apple UK at Linux Expo!

What is Apple UK's biggest reason for attending the Linux Expo?

  • To poach Linux/Unix users

    Votes: 34 55.7%
  • To break further away from Windows.

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • To show off it's open source thinking

    Votes: 21 34.4%
  • Something else entirely!

    Votes: 4 6.6%

  • Total voters
    61

gotohamish

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 15, 2001
1,070
0
BKLN
MacMinute writes:

-- Apple to attend Linux Expo UK 2002
September 18 - 08:00 EDT__ Apple has stated that it will be attending the Linux Expo UK 2002, which being held at Olympia 2 in London on October 9th and 10th. Apple says it will use the show to "showcase Mac OS X, the UNIX-based OS renowned for its stability, ease-of-use and networking capabilities."

What do you all think about this?
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
Every point counts, I guess

While Linux seems to be growing, it's still a very small market. This is particularly true on the desktop. The Linux server market seems to be where the action is, though there's little action anywhere in this economy.

The Linux users I know, while intrigued by the Mac OS, hate the fact that they can't build their own box or put together a killer system for less than $700.
 

yankeedoodle

macrumors newbie
Jul 17, 2002
22
0
The better Linux!

I like Linux very much. But, anyone who has ever installed Linux and then switches to the Mac will immediately notice how much easier the Mac can be -- and it offers so much more. It all comes down to one phrase: The mac is the better Linux! :)
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Whatever. OSX can't yet touch Linux for flexability, speed, stability or command-line goodness. Strip off the GUI and OSX pretty much sucks; the back-end of OSX seems to lack most of the features that I most like about Linux.
 

drastik

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2002
978
0
Nashvegas
Sun and IBM are both Pushing Linux as a break away form M$ for the enterprise market. Apple and IBM are friends, as are Apple and Sun. Sun is pushing Staroffice as an MS Office replacement, this is also something that Mac users are expecteing right now.

Now, to preclude this next statement: I love Apple hardware and I always will, it just works better. However, the Marklar Project seems to be a reality, and Intell and AMD chips are good cheap alternatives to the PowerPC. I used to think Apple was insane to code for other chips, now I ai'nt so sure. Uing less expensive,high yield chips will drive down the prices of apple hardware considerable, making it comprable price wise to similarly outfitted PCs. I understand that spec for spec they are about the same now, but the enterprise markets can lose a bunch of the extra peks for there rank and file machines, so spec for spec isn't really a comparison in that market. You average cubicle bound PC has no need for a combo drive, much less a super drive. Firewire is not viable for non-media related work wither. If apple can produce a well made machine for the worker drones, based on AMD chips they can probably get them out at half the price. Give them one with USB, gigabit ehternet and just a straight VGA video connection for 800$, and the drone queens will rave for it, out it in every government and middle management cubicle.
 

drastik

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2002
978
0
Nashvegas
Originally posted by ddtlm
Whatever. OSX can't yet touch Linux for flexability, speed, stability or command-line goodness. Strip off the GUI and OSX pretty much sucks; the back-end of OSX seems to lack most of the features that I most like about Linux.
Although you may be somewhat right, this is an issue for technical people, mass adoption isn't going to come from this community but from giving people a viable, cheap alternative to M$.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
drastik:

Yep, I expect Apple to net plenty of Linux users (such as me), but that doesn't mean that I will agree that OSX is a better tool than Linux. OSX is not an especially good Unix, IMHO.
 

drastik

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2002
978
0
Nashvegas
Originally posted by ddtlm
drastik:

Yep, I expect Apple to net plenty of Linux users (such as me), but that doesn't mean that I will agree that OSX is a better tool than Linux. OSX is not an especially good Unix, IMHO.
You're right, it is a hard market to get to becuase there exists such a huge devide between real Unix heads and regular folk. I think that microsuck has put itself into such a bad reputation position that pople will go for a good UNIX on the Desktop, and that is the essence of X.
 

AmigaMac

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2002
43
0
there is no verses in the Unix Tree!

I don't think it's an Apple vs. Linux thing at all... we're all in this Unix family and we need to stick it together and put our fight where it is needed, Microsoft! I personally think the Unix/Linux variants need to come together and further enhance this great platform we all know and love!
 

peterjhill

macrumors 65816
Apr 25, 2002
1,095
0
Seattle, WA
Originally posted by ddtlm
Whatever. OSX can't yet touch Linux for flexability, speed, stability or command-line goodness. Strip off the GUI and OSX pretty much sucks; the back-end of OSX seems to lack most of the features that I most like about Linux.
Are you smoking crack? OSX is way more stable than Linux. It comes down to the fact that people are paid to fix bugs in OS X, and not for Linux. What features does OS X lack? gcc, ipv6, bsd kernel, it has lots of good stuff in it that work just fine. The BSD kernel absolutely whoops Linux's network stack, I know from quantitative tests that I have done for my job. I am not denying your feelings. I just disagree. Alot
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
peterjhill:

I am not smoking crack, and I advise you take off your rose-colored-apple-rules glasses. Take that "wisdom" of yours to Slashdot and see what happens.

HERE'S A HINT: Apple is not sacred. They did not just waltz in with their purty unix and brush aside everyone else, no, they are the newbie on the block. OSX has got to be the least stable unix I have ever used, seeing as how it's about the only one that kernel panics on me.

gcc, ipv6, bsd kernel
For crying out loud, OSX's kernel isn't even a BSD kernel... it's Apple's own Mach-based microkernel wrapped ip in a BSD compatability layer.
 

nixd2001

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2002
179
0
UK
Originally posted by ddtlm
drastik:

Yep, I expect Apple to net plenty of Linux users (such as me),
And me.

but that doesn't mean that I will agree that OSX is a better tool than Linux. OSX is not an especially good Unix, IMHO.
Kernel, utilities or both?

I'd probably agree with the utilities, but then there's nothing stopping you doing your own port (ideally "./configure ; make ; make install" :) - indeed, that's part of the fun for some people. Or try fink shortly?

kernel wise though, Linux's idea of multithreading is still a bit of a fudge. The Linux approach to disc caching probably has an advantage, but this will probably take time to really understand.
 

nixd2001

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2002
179
0
UK
Originally posted by ddtlm
peterjhill:

For crying out loud, OSX's kernel isn't even a BSD kernel... it's Apple's own Mach-based microkernel wrapped ip in a BSD compatability layer.
Urm, this implies that there's no BSD code but Apple code written to be BSD compatible. I disagree with that. There's Apple glue code to join Mach and BSD facilities.
 

Tue12

macrumors member
May 14, 2002
57
0
It's a mistake to title this thread Apple vs Linux.

It's more of Apple and Linux: new found buddies :)

I don't know much about all this stuff, but it seems to me Apple and Linux users are complementary to one another both in function and in the quest to unseat MS.

But maybe I'm being too diplomatic. Nuke'm! :D
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,166
4
Denver, CO
Originally posted by ddtlm
drastik:

Yep, I expect Apple to net plenty of Linux users (such as me), but that doesn't mean that I will agree that OSX is a better tool than Linux. OSX is not an especially good Unix, IMHO.
By which you mean that Linux is an especially good Unix? Is Linux the extent of your exposure to Unix-like OSes (before OS X)? Nowadays there's a large population of young techies who have taken Linux to be the baseline for what they think a Unix should be. In the big picture, Linux is kind of a little world of its own. It's improving, but there have always been things about Linux and the distros that drive old-guard Unix geeks nuts.

Darwin is actually a pretty good Unix. It may not be a very good Linux, but it's not intended to be.
 

kenohki

macrumors regular
Apr 26, 2002
136
0
Originally posted by ddtlm
peterjhill:

HERE'S A HINT: Apple is not sacred. They did not just waltz in with their purty unix and brush aside everyone else, no, they are the newbie on the block. OSX has got to be the least stable unix I have ever used, seeing as how it's about the only one that kernel panics on me.



For crying out loud, OSX's kernel isn't even a BSD kernel... it's Apple's own Mach-based microkernel wrapped ip in a BSD compatability layer.
Personally I haven't had a kernel panic since 10.0 but I know other people have, especially when tinkering with the BSD layer. Personally though, my experience with kernel panics in System 10 is similar to other Unices, it usually happens when I'm configuring something or just recently reconfigured something. I haven't had anything do that in a production environment in a long time. I must say tho too that I've managed to throw Solaris into kernel panic more than I have System 10.

Also, the MACH microkernel IMO is much more elegant than the Linux kernel. It has great multithreading capabilities and has the the potential for scalability that Linux probably won't see for a long time. MACH has been fairly well proven in the HPC world and by design is scalable, if a little chatty. ;) However, application has a lot to do performance in this case and Linux's monolithic kernel may be better suited to the desktop.

My only beef with the Linux and GNU community is their tendency to recreate/clone other people's good ideas.
 

bretm

macrumors 68000
Apr 12, 2002
1,951
27
Originally posted by drastik
Sun and IBM are both Pushing Linux as a break away form M$ for the enterprise market. Apple and IBM are friends, as are Apple and Sun. Sun is pushing Staroffice as an MS Office replacement, this is also something that Mac users are expecteing right now.

Now, to preclude this next statement: I love Apple hardware and I always will, it just works better. However, the Marklar Project seems to be a reality, and Intell and AMD chips are good cheap alternatives to the PowerPC. I used to think Apple was insane to code for other chips, now I ai'nt so sure. Uing less expensive,high yield chips will drive down the prices of apple hardware considerable, making it comprable price wise to similarly outfitted PCs. I understand that spec for spec they are about the same now, but the enterprise markets can lose a bunch of the extra peks for there rank and file machines, so spec for spec isn't really a comparison in that market. You average cubicle bound PC has no need for a combo drive, much less a super drive. Firewire is not viable for non-media related work wither. If apple can produce a well made machine for the worker drones, based on AMD chips they can probably get them out at half the price. Give them one with USB, gigabit ehternet and just a straight VGA video connection for 800$, and the drone queens will rave for it, out it in every government and middle management cubicle.
Make that around $400 and yeah.
 

unreg

macrumors newbie
Jul 22, 2002
27
0
The kernel Apples uses is a blending of the mach and parts of the BSD code.
Faster IO and core services. Many threads in ars techna, XLR8yourmac.com., etc. on what it is and isn't. 'ell, even in these hallowed halls there are discussions on this topic (mach and BSD integration).
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Gelfin, nixd2001, kenohki:

I would say that Linux is the ideal small Unix and have no opinion which of the big flavors is best (I've used but never admined them).

When I say "Linux" I am speaking about a whole package, such as Redhat 7.3, and not just the kernel which is technically what Linux is. I definately will declare Linux a better Unix than OSX based on non-kernel things, such as the filesystems, directory structures, command-line tools, window servers and so on. OSX has a lot of good things going for it, but I do not see the level of command-line and GUI integration that I require. I want to be able to lanch apps from the shell, I want to be able to do any configuration by both GUI and through the shell. OSX is interesting but not mature.

Anyway, onto the kernel. Estetics aside, I think it is clear that Linux has got a better one, that is more efficient and certainly more easily configured and changed. I'm also not sure why anyone would think that OSX does SMP better... my experience is that OSX is way back at Linux 2.2.x days as far as results go. Ever watch OSX juggle tasks around? Try one 100% CPU task and you get 2 CPU's 50% busy. Sure it might scale better, but that's irrelevant.
 

kenohki

macrumors regular
Apr 26, 2002
136
0
Originally posted by ddtlm
Gelfin, nixd2001, kenohki:

When I say "Linux" I am speaking about a whole package, such as Redhat 7.3, and not just the kernel which is technically what Linux is. I definately will declare Linux a better Unix than OSX based on non-kernel things, such as the filesystems, directory structures, command-line tools, window servers and so on. OSX has a lot of good things going for it, but I do not see the level of command-line and GUI integration that I require. I want to be able to lanch apps from the shell, I want to be able to do any configuration by both GUI and through the shell. OSX is interesting but not mature.
I hope we're not speaking about X Window here. X Window/Project Athena is kind of neat. It's network transparent which is great, but it's also a resource hog, a pain in the ass to configure, and enforces no kind of human interface guidelines. Aqua/Quartz is more elegant, provides more useful features, (postscript compositing features mostly, REAL transparency, blending, antialiasing, OpenGL acceleration via Quartz Extreme, etc.) and provides consistency in interface. The Linux crowd is still hammering out what they're going to use and trying to decide between KDE, GNOME, or both. Taking a user from one Linux desktop interface to another one between machines can often be a jolting experience. A user used to AfterStep can have problems with a machine running Enlightenment. Same thing Sun was dealing with when they had OpenLook vs CDE.

Plus I get better network performance from Windows Terminal Server than I can with a Remote X Window/XDM session.

Linux has a nice filesystem and great filesystem support but they're still not to the level that BeFS was. Apple has to deal with the legacy metadata from pre-System 10 apps/files. Thus, they can't just switch to EXT2 or UFS or whatever. If they can add journaling capabilities to HFS+ while maintaining backward compatibility, I think most enterprise/developer/power users would be happy.

As far as directory structures...the OpenStep/System 10 packaging method for applications works like a dream. You don't have crap resource libraries or DLLs scattered in random directories (/usr/local/lib, /usr/lib, /etc, etc.) just for applications. As far as how your directories go, every Unix head will tell you theirs is best. I came from Solaris so System 10 seems more logical to me than Linux, go figure.


Anyway, onto the kernel. Estetics aside, I think it is clear that Linux has got a better one, that is more efficient and certainly more easily configured and changed. I'm also not sure why anyone would think that OSX does SMP better... my experience is that OSX is way back at Linux 2.2.x days as far as results go. Ever watch OSX juggle tasks around? Try one 100% CPU task and you get 2 CPU's 50% busy. Sure it might scale better, but that's irrelevant.
The Linux kernel is okay and it's great for small system images. MACH however is not a traditional kernel. It's a microkernel. (Though Apple has done some work to make it a little more monolithic in design for the System 10 application of it.) Microkernels take tasks and processes that would normally be handled by one monolithic kernel and split them off into separate processes. Thus all the "kernel" is is a small process that takes care of message passing between those processes and other very low level tasks. Therefore, the actual "kernel" functions of a traditional Unix/Linux can be split off onto multiple processors. That's why it does SMP better and that's why it's used in very high end HPC systems utilizing thousands of processors. The Linux kernel is nowhere near being used for that kind of performance in a single system image. It's strength is in inexpensive distributed/clustered computing using primarily Beowulf clusters.
 

TopCat

macrumors newbie
Sep 22, 2002
1
0
Somewhere
Huh?

Originally posted by ddtlm
Whatever. OSX can't yet touch Linux for flexability, speed, stability or command-line goodness. Strip off the GUI and OSX pretty much sucks; the back-end of OSX seems to lack most of the features that I most like about Linux.
Are you kidding??? First of all, lets remember that OSX has not been around that long, and secondly...er..how long has Linux been around? Come on now, fair break.....Linux has had so many revisions to the kernel etc...

Dont get me wrong here, I'm a linux geek and have been for over 7 years and still going :) I did switch over from using Linux on the desktop to OSX for the following reasons:-

1) I can play quicktime without having to worry about adding 3rd party apps and hope they work!

2) I can play alot of cool commercial games that have been ported over from PC to Mac (without having to dual boot...)

3) The GUI is very userfriendly and FAST!!! It also has standard gui format

4) It has command line && Unix based.

5) its not windows...the most important part!

As far as stability, what the heck are you talking about? I've never had a kernel panic...yet! So far OSX has been incredibly stable and you have to admit, it is way more stable than windows.

Strip off the GUI in Linux and you have the same thing as OSX...so you have no argument there.

As far as features goes, it all depends what you are talking about. As far as programming environments, you have the same as Linux, Perl, Python, PHP, GCC and so forth. The same with server based apps ie: Apache, mysql, postgres(I think), apache mods including mod perl, mod php etc..