[NCLUG] Why you should take a Mac user to lunch

Terry M. Gray grayt at lamar.colostate.edu
Thu Jul 25 17:22:55 MDT 2002


Paul is correct in many respects. You do have to install the free 
Developers Tools to get alot of the stuff UNIX users are used to. 
Also, you have to install the free Fink (or Gnu-Darwin) to get to all 
the open software that runs on OS X (such as the undispensible f77). 
But, of course, 90% of Mac users don't need or want this stuff. (The 
terminal app is even neatly tucked away from most Mac users and the 
shareware community has developed all sorts of single purpose GUI's 
so you never have to look at a command line--go figure.)

Personally, I have found it to be the best of both worlds. Here in 
the Chemistry Department we're planning to phase out our SGI universe 
and replace it with Macs (as soon as we get a good high end molecular 
modeling solution that we're happy with). Granted, this could have 
been done with linux--we do run a few linux boxes around the 
department, but I'm a Mac user deep down and if I can get "unix" and 
MacOS in the same box--woot!

The frustrations that Paul mentioned are also true. Networking and 
user info is controlled via netinfo (from Next days, I think) and not 
the "traditional" unix /etc files. This makes things a little 
difficult at times for those of us used the the other ways. Also, the 
netinfo documentation sucks. I can't wait for the definitive book to 
come out. But, I and many others are getting along doing all the 
networking sorts of things that we want to do. X windows is missing, 
but installable nicely via Fink or otherwise. I've been able to do 
what I've wanted to do with various chemistry and biology related 
packages. My latest project has been to implement Platform 
Computing's LSF to set up a distributed queuing system on our OSX 
network. I've put dual processor OS X boxes on our secretary's desks. 
We've got 18 new G4 iMacs for a new computer lab. All of this 
computing power goes untapped most of the time. We'll be doing 
quantum mechanics and other theoretical chemistry work--lots of 
number crunching.

The bottom line however, I think, is the installed base. Apple is now 
the leading distributor of "unix-like" (linux isn't unix either!) 
OS's. And Apple has made things reasonably open--at least at one 
level--so much so that much of what linux developers do is easily 
portable to the Mac world now. O'Reilly's on-board--Linux World and 
Linux Journal seem friendly. Let's come together on our common ground 
rather than stress our differences (sounds down right ecumenical).

I'm scheduled to talk some about this stuff this fall at one of the 
nclug meetings. You can interrupt me every other sentence if you 
like. It might be as entertaining as python vs. ruby.

No intention to start a fight here--flame me if you like, but Mac 
users have long had flame resistant body suits. After all most of the 
crap we get comes from the same people who give linux users crap.

TG





>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Terry M. Gray wrote:
>
>>  Interesting article at
>>  http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0724.macx.html
>>
>>  I'm available for lunch most days!!!
>
>Interesting, yes, but I don't really buy the argument that I should take
>you to lunch.
>
>The article is seeming to simply make the point that now businesses can
>feel good about deploying Linux in other places because they can deploy OS
>X, which "is Unix" on the desktop, and find that both are cheaper than
>paying for similar Microsoft products that lack the quality of their OS
>X/Linux counterparts. And this somehow indebts the Linux community to
>Apple.
>
>But I take issue with a couple of assertions the article makes: first, I
>think the Linux/*BSD/open source OS community can stand fine on its own two
>feet.  We started blowing NT away in the web/mid-range Internet server
>space when Apple was still betting the farm on Copland. The fact that Apple
>is pushing OS X so hard hasn't changed the fact that we still rock in those
>spaces. And I would consider deploying OS X as a webserver for about as
>long as I would consider deploying an XP box for that task.
>
>The second problem I have with the article is that it parrots the standard
>Apple line that OS X is Unix. It's not.
>
>Let me repeat that: OS X IS NOT Unix. Now, people are going to reply and
>say "What the hell are you talking about," but if you look at all of
>Apple's literature and the article, they all say OS X is a Unix core, but
>the operating system itself is more than Unix and has been bastardized
>enough to not deserve to be called Unix anymore.  Despite all this
>marketing, every hardcore Unix user I've talked to has said that OS X is
>nice, but it's not Unix. They've all spent hours banging their heads
>against the wall trying to get OS X to do the "normal" Unix stuff.
>
>OS X doesn't come with the default Unix utilities (you need to get their
>"Developer CD" for that), and the file system layout confuses most Unix
>users when they first look at it. Also, I've heard some grumbling about how
>OS X doesn't pay attention to certain /etc files and instead stores system
>settings in (*gasp*) a registry-like database...  which would be fine if
>Apple actually documented that, along with which settings were in their
>uber-registry and which were in /etc.
>
>The point is: if you/companies want Unix, go get a Unix box. If you want a
>desktop Macintosh that is capable of running Unix software with as much of
>a learning curve and head banging as a Windows user will have moving to
>Linux, get OS X.
>
>But don't confuse the two.
>
>Any CIO who thinks Windows is a better value won't be swayed by whatever
>Apple's doing and they get what they deserve when their "enterprise" run on
>Microsoft's crapware blows itself to pieces.
>
>As an aside, the article also misses the main reason to use OS X:
>"standard" office applications and other software, like Word, Excel,
>Photoshop, etc. The article makes a big deal about using OpenOffice; but
>most companies will say "Well, if I could *use* OpenOffice, I'd just buy a
>copy of RedHat 7.3 and leave it at that." But they can't, so they don't.
>
>Maybe we should go to lunch to discuss it further... ;-)
>
>Later,
>Paul
>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    J. Paul Reed                 preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
>    Wait, stop!  We can outsmart those dolphins.  Don't forget: we invented
>    computers, leg warmers, bendy straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory
>    hole, *and* the pudding cup!  -- Homer Simpson, Tree House of Horror XI
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NCLUG mailing list       NCLUG at nclug.org
>
>To unsubscribe, subscribe, or modify your settings, go to:
>http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug


-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt at lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801



More information about the NCLUG mailing list