Linux/OSX

August 21, 2005 9:11 AM

Simple (I hope) question: I'm thinking that in the next year I might buy a Mac. I'm also interested in Linux, though, and I've thought about buying a "white box" PC to run Linux and open-source apps. I don't really understand the relationship between OSX and 'nixes all that well. Does OSX run Linux-type programs too? (TIA)
posted by alumshubby to computers & internet (18 comments total)

os x runs nearly all modern unix software. much of it comes with a friendly installer too.
posted by paradroid at 9:20 AM on August 21, 2005

Mac OS X is BSD Unix.

Most Unix open source programs run on Mac. A few have Mac-like native installers. Many, many others can be installed in an automated, unixey fashion with either Fink or OpenDarwin Ports. Some others can often still be compiled and installed, but you might have to do it yourself (although the first two categories probably cover over 95% of what the average bloke would want).

With the Apple X11 package, you can run a complete Unix desktop if you want, that even takes over the entire screen, running Gnome or KDE or FVWM or whatever. I don't do that (and actually find that I don't really need as many open source Unix apps as I thought when I switched from Debian Linux to an iMac as my desktop; but it's all there if you need it).
posted by teece at 9:22 AM on August 21, 2005

I'm nowhere near an expert, but there is a very useful PDF linked to on the Apple OS X website called "Mac OS X for UNIX Users". Seems to have everything you could really want in there. The PDF is linked to from this page, and you can also find some info on X11 this page.
posted by samstarling at 9:22 AM on August 21, 2005

You folx rock.
posted by alumshubby at 9:30 AM on August 21, 2005

The main advantage of a self-built box + linux is price. You can put together a comperable system for 90% of what computers are used for for $500 or so (no monitor) with a PC & linux.

For that price, you could get a MacMini, which you couldn't work on yourself, and would be comparatively underpowered, or an eMac/iMac for more, that still isn't very flexible.

To get something close to what you already have, you'd want to get a PowerMac, which start at $2000. Note I'm not talking about performance here, a $500 PC could be roughly on par with an iMac, so while its cheaper its not significantly so for just that. I'm talking about the ability to choose components, be able to work on the system easily yourself, etc.

As far as usability, OSX is great if you like it. I don't like working without a taskbar, and when you have 30 or 40 windows open, Expose doesn't cut it. With *nix, I have a choice of window managers that I like significantly better than OSX. Then again, many very, very productive people swear by OSX. YMMV.
posted by devilsbrigade at 9:31 AM on August 21, 2005

Also remember that linux can run Word/Office/Photoshop/etc through Crossover Office, and many games that OSX can't through Cedega.
posted by devilsbrigade at 9:32 AM on August 21, 2005

On the other side of devilsbrigade's points (to play devilsbrigade advocate), with a Mac you won't have to worry about tracking down drivers and other hardware compatibility problems that still bedevil x86 'nix installations. And for value-conscious types, you can buy a used PowerMac G4 tower (up to 1.5 GB of RAM, quite expandable -- my current development server is a 933/1GB/1TB config) for around $1000 or even less a little stripped. In my experience they are rock solid and run OS X just fine (my machines run OS X Tiger server). Heck, I just installed Tiger on an iMac DV I found in the trash. With 512MB RAM, it runs like a top. Why do people throw away perfectly good machines?
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:58 AM on August 21, 2005

So basically you have 2 choices - a PC solution with linuxed installed and OSX which basically allows you to run all Unix software through the X11 package which is included and works really well and you can run KDE or anything you want with it. I'd advise you to go to a shop and try out OSX with a competent adviser. If you like it, go for a Mac Mini or something else, depending on the amount of power you need. I personally prefer to use OSX and then Unix when I need it, but as was said before, YMMV. I'd be interested to know what you decide, by the way.
posted by keijo at 10:25 AM on August 21, 2005

Another point to keep in mind is that Macs can run GNU/Linux perfectly well too, so there's no reason you can't buy a Mac and experiment with both GNU/Linux and OS X. In fact, you don't even need to dual-boot (in a literal sense) as with PCs, because Mac-on-Linux allows you to run OS X and Linux at the same time. Macs have less random Foo-brand hardware that needs to be supported than PCs, so you aren't as likely to run into hardware compatiblity programs. The Airport Express card, however, is not yet supported by Linux; the Linux Broadcom 4301 Driver Project is reverse engineering Broadcom's own drivers, and were about 75% done on 01 July 2005 according to their "progress" page.
posted by bpt at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2005

And don't forget hat if you have enough time to compile software (easily), there is a possibility to use one of the best linux distro's package management system (portage) on Mac OSX.
posted by zsoltika at 10:58 AM on August 21, 2005

I'm also interested in Linux

If you're interested in Linux because you're interested in Unix and/or open source, get only the Mac and forget about needing a PC; as previous responders have said, there's nothing that will run on Linux that won't run in some form on OS X's Unixy underside. Also as stated, you can run Linux on a Mac, although it's not quite as well-supported or easy as it is to get it installed on a PC (but certainly not impossible).

And the 'native' OS X desktop experience is vastly superior to Windows or Linux, at least currently, so when you just want to get day-to-day stuff done instead of tinkering, it'll be great.


If you're interested in Linux because you're interested in Linux--e.g. you want to add Linux administration to your resume, you've heard great stuff about certain flavors of Linux and want to see what the fuss is about, etc--then an El Cheapo or homemade PC with Linux would be a good investment (provided you're still going to get a Mac too! ;)).

Note that unless you really want to use this Linux box as a fast primary desktop machine, you can and probably should get a perfectly serviceable older PC for like $50-100 used on Ebay. I cut my Linux teeth on a Pentium I 166MHz machine back in 2001, and run a couple higher-end Pentium II servers nowadays. Only shell out >$100 if you plan to try Linux on the desktop.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 11:14 AM on August 21, 2005

For a visual reference to the history of *nix, take a look at Unix History Timeline. It's quite the family tree.

Now, when you say "I'm also interested in Linux" it's unclear what you mean. You want to learn how to use Linux? You want to learn how to administer Linux? Perhaps you just want to get used to the *nix shell? Mac OSX can help with that last one. The first two are more dubious.
posted by cm at 11:37 AM on August 21, 2005

I'm going to assume that the question was about desktop linux vs. os x. I switched from debian linux to os x and haven't found anything important lacking. I still have my linux box but I no longer have a monitor. A few issues come to mind:

One point to keep in mind is that you will miss out on at least one part of the linux experience - configuring your window manager etc. In general, you won't get the experience of playing with your system configuration in a very detailed way (in fact, you won't need to).

Sometimes slightly obscure programs *nix don't install very easily and the installation needs tweaking (gcc needs some os x specific options to compile your typical program). This is the kind of stuff I expect you might not be doing any time soon if you don't already have *nix experience (for instance, I wanted a LaTeX plugin for the wiki I use, which needed dvipng, which wasn't in fink, and neither were several libraries it used. Some of them didn't compile immediately and I had to mess with makefiles to get this to happen.)

One slightly bigger issue is that there isn't really a great native version of emacs (which you at least want to try, if you want to use *nix-like programs). You can run it easily in terminal and in X, and there are working native versions, but they aren't always entirely stable. I understand this is being worked on on the xemacs side, but it sounded like there were political issues that would prevent a good gnu emacs from appearing any time soon.

As others have said, if you just want to play with a unix shell, there is practically no difference between linux and osx. I still use the terminal for most of my file management on OS X.
posted by advil at 5:42 PM on August 21, 2005

Why on earth would a person run linux, when there are BSDs to be had?

There is very little functional difference between the two. You're going to run the same shell on either. You can run the same apps on either. You can run the same GUI on either.

But there is a slight visceral difference between them, and it's this: BSD feels designed, while Linux feels happenstance.

If you're going to hack around and piss about, Linux is probably just fine.

If you're looking to set up a work machine which supports you in just getting shit done, I suggest you look at a BSD box. Darwin/OSX in particular: it gives you GUI when you need it, and gives you an excellent BSD when you go commando.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on August 21, 2005

Why on earth would a person run linux, when there are BSDs to be had?

Sadly, Linux gets more hardware support and more commercial support than *BSD. BSDs are simpler, cleaner, and make more sense to me.

Note that while Darwin keeps BSD-style utilities and other parts of the BSD system, it adds a lot of stuff that in my mind defeats some of the simplicity & elegancy of BSDs. It was a tradeoff that had to be made to integrate better with a GUI environment, but for 'purists,' Darwin is rather clunky.
posted by devilsbrigade at 12:27 AM on August 22, 2005

I'm a longtime linux user, just bought a Mac Mini. Both systems have their good and bad points so it's not at all clear which is the better system for you. KDE is totally configurable so you can set it up exactly as you like it. OSX has almost no configuration. OSX's app folders is easier than the various linux installers (though Mandriva's urpmi is not at all bad), but most useful software on the Mac appears to be (limited) shareware, whereas on linux it's almost always freeware. And most annoyingly, I can't find a file manager on OSX which is anywhere near as good as KDE's Konqueror.
posted by salmacis at 3:24 AM on August 22, 2005

Salmacis: have you tried Path Finder? The Finder has always been my greatest frustration with OSX and Path Finder addresses nearly all of my problems.
posted by bshort at 5:11 AM on August 22, 2005

Thanks, bshort, that's probably the best File Manager for OSX I've seen yet. It's still pretty annoying though, to find that it only appears to provide a part of the functionality of Konqueror, and costs $35. How can I split the window into panes? How can I show each file's icon as a preview? How can I increase the size of previews relative to other files? Why are all the icons spaced out so wide?
posted by salmacis at 1:32 PM on August 22, 2005