Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
by Chuck Toporek04/03/2001
Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?
On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.
What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.
Comparing Apples with Penguins
Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.
So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.
This year O'Reilly & Associates is expanding its presence in the Macintosh developer and administrator markets. As part of this move, O'Reilly is working with Apple to produce titles on Mac OS X. For details, read Tim O'Reilly's article, O'Reilly and Apple Team Up.
Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.
At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)
One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.
One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.
One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.
Visit the O'Reilly Network's Mac DevCenter for more information on Mac OS X technologies.
And if you're wondering whether you can run the X Window System on top of Mac OS X, take a look at the XonX Project, which offers instructions on how to install XFree86 so you can run X Windows on Mac OS X. You can also read more about the XonX Project on SourceForge.
A Tale of Two (or Three) Desktops
So how does this make Mac OS X a threat to Linux? If you've given this any thought, the answer is quite clear. One of the challenges that the Linux community has been plagued with in recent years is the development of a stable and easy-to-use GUI. While some view X (or any GUI) as a hindrance to Linux's performance, a usable interface is a necessary evil if you want to convert users from Windows. And while the Linux kernel might be stable, the GUIs are, at times, buggy and less desirable for most people.
There are two main Linux GUI projects underway, GNOME and the K Desktop Environment (or KDE). There are also two companies vying for bragging rights to bring services to the GNOME desktop: Ximian (formerly known as "Helix Code"), and Eazel.
Don't miss O'Reilly's Open Source Convention and
Perl Conference 5, July 23-27, 2001, in San Diego, California.
While Eazel isn't necessarily a desktop environment (DTE) on its own--it's a file manager (Nautilus) for use with the GNOME desktop--it plays a vital role in shaping the future of the desktop for Linux. The driving force behind Eazel is Andy Hertzfeld, the originator of the Mac user interface, and his plan is to make Linux more "usable" for the average Joe. While Eazel has been doing some really fantastic work, it has recently been hit with the deadly Silicon Valley bug, which forced the company to let go of 50 percent of its staff shortly after releasing Nautilus 1.0. Now, part of this can be attributed to lagging development with the GNOME desktop and changes to Bonobo (the GNOME architecture for creating reusable software components), but it's still a painful experience that makes us realize that Linux on the desktop is further away than we had all hoped.
Both KDE and GNOME are working on providing a better Linux desktop: KDE2 was recently released, as was GNOME 1.4. But both rely on different toolkits for development, both have different features, and neither is really all that stable. For example, the GNOME 2.0 desktop, which was expected to be out by the end of 2000, is faltering and probably won't see the light of day until near the end of 2001. The bigger issue is that as the Linux desktops stabilize they still have one problem to overcome: limited applications for users.
GNOME and KDE both have Office-like application suites in the works. KDE offers KOffice, and GNOME offers a combination of AbiWord for word processing, Gnumeric for spreadsheets, and a variety of other tools. However, the main contender for Office-like applications is StarOffice, which is now being developed by Sun Microsystems' OpenOffice project. Sun acquired StarOffice last year from StarDivision, and made its source code available to allow further development. Even StarOffice (at least in its current form) has its pitfalls, making it a suitable option for swapping Microsoft Office files, but only if you're willing to lose some vital information or do without a certain level of functionality.
O'Reilly's first two Mac developer books, Learning Cocoa and Learning Carbon, will be released this May. Future Mac developer titles will be listed on O'Reilly's Macintosh Resource Center.
In my opinion, Apple's Mac OS X has the best of both worlds. It allows you the ability to run traditional and widely used desktop applications, such as Microsoft Office, while at the same time giving you the power and strength of BSD Unix to run GNU tools under (or on top of) OS X.
As you can see, Linux has a way to go before it can truly be accepted as a desktop platform. Users need a more stable desktop and applications that work better with what 90 percent of the world uses. We're getting there, but realistically, it'll be two or three years before we start to see Linux being used more on the desktop.
So, will people start to move away from the "Linux-on-the-desktop" mentality and migrate to Apple's Mac OS X? It's hard to say, since it still requires you to have native Apple G3 or G4 hardware. If Apple were to migrate its OS onto x86 hardware, yes, Apple could take over the desktop market with Mac OS X. Apple just has to play its cards right--and soon.
Read Chuck's companion piece to this article, Five Things Apple Should Do to Bury Linux and Windows on the Desktop.
Miscellaneous Links
- O'Reilly Network's Mac DevCenter
- MacSlash
- OS X Talk
- MacGIMP and Syrex Gets GIMP Running on Mac OS X
- OS X FAQ
- Apple's "Inside Mac OS X"
