Dan Cameron - Latest Comments in Why OS X and not Linux?

Re: Why OS X and not Linux?

Jared — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:05:50 -0000

I guess if you're defining "power" as Unix-ishness, then that makes sense. I just don't see it that way.

Most of the most important advantages of Linux ("power", in my mind) come from its open and free (as in freedom) nature.

I won't argue that OSX has benefited by basing their product on stuff that was originally developed in this fashion, but the act of making their extensions to that base closed and proprietary takes a great deal away from that advantage, in my opinion.

Re: Why OS X and not Linux?

Dan Cameron — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:42:01 -0000

See also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X#Description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Ma...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specif...

So from what you said, Solaris was not powerful until it became "free", or is it not at all?

[edit]
Looks like only a portion of Solaris is open, like OS X.

Re: Why OS X and not Linux?

Dan Cameron — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:16:10 -0000

I'm talking about actual power, as in the "fully complaint UNIX" system at it's core. Which supports...
Not the power in opinion towards "freedom".

Re: Why OS X and not Linux?

Jared — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:43:32 -0000

Since I decided to avoid Apple bashing, I'll just say that it's a decent article, for the point he's trying to make.

The only unclear bit is when you're talking about "power of the underlying OS".

Personally, I feel that a lot of the "power" of Linux is based on its openness and adherence to the standards of software freedom. In that regard, I can't think of an OS that's more opposite of Linux than OSX, so being "practically the same" is certainly a subjective judgement.