Hacker News Reader

> compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things. . . no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X)

I'm not sure that's really an accurate characterization of OSX. In terms of security, I don't see where there have been any great number of exploits attacking the kernel (XNU) or userland (mostly FreeBSD) layers. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities like heartbleed were hardly OSX specific. I'm also not sure that those layers can really be called inefficient relative to Linux. Mach was a great deal more modular in terms of separation of concerns as compared to Linux (good for cleanliness/security, but never had great performance). However, with their XNU kernel, they seem to have made some of the same tradeoffs as Linux with respect to pure microkernel separation of concerns.

OSX has also done, in my opinion, a good job of rethinking parts of the traditional Unix infrastructure that needed rethinking. Check out JKH's talk about FreeBSD and potential future directions, and see how much that is informed by his experience leading the Unix technologies group at Apple (for the record, JKH was also one of the cofounders of FreeBSD, so he's not exactly a slouch): http://youtu.be/Mri66Uz6-8Y

I'd say the biggest reasons OSX never took off as a server OS are 1) licensing 2) coupling to Apple hardware 3) most of Apple's value-add is for desktops, laptops, and smaller portables--in other words, not compellingly better than other free nixen on the server 4) other nixen focussed on integrating the Chef/Puppet/Docker/virtualization/etc tech that you mention makes life for sysadmins easier.

Ubuntu is pretty close, really. Everything that's needed is better drivers, but unless Canonical makes it's own hardware that's never going to become a resolved issue.

The major issue with Linux only development is the lack of proprietary software. Photoshop, for instance. There is also some great Mac-only software, meaning a Mac runs the widest variety of software of any OS - since you can run Linux, Windows and more in VMs.

Finally, Mac provides a much nicer UI experience than any Linux so far. That won't change for the foreseeable future given the grab bag of UI technologies Linux apps use.

> but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago.

We started being able to breath again when Ubuntu was released. It's far from perfect but so's OS X.

"It's far from perfect but so's OS X."

That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support.

Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.

It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from.

I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats...

Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support?

Yes!

Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google?

Still yes!

All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.

Right. I understand that neither is "perfect".

However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues.

I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM.

Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...

They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX?

Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware.

"They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX?

Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware."

You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting that Apple should broaden its lineup, not license its OS for other hardware. However, given that it offers nothing of interest to the typical "enthusiast" power user, it's missing the boat.

I think Apple should add the "xMac", meaning a range from mini to full size tower machines with plenty of drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, large RAM expansion, and high-end i5s and i7s. They should be typical Apple design, quality and pricing. This would GREATLY broaden the Mac's popularity.

I also think they should do a "Mac Pro+", meaning a box that either rack-mounts with an adapter (4U), or can freestand on the floor. It should also sport multiple drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, massive ECC RAM capability, and high-end Xeon processor(s). The killer feature of these would be to gang them together with Thunderbolt into desk side (or server room) supercomputers for scientific programming, engineering, simulation, and 3D rendering. In short, it should provide the most compute capability of any workstation available, and scale as needed.

Apple needs to broaden its horizons, and start leading the computer industry.

I see Android as the future of the linux desktop.

I'm losing my hopes on Steam OS but still keep my hopes on Android and Chrome OS.

Still i'm not sure what to think about Ubuntu and Unity8/Mir.