Jono Bacon Thinks About A Hybrid Desktop With GNOME Shell Atop Mac OS X

[boffo]

I've been using Fedora 23 with Gnome 3 under Wayland for a week now. The experience so far is very good and it looks pretty, with some plugins. Long are gone the days of gnome 2, I never liked it. I miss Opensuse, but Kde 5.4 was too unstable, I'll try it again when the Wayland implementation will be decent.
Porting Gnome to the Mac, i don't know, it would be better to port it to windows 8.1 and 10.

[sarmad]

Completely bizarre. The Linux DEs are its biggest weak point, why would you want to run them elsewhere?

It's amazing how many in the community are so out of touch with reality. It explains why we never get anywhere.

This probably means you haven't used a Linux desktop in years. Linux's weakest point is its driver situation, not the DE. Linux's DEs are actually one of its strengths nowadays. That said, I don't see the point is running Linux DE on top of Mac OS X as you can easily find yourself a Linux-compatible laptop nowadays.

[finalzone]

things like systemd are not available on mac, so I dont know if there are enough software core components to achieve this. Non the less, X11.org runs fine on Mac OS X, so I think there should be an option.

Mac OS X uses launchd which was one of inspirations for systemd.

[ryao]

The KDE project already did this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKSu5tx9xIg

You need to kill Window Server and then start XQuartz in IOKit mode. Then all of your X11 software will run fine barring any other dependencies. I believe that requires on a tiny proprietary userland library that Apple continued to ship after removing Xorg from Mac OS X's base system. I forgot its name, so I do not know if Apple is still shipping it.

If someone were to ship a newer desktop environment for Mac OS X, they probably also would want to ship a quartz compatibility shim to map regular Mac OS X software to Xorg windows so that native Mac OS X applications can run in a Xorg window manager. There have been a few OSS projects whose code might be useful for that. One is called freequartz:

https://code.google.com/archive/p/freequartz/

Freequartz was intended for porting Mac OS X software to Windows, but its dependencies are cross platform, so it should be possible for someone determined to port it to Mac OS X. If someone were to get it to build on Mac OS X, it should be possible to try launching Mac OS X GUI applications in XQuartz in the regular Aqua environment by using DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES like one would use LD_PRELOAD on a ELF system. Once it works in that capacity, I imagine that the next step would to be try running regular Mac OS X software in a X11 desktop environment running on XQuartz in IOKit mode.

[unixfan2001]

Mac OS X uses launchd which was one of inspirations for systemd.

Inspired != based on

Being inspired by something means virtually nothing. It doesn't tell you anything about the compatibility between two systems.
Besides, launchd uses largely different, more orthodox concepts.

[unixfan2001]

And how can he say that Apple makes good hardware? Most apple laptops are 1/2 years behind in terms of performance and cost a tonne more just for the awful apple mark on the back.

He's not necessarily referring to the GPU, CPU or RAM. That's not all that hardware is.
The unibody is pretty nice and the battery inside the Macbook Air lasts for a long time. Their fanless designs aren't too shabby either.

In fact, only rich US citizen are still buying apple pcs. Hardware support (usb devices, printers etc) is much better on linux.

Utter bollocks!

1. Apple hardware is considerably cheaper in the US than say in the EU or Australia, so you need to be quite a bit less "rich".
2. Macbooks are being used by a growing number of software companies. Not just in the US.

Security is better on linux.

Security is actually pretty shitty on both. While Mac OS X sucks at proper sandboxing (one thing Microsoft got right), there are way too many weak spots in Linux security.
You can easily compromise and steal data through Xorg, some UEFI boards can be easily bricked by running one "rm -rf /" and projects like OpenSSL have had severe security holes revealed in the past (see Heartbleed).

The answer is where he comes from: Canonical, which is a company that has operated with misplaced Mac envy for ~ 6 years now starting by putting the window buttons on the wrong side before flagrantly copying the OS X interface with Unity.

1. How is it the "wrong side"? It's considerably easier to reach for a right handed person or anyone who uses the right hand to control a mouse (which even some lefties do), allowing them to move the pointer towards it without cramping their hand or accidentally leaving the mousepad.

2. How is Unity a "flagrant" copy of the OS X interface? Have you used it? It's quite different. Pressing "X" will actually close an application whereas it will only "suspend" the window on Mac OS X. The "dock" is more similar to Window's SettingsFlyout and the global top panel isn't something that is exclusive to Mac OS X. Mac OS X' GUI is barely as innovative as people make it out to be. Most of the things in it are themselves blatant copies of earlier concepts.

[nils_]

Security is actually pretty shitty on both. While Mac OS X sucks at proper sandboxing (one thing Microsoft got right), there are way too many weak spots in Linux security.
You can easily compromise and steal data through Xorg, some UEFI boards can be easily bricked by running one "rm -rf /" and projects like OpenSSL have had severe security holes revealed in the past (see Heartbleed).

I think you can't really blame Linux for heartbleed since OS X uses OpenSSL too, I suppose that can be said for a lot of software. Xorg is another weak spot in my opinion.

[Cape]

He's not necessarily referring to the GPU, CPU or RAM. That's not all that hardware is.
The unibody is pretty nice and the battery inside the Macbook Air lasts for a long time. Their fanless designs aren't too shabby either.



Utter bollocks!

1. Apple hardware is considerably cheaper in the US than say in the EU or Australia, so you need to be quite a bit less "rich".
2. Macbooks are being used by a growing number of software companies. Not just in the US.



Security is actually pretty shitty on both. While Mac OS X sucks at proper sandboxing (one thing Microsoft got right), there are way too many weak spots in Linux security.
You can easily compromise and steal data through Xorg, some UEFI boards can be easily bricked by running one "rm -rf /" and projects like OpenSSL have had severe security holes revealed in the past (see Heartbleed).



1. How is it the "wrong side"? It's considerably easier to reach for a right handed person or anyone who uses the right hand to control a mouse (which even some lefties do), allowing them to move the pointer towards it without cramping their hand or accidentally leaving the mousepad.

2. How is Unity a "flagrant" copy of the OS X interface? Have you used it? It's quite different. Pressing "X" will actually close an application whereas it will only "suspend" the window on Mac OS X. The "dock" is more similar to Window's SettingsFlyout and the global top panel isn't something that is exclusive to Mac OS X. Mac OS X' GUI is barely as innovative as people make it out to be. Most of the things in it are themselves blatant copies of earlier concepts.

You either work for the Apple marketing dept or you have a distorted view of the world: nobody buys Mac outside US, especially companies! There is a total lack of professional software (CRM, automation, fiscal management...) to be a viable choice for any company.

Aluminum unibody, high capacity battery and fucking "retina" screen are just technicalities that other producers are offering and still they don't explain such high prices.

Anyway, what matters is not having a shiny laptop but rather having a system that is as Free as possible! The whole point of GNU/Linux is becoming independent from these greedy companies whose only purpose is to profit at the expenses of the users. If you don't care about being independent from Apple, than stop bothering with Linux at all (I'm talking to you Canonical!)

[unixfan2001]

I think you can't really blame Linux for heartbleed since OS X uses OpenSSL too, I suppose that can be said for a lot of software. Xorg is another weak spot in my opinion.

Not really. It's available but seldom used (certainly not in production code). The Apple documentation has the following to say about it.

"OpenSSL does not provide a stable API from version to version. For this reason, although OS X provides OpenSSL libraries, the OpenSSL libraries in OS X are deprecated, and OpenSSL has never been provided as part of iOS. Use of the OS X OpenSSL libraries by apps is strongly discouraged."

That being said Mac OS X is obviously not free of security vulnerabilities either. It's just that they can, at least theoretically (I say theoretically because I know this is often not the case), be fixed quicker than on GNU/Linux and its many distros (see the time it took to even disclose heartbleed to the public vs the time it took to fix GoToFail).

And yes. As I said before, Xorg is a huge weakspot. It's hardly a weakspot on Mac OS X though because, again, people seldom use it there.

You either work for the Apple marketing dept or you have a distorted view of the world: nobody buys Mac outside US, especially companies! There is a total lack of professional software (CRM, automation, fiscal management...) to be a viable choice for any company.

Not sure what bubble you live in, but they are pretty popular even outside the US.
Fact aside that there is plenty of CRM software and that most CRM software those days is multiplatform/web based (and thus installed to servers, with clients connecting through the browser or a small applet), that's not the target audience.
I never said they were popular in financial institutions or service management. They're, however, seeing widespread support amongst developers.

I hardly know any software company (particularly startups) without a couple of Macbook Pro/Macbook Air and at least one iPad on their desks.
Even Microsoft has them.

Aluminum unibody, high capacity battery and fucking "retina" screen are just technicalities that other producers are offering and still they don't explain such high prices.

What about the ability to run Mac OS X and develop in XCode? While I'm the proud owner of a very powerful Hackintosh Pro myself, most modern laptops can't be convinced to run Mac OS X quite as easily and flawlessly.

Then there's also social status (see how many developers with old, large and heavy IBM laptops you can spot at Techcrunch Disrupt. I doubt it will be many).

And I beg to differ that a light body and a high capacity battery are just "technicalities". Developers (at least the ones who use git. Not sure the ones who use CVS/SVN/TFS do. Lest they wouldn't use those centralised relics ) can work from anywhere, including areas without access to their company VPN, a stable network or even a wall socket.

The first time your laptop's battery dies on you in the middle of your work or you are travelling a distance by foot you'll look into a smaller, lighter device with better battery life.

Anyway, what matters is not having a shiny laptop but rather having a system that is as Free as possible!

Freedumb doesn't pay my bills and it's certainly not a guarantee for a superior product.
So far the FSF has given us a bunch of broken, bloated tools, an even more bloated license and an ever more bloated man in a stupid hat.

It's slowly but steadily becoming the running joke of the software industry, not unlike the flag waving "Freedom fighters" of the American Right. Neither of whom even knows what freedom looks like.

The whole point of GNU/Linux is becoming independent from these greedy companies whose only purpose is to profit at the expenses of the users. If you don't care about being independent from Apple, than stop bothering with Linux at all (I'm talking to you Canonical!)

Is that why the meat of the GNU/Linux ecosystem is developed by large corporations?
Seriously, this argument is becoming old and outdated. It might've been true in the beginning but it hasn't been true for almost a decade.

[nils_]

Not really. It's available but seldom used (certainly not in production code). The Apple documentation has the following to say about it.

"OpenSSL does not provide a stable API from version to version. For this reason, although OS X provides OpenSSL libraries, the OpenSSL libraries in OS X are deprecated, and OpenSSL has never been provided as part of iOS. Use of the OS X OpenSSL libraries by apps is strongly discouraged."

I think you're mixing up iOS and OS X there.