[Linux-bruxelles] croquer le pinguin ?
jens-ingo brodesser
jens-ingo at all2all.org
Ven 13 Avr 19:04:02 CEST 2001
chers et (rares) cheres camarades,
voici un texte vu sur o'reilly.com. bsd, un systeme longtemps cru
mort, est en plein resurection. il y a des gens qui disent que bsd
est plus stable et plus rapid que linux. et voila maintenant il y a
bsd/darwin, la partie open source dans le nouveau macosx, c'est en
fait la base et le kernel sur laquelle sont construits plusieurs
couches : cocoa, carbon et l'environnement 9.1 classic. deja essaye,
ca marche bien. j'ai remplace le tcsh par un bash v.2.05, c'est alors
presque comme sous linux sauf que le firewire tourne a font la
caisse, ce qui n'est pas tout a fait le cas avec linux.
la seule limitation : ca marche uniquement avec G3, G4. sauf le
darwin/bsd seul devrait aussi marcher sous intel pc.
peut-etre bientot, peut-etre dans un futur lointain, il y aura plus
de linux user groups mais des gnuopensourcegroups qui sait. stallman
sera en tout le cas content
mais lisez le texte alors ...
--
jens-ingo
=============================
Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
by Chuck Toporek, O'Reilly Open Source editor
3 April 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 Mac 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 Macs. 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.
Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion Linux-bruxelles