upvote

points

by cromka13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby eloisant4 hours ago|
next
[-]
They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000.

Suddenly you could have a Unix, with pretty much the same CLI as Linux but without all the supported hardware/driver issues. Laptop sleep in particular was pretty finicky.

If MacOS didn't pick a Unix/BSD base, I'm pretty sure all the tech companies running Mac would be on Linux.

reply
upvoteby throw0101d4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000.

FoxTrot comic from 2002:

* https://archive.is/https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/...

reply
upvoteby nottorp3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They seem to be trying hard to annoy developers lately though.

<cough> xattr...

reply
upvoteby Apocryphon2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
BeOS, anyone?
reply
upvoteby znpy1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Clearly not
reply
upvoteby layer83 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Apple wants to make money with services, however, and buying more devices in their ecosystem. Full Linux support would counteract the lock-in.
reply
upvoteby cromka1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I thought about it , but cloud is getting way more expensive since they don't own the infrastructure, while they themselves have long term components contracts that actually help to increase their margin on their hardware. So they're most likely gonna make more money off of hardware going forward. And nothing stops them from offering integration with other devices, effectively all they lose is potential income from AppStore on macOS, which doesn't sell much anyway. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me!
reply
upvoteby beAbU12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If apple came out with their own linux distro, with open drivers and a mainline kernel... A girl can dream!
reply
upvoteby starkparker4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The memory that XNU and Darwin are technically open-source projects is a curse that brings one only suffering.
reply
upvoteby p_ing2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would call them open access. Apple doesn't accept contributions.
reply
upvoteby bigfishrunning1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Does not accepting contributions make you not open source? I would assume if the license allows you to fork it, that makes it open source (as opposed to "shared source" licenses that basically say "look don't touch")
reply
upvoteby kylec4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I feel like Apple wouldn't want to make full Linux work on their hardware, but they could enable their Darwin kernel to emulate Linux syscalls and provide a way to boot into a mode that basically loads the kernel and whatever Linux shell you want
reply
upvoteby pjmlp12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This path is already taken and it didn't sell Apple hardware in masses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

reply
upvoteby beAbU11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
MkLinux was first released in 1996, and discontinued in 2002.

I would argue that things have changed significantly since then.

reply
upvoteby yfw10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah liquid glass suckss
reply
upvoteby pjmlp12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

> Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.

reply
upvoteby kingstnap12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense.

I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.

reply
upvoteby pjmlp11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely.

We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.

reply
upvoteby mhurron3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96?

Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy.

The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.

reply
upvoteby pjmlp2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes the 1996 Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy, yet Mac OS 8 was definitely much more polished than Tahoe.
reply
upvoteby ribosometronome2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Apple circa 1996 would be charging for its updates and licensing out the software to Power Computing and UMAX. They were making a lot of "interesting" decisions.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They still are doing lots of interesting decisions, the difference is that now the piggy bank is full to care of them going badly.
reply
upvoteby officeplant2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Rip Blackberry Phone + QNX, you were so promising for such a short time.
reply
upvoteby fsflover12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs

So it was a failure in implementation.

reply
upvoteby pjmlp11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?
reply
upvoteby cromka9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.
reply