Re: Mac OS X and Linux

From: Lew Pitcher (Lew.Pitcher_at_td.com)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:06:23 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Juhan Leemet wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>>Bats wrote:
>>
>>>I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
>>>If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps
>>>like MS Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this
>>>mean?
>>
>>It means that Microsoft and Adobe have written versions of their
>>programs that can be run under OS/X. There may be a contractual
>>requirement for such support (i.e. Microsoft supporting their Office
>>suite under contract from Apple), or it may mean that the vendor feels
>>that there is sufficient commercial interest in their product in order
>>to support an OS/X port.
>
>
> I don't know that it means anything special. Those companies came to
> decisions and/or agreements that this was a good thing to do, and they
> did it, or collaborated (together? with Apple?) to do it. We don't know
> (might never know) who paid whom, or what conditions.

I was thinking specifically of Microsoft Office. IIRC, Microsoft is (or
at least, /was/) contractually obligated to provide an Office for Apple
operating systems.

>>It /does not/ mean that these programs will run under another BSD Unix
>>derivative or under Linux. Most likely, these programs have been written
>>to interface with the OS/X propriatary UI, and not through standard
>>Unixish UIs like X.
>
>
> I would think that "in principle" it would be easier to port a version
> that runs under OSX to BSD or Linux than to port a native Windoze version.

The primary problem is the UI code. That's the significant part of any
graphical application, and the Cocoa (or Carbon or whatever codename
Apple gave it) UI is significantly different from the standard X toolkit
UI that it would be a non-trivial thing to port a working OS/X app to
generic Unix-with-X.

>>>1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to
>>>run under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?
>>
>>No. It means that they've ported their apps to run under the OS/X
>>paradigm.
>
>
> Yes, not much more, except that the "porting team" have some experience.
>
>
>>>2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
>>
>>compiled it
>>
>>>for their OS?
>>
>>Not likely.
>
>
> This depends. It could go either way. Microsoft has collaborated in the
> past with other companies to supply source code under non-disclosure for
> specific purposes. They would likely decide how/where to do it, and who
> would maintain it, etc. My own suspicion is that the support is more of an
> O/S related thing, and the support team have to be able to issue patches
> and recompiled programs, etc. It might even be likely that a team of M$
> and Apple programmers did the work at Apple (in their development labs),
> and it may be a collaborative team that is supporting it. M$ would likely
> want someone around to "keep their eyes on the crown jewels". Leaks?

I sincerely doubt that Apple is the custodian of the Microsoft Office
for OS/X code or the Adobe Photoshop for OS/X code. More likely,
Microsoft and Adobe have their source code safely locked away, and the
only interaction they have with Apple is one of discussion of public
(and perhaps private) API interaction with the OS

>>>3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Probably not. Performance would be better if there was no emulation
> involved. I think there was a version of WordPerfect Office that ran on
> WINE, either before/after another version that ran as native Linux
> applications? So, obviously this sort of thing can be done either way. No
> emulation is obviously better.
>
>
>>>And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
>>>desktop yet? Even commercially?
>>
>>Probably because the vendors don't feel that there is a market that they
>>can (or wish to) sell to.
>
>
> This may in fact be the preference of both companies? I think M$ pretty
> clearly would not want to "support" Linux in any way, shape, or form. They
> are still using M$ Office to help support their virtual Windoze monopoly.
> Apple as well might be thinking that they would prefer to be the only
> alternative to M$ that offers M$ Office suite? It's not impossible.

Yes, there /is/ the political issue at Microsoft to consider. But, bye
and large, if Microsoft saw a way to make a profit on a Unixish (BSD or
Linux) port of their software, I have no doubt that they would go for it.

> FWIW, I would gladly have paid full price for M$ Office to run on OS/2 or
> Solaris or Linux, years ago. Not now. I'm mad as hell, and I won't take
> any more! I'm tired of strongarm tactics and holding my data in
> proprietary formats for ransom. The switch is painful, but I'm determined.
>
> p.s. There was another post that suggested that these were not new ports,

Could just have been ports to Cocoa (the OS/9 - OS/10 interface layer,
IIRC). OS/9 was the last of the Apple "standalone" operating systems,
while OS/X took them to a BSD base.

> but updates of old ports that used to run on a previous MacOS. I'm not
> sure. Depends on the amount of change. I suspect that if there has been a
> lot of application "creep" AND one is going to a different O/S, it might
> be better to do a fresh, new port, using the same team(s) that have done
> it before, and that know how the applications work. Even that team will
> have to update/learn about the new stuff. Might need additional staff.
>

- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFA/mpNagVFX4UWr64RAsXdAKCFmyjU/tFa/EkOIAGAa8cehYb4OQCeNYVj
qDu7X7ZLJOKh+egcSBm0UN0=
=tYev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Relevant Pages