Re: Linux Applications for OS X

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:31:55 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <gEHwi.1755$Lu.1362@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

George Graves wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:57:37 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <d4twi.3315$E84.2918@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

George Graves wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:12:20 -0700, klauer wrote
(in article <1187097140.922308.117130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Hello.

I hear that you can get most Linux applications installed for OS X.
Does anybody have any experience with a specific application or set of
application that just won't work for OS X? Can you get *anything*
Linux-based to run on OS X(aside from some obvious exceptions, like
Beryl/compiz GNOME, KDE, etc.)?
Actually, GNOME and KDE GUIs will run atop OSX's X11 shell, but there's
little reason to do so.
If you're willing to live with an ancient version of GNOME (the version
in Fink) or build GNOME yourself against Apple's X11.

Most of the Linux apps, Open-Office, GIMP, InkScape,
TexShop, Scribus, etc. are available already compiled for OSX.
This does not constitute "most" *nix applications.

Of course not, they're just examples.

You just named a large portion of the *nix apps with specific Mac ports,
outside of the Fink project.


Yes, most of the
major applications are available and work on OS X. Now, if only someone
would make the more esoteric applications work well.

All one needs
is X11.
One needs quite a bit more than just X11, in most cases.

The programs are transparent to the OSX GUI and and will run right
alongside Mac apps.
They are absolutely not transparent. Apple has *tried* to make it seem
transparent, but it clearly is not if you bother to look at any but the
most superficial aspects. Running X11 rootless does not make it
integrate well with OS X's graphical environment.

I have The aforementioned GIMP, Inkscape, and Scribus running on my Mac.

The three you have mentioned have all been *specifically ported* to the
Mac. Most will not have received that special treatment.

All
I have to do is click the icon in the Toolbar and X11 starts up and the
application opens. Seems pretty transparent to me. NeoOffice, of course,
doesn't even need X11,

Because it's a Mac app.

No, its a Linux/Unix app compiled for the Mac. Were it a Mac app, it wouldn't
need X11.

But the others don't look like Mac apps. if that's
what you mean.

No, that's not what I mean. Transparent, in this, would be "without
substantial difference". Clearly, there are major differences that would
*include* the UI differences. Other aspects would include broken drag
and drop support between the environments, lack of integration between
the applications and the underlying environment, etc.

Well cut and paste work (IIRC), but you're right. Drag-and-drop doesn't.

Funny thing. I just went to open InkScape and GIMP and the app launches but I
get nothing but a single menu with the app's name and under that menu, I get
merely the option to quit. I get no other menus, no program (that I can see).
I just installed the latest versions, Ditto. I wonder what "broke"?

I am wondering if it is worth trying to install Linux as a dual boot,
VM, or whatnot, since it seems that most, if not all applications that
are written for Linux, can be ported easily, or already are ported, to
OS X.

Any insights?
Well, I'm sure that not ALL Linux programs have been ported to OSX,
Many have not, and many that have been are several versions behind.

but
certainly the more popular ones have. Those which haven't can be compiled
to
run using the OSX Unix console (if you know Unix well enough to do that).
Going that route gives new meaning to the term "dependency hell". Not
only is manual dependency resolution just as much of a hassle on OS X as
it is on GNU/Linux, but the user also has to deal with libraries that
don't compile cleanly on (or simply aren't available for) OS X. Package
managers exist because dependency hell is such a PITA, and OS X's
package management options are incredibly weak. Even compared with
Debian, Fink moves at a glacial pace.

Well, for many unix apps, one doesn't even need Fink. GIMP, LAtex, Inkscape
EMacs and others are available at: Apple.com/software downloads/ Unix,
Opensource.

These are the exceptions, and not the rule. In general, Fink is
essential. If you're willing to limit yourself to the extremely basic
*nix applications that people have demanded Mac ports for, then you can
live without it. If you intend to use OS X as you would a Linux
distribution, OTOH, doing without Fink would be insanity. It's barely
usable as such with Fink.


It would be nice if this were easier to do across the board, but that's not
Apple's fault (or is it?).

It's not Apple's fault because Apple isn't trying to develop such a
system. The fault lies with users (and advocates) claiming that it can
be easily used as such.

I
think that you'd be better off not dual booting (for convenience sake) if
you
don't have to. The ability to run everything in more-or-less the same
environment at the same time is one of the joys of OSX.
That's not a "joy" to anyone who prefers GNU/Linux. That's a hassle, and
a very serious one at that.

I assume that anyone who's asking the questions that the OP was asking is
not
a dyed-in-the-wool GNU/Linux user. I want access to some of the open source
software available, but I certainly don't want to run GNU/Linux to do so.
No
offense intended, but I have never found futzing around with GNU/Linux to
be
fun. I admit, it's come a long way very quickly, but for me, It's not
nearly
ready for MY primetime.

And how would you know, if you have never become accustomed to using it
as a desktop? OS X requires a hell of a lot of tweaking to make it work
*properly*, just as Linux distributions do. The difference is that the
Linux distributions generally make it trivial to make these changes,
while Apple intentionally makes it difficult.

I wouldn't call anything about Linux "Trivial". Besides, OSX does everything
I need an OS to do and I already know how to use it. Why should I spend
endless hours futzing with Linux when none of the Linux apps I've ever seen
are really as good as the shrink versions? For instance, Gimp is not
competition for Photoshop, InkScape no match for Illustrator, and Scribus
isn't as good as the most basic Mac page layout software (Pages). The only
one that actually lives up to the potential of opensource software is
OpenOffice and it's where it is mostly because of Sun. Besides I don't even
need X11 to run a REAL Mac version of that. I guess what I'm saying is that I
don't really see any compelling reason to become "accustomed to using (Linux)
as a desktop."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux Applications for OS X
    ... I hear that you can get most Linux applications installed for OS X. ... If you're willing to live with an ancient version of GNOME (the version in Fink) or build GNOME yourself against Apple's X11. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Linux Applications for OS X
    ... I hear that you can get most Linux applications installed for OS X. ... If you're willing to live with an ancient version of GNOME or build GNOME yourself against Apple's X11. ... You just named a large portion of the *nix apps with specific Mac ports, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Linux Applications for OS X
    ... version in Fink) or build GNOME yourself against Apple's X11. ... You just named a large portion of the *nix apps with specific Mac ... Because it's a Mac app. ... I wouldn't call anything about Linux "Trivial". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: [SLE] Sometimes Linux makes me crazy.
    ... > out of X. That's why we have KDE and Gnome, ... X11 provides a network-transparent means of displaying windows, ... the mac comes with an OS ... network transparency - presuming you keep that linux box around. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: CAD on Linux. Thank you gentlemen.... and a re-phrase
    ... Leopard is out for the Mac, they have decided not to support older ... allow me to run XP-Pro or Linux via ... there are two applications for which I have not found good ...
    (rec.woodworking)