Perl is requires for apple to maintain their unix(tm) certification. And while they likely dont see it as core to what they want macos to become it would be an news story in the more sensationalist part of the IT press if they were to drop it. and big sur is still listed as certified
https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/.
Powerful command-line environments are offered everywhere (wsl, Linux container on Chrome, Linux on Linux). MacOS is actually quite lacking in comparison (being limited wrt licenses and lacking a package manager). So it’s just a GUI question, and I’m not sure there is a definite lead these days.
Integration with their other hardware devices is the more important moat right now, as is hardware.
There are plenty of third-party package managers for macOS that work fine. I would prefer it if Apple picked one to officially support, but installing Homebrew takes me ten minutes and then I never have to think about it again.
I had unpleasant issues with homebrew upgrades back when I used it. It’s not exactly state of the art. (Nix works the same everywhere, though — but there are some hoops you need to jump through on macs)
It’s definitely not the best. I have my issues with it. But I’ve been using it since I got a Mac in 2014 and it has improved a lot since then, it rarely blows up on me anymore. In fact I can’t remember when last it did.
I’ve always wanted to use Nix and have tried to get started a few times. It has always ended up seeming more trouble than it’s worth.
I've used it as my primary package manager on macOS for six months, but ended up dropping it.
My main reasons -
* Nix doesn't have support for GUI apps like homebrew cask does - which meant I couldn't drop homebrew anyway.
* The nix ecosystem forums suggest using nix-shell for managing packages for other languages, eg. python, java - but it's been really difficult to convince team members to use nix instead of pyenv, conda, gradle etc
It used to be, but Apple seems to have lost interest in the Unix/Open Source side of macOS a decade ago. They've abandoned GNU tools after GPLv3 (2007), haven't added anything new, and just let the old stuff limp along until it's obsolete.
Nowadays macOS needs something like Homebrew to fill the gaps. It's still slightly better than Windows + WSL, but Microsoft is catching up, while Apple seems to think that iPadOS is the future.
> It used to be, but Apple seems to have lost interest in the Unix/Open Source side of macOS a decade ago. They've abandoned GNU tools after GPLv3 (2007), haven't added anything new, and just let the old stuff limp along until it's obsolete.
There's a whole lot more to Unix and open source than GNU. macOS has current versions of many open source tools, such as zsh, awk, sqlite, tar, git, and xz.
If one is being pedantic, GNU is not even "open source" but rather is "free software," and macOS certainly is not free software.
None of that really matters when GNU is the predominant standard, though. You could tell your boss all about how great the MacOS coreutils are, but if your program doesn't compile, you're gonna be in trouble.
This new world is way better. Before we were dependent on Apple's release cadence to keep our OSS up to date. Apple officials dropping support doesn't mean they don't want these tools to be on their platform, it just means the community does a better job of managing Unix/OSS tools separate from Apple's release schedule.
That's still pretty appawling though. If Linux distros can have big release candidates and still push out package updates between releases then why can't one of the most profitable companies in the world manage it?
I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve. Just that Apple aren't dropping support out of respect to their customers. They're doing it because it's cheaper.
Linux distros have massively different expectations of their users. And users have very different requirements from how they get and update their OSS, hence he variety of distros and package managers. Its less that Apple is unable to do this and more that Apple is in the one size fits all business, and that model simply doesn't work for solving the OSS distribution problem.
We're not talking about forking macOS for every theme change or offering alternative init daemons. We're just talking about providing a package manager for common user land tools. In fact Apple already do this: it's called "App Store". But you have to pay to have your app on there so most OSS don't bother. And here lies the problem: why would Apple run another package manager for free? For them, this is 100% a financial decision.
I'm thinking that the less value that Apple delivers to the customers, the better it is for their bottom line, don't forget, adding value costs money, plus its not like Apple fans are going to suddenly quit buying their products right?
Apple seems to be really good at maintaining their profit margin.
In a nutshell, this is the correct answer. Going all the way back to when Apple's Java was deprecated and eventually removed from the shipping OS. In the moment, it's annoying, but I would rather not have to fight with preinstalled software when trying to get a newer version of (say) zsh installed.
Here, they not only realized it had become popular, but GNU licensing gave them an excuse to switch the default without much thrashing about.
The fact that I can `chsh -s /usr/local/bin/zsh` and macOS doesn't freak out is quite nice.
There's still an even better solution: Apple could start treating their operating system like a first-class programming platform, and everyone would win. But it looks like they're still dragging their feet on that one.
They're rolling in billions with nowhere to spend it. They could just hire some more unix devs to update their tooling. Nobody wants to champion that because it'll never be a keynote bullet point.
That's a hugely subjective comment and there are plenty of instances throughout history of a powerful CLI and sophisticated GUI being included as part of the same OS (Xerox Alto, BeOS, NeXT, Plan 9). Linux and *BSD's have plenty of popular WM / DEs too: personally I'd rate KDE above anything commercial I've used but that's my subjective preference. Heck these days even Windows can be argued as having a "powerful CLI" with both WSL and Powershell existing, and the Windows UI has it's fair share of fans (regardless of what our own personal preferences might be).
This is very subjective. I, for one, much prefer kde plasma. And there's a substantial breed of developers who would prefer a tiling window manager with good keyboard navigation, such as i3.
It was impressive back when OSX debuted, but now it feels like Apple is lacking in both regards. Their shell utilities are all horribly outdated/mismatched, and their UI design took a nosedive with Big Sur. Modern MacOS reminds me of what Ubuntu felt like 10 years ago: it's a confused and scared operating system that doesn't quite know where to go from here. I mean, look at what Monterrey introduced; basically better Facetime and some new wallpapers. I'm getting the feeling that Apple has painted themselves into a corner here. They spent the past 2 decades focusing on vertical growth, only to discover that the next 50 years are going to be ruled by better interop and protocols.
Best GUI? Finder is atrocious, and overall experience is far worse than even cancelled Unity. YMMV, of course, but I hate every second spent with this 'best GUI'. The only reason I ever use macOS is because I occasionally run Sketch.
not in 2021, but apple made sort of an big deal about it when they started to market OSX 20 years ago.
And while you can still find an traditional unix(tm) box here and there in the dusty forgotten corners of enterprise serverooms(i am personally responsible for maintaining a few hpux boxen), unix(tm) certification haven't really mattered since Linux became serious business which happened around the same time OSX was launched.
What used to matter was that you could run the same CLI tooling in an macos desktop as on an Linux server but i don't think this is an use case apple see's as particularly important for the future success of Apple.
That’s the only reason my employer hands out MacBooks. If it stopped being something that used the same CLI tooling as our infrastructure, it would be Dells all around.
IMO, Apple still sees it as very important that macOS is fairly attractive for developers. Of course they’re selling lots of MacBook Airs to college students, but outside of that…
It’s not as if they want their CLI interaction to be 1-for-1 with Linux, but relatively close seems to still be a priority.
Do you have more info on that? Fairly attractive for macOS and iOS developers sure, but for me it was a happy accident that Macs also became popular for web development and Linux server admin, that it was never part of the strategy of Apple.
Companies see Mac products as more attractive for their workforce than Linux-based workstations. Having printers, wifi, other products seemlessly work, since Apple devotes time and money ensuring that, improves productivity, generally, and lowers costs in (in terms of Helpdesk staff and time spent diagnosing and fixing systems integration). So, developers and admins make use of what's offered, as it is a middle-ground between stability and functionality.
While it may have been a happy accident, it's a pretty big market.
Precovid, on any conference I went to, professional or academic, the amount of Apple laptops was insane. I'm sure they're running things locally or on Linux servers, but the fact that they work pretty well between them is important.
For anecdata, I've worked at two companies in a row now that have used exclusively Macs because it's simultaneously an acceptable platform for serious dev work and still user-friendly to tech illiterate interns.
I can't consciously buy a Mac if Apple is going to treat Linux like competition. One is free software, provided by volunteers for free, and the other is a desktop OS ran by the largest company in the world. It costs Apple nothing to respect the predominant standards, so why can't they do it?
> It costs Apple nothing to respect the predominant standards
Actually, it would cost them a lot, due to the GPL. Sure, they could try and pull a Google re: Java/Oracle feud, but I doubt they will and for good reason.
I agree, Macs aren't for me. But if Apple wants to increase their market share (hint: they're one of the most-traded shares of all time), they should start listening to their detractors. Especially for their desktops, where MacOS barely constitutes 7% of the desktop market share. Apple has been selling computers for nearly 5 decades, and their market share is still pitiful. Hell, if Google is selling more computers than you, something is seriously wrong with your computer.
Again, Apple is not interested in catering to you. Clearly. I think they're pretty happy with where they are, and catering to the demands of the "make it like Linux" crew are laughably irrelevant. I have no idea why "most-traded shares" is pertinent -- yeah, they're a super, ridiculously profitable company. Your commentary on their "pitiful" computer sales are not cogent.
The Google bit is particularly goofy. No, "Google" doesn't even appear on the charts (you know -- the charts which Apple usually is within the top 2, often leading). Chromebooks do, sold by a wide variety of sellers, as a schoolhouse special. Their great for what they do.
I just don't see them making any decision that does not make the MacOS CLI less useful with each and every release since at least the big cat series, and the user pattern is changing with those changes.
IT's an trip the classic macos took before it and i think there is an signficance in apple returning to the MAcOS branding thats subly hinting that the days when OSX was an relatively open unix is ending.
The few, government workstations that aren't running Windows are probably using RHEL. Microsoft and Red Hat/IBM have much more experience than Apple at speaking "enterprise."
