Ars Technica Reviews MacOS X DP4 183
Mad Browser writes: "Ars Technica has posted a review of the recently released-to-developers MacOS X DP4. Check it out." Rather than concentrating on Aqua, this article is typical Ars -- it gets beneath the surface to consider the mechanisms for printing, screen display and more. As the writer points out, DP4 is not itself OS X, but only a snapshot of OS X as it matures.
Re:Eh? Why BSD? (Score:1)
BSD has a pedigree, it's one of the original UNIXes.
Linux is a mutt; but a well-engineered mutt.
Re:mach kernel (Score:1)
The price for this setup is indeed a speed hit.
Tom
site down? (Score:1)
Is the ports collection available? I also wonder how open it is. I've been hearing rumbling about a FreeBSD for the PowerPC.
The ports and the ease of CVSupping lured me away from linux. Apple would need these to lure me from FreeBSD.
Re:BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:2)
Actually, XFree86 4.0, and the numerous extensions to X are gradually transforming it into something pretty reasonable. However, dumping it entirely isn't an option, unless everyone starts using Qt or GTK -- since those can be ported to other GUI systems.
>
Windows 2000 already enjoys that title.
>
Yes. You didn't read the Ars Technica article, did you?
>
You assume that backwards compatibility and the elimination of the "ugliness" of a commandline-first system are mutually exclusive. They are not.
MacOS X has a shell, and has all sorts of commandline tools available for it. DP4 includes a GUI-based development environment which seamlessly relies on gcc and gdb. The developer need never touch a command line. The user need never touch a command line.
You can however download all your favorite commandline programs, compile them, and run them to your heart's content.
>
Read the Ars Technica article. Library handling is RADICALLY different, and eliminate most of the problems commonly associated with shared libraries. Configuration files are in XML. The filesystem has been restructured.
>
Agreed. But in this case, Apple is producing a better Unix, and a better MacOS all at once. All the cruft from Unix/BSD is being eliminated, the interface is modern, administration can be done ENTIRELY from the GUI.
>
MacOS 9 already supports multi-user desktops. I set up my mom's iMac so that she and my dad have seperate logins and can't screw things up. They double-click their names, speak their password and go ff to do whatever they want. I have an account with admin priviledges...
I have heard many things that encourage me that Apple understands this, and may therefore be the first to create a Unix-stable, xerox-style operating system. I have also seen many things that discourage me, because they indicate Apple is buying the benighted notion that BSD-compatibility is worth a damn to their business. It is not. Let me repeat: it is not. And furthermore, it will eviscerate the utility of the MacOS. Do you hear me, Tevanian? Hide that damn shell. Hide it somewhere where we will never find it.
Unix users are smart, self-reliant people. We can find plenty of ways to get our jollies without mastering our problems onto millions of MacOS CD's.
Re:Tune out the static trolls and FUD lobbers.... (Score:2)
Re:Tune out the static trolls and FUD lobbers.... (Score:2)
Re:Tune out the static trolls and FUD lobbers.... (Score:1)
Re:Eh? Why BSD? (Score:1)
Re:I am salivating... (Score:1)
(Apple Rules.)
Re:Think different? (Score:2)
Re:What about font management? (Score:2)
tcd004
Re:Good review/a question? (Score:1)
At this stage in the game, Classic Menu is being made freely available in unrestricted form to give a helping hand to other developers trying to get a day's work done on Apple's newly-emasculated interface
Anyone care to comment about why they feel it is emasculated?
(Also I love MacOS but was it ever all that Masculine? and yes i know they mean reduced in power)
Re:BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:1)
Actually, XFree86 4.0, and the numerous extensions to X are gradually transforming it into something pretty reasonable.
==
X will never be reasonable. Not the XFree team's fault - good work built on a bad foundation. People will sooner or later have to throw it all out. Legacy apps can work in through a box or a wine-like emulator.
== :)
Yes. You didn't read the Ars Technica article, did you?
==
I did.
==
You assume that backwards compatibility and the elimination of the "ugliness" of a commandline-first system are mutually exclusive. They are not.
==
Actually, I disagree with that statement specifically. I am saying that unix is broken. /lib is bogus. libc is bogus. /etc is bogus. password files are bogus. /dev is bogus. There are huge assumptions built into the codebase about a number of fundamentally bogus things, from the bogus filesystem hierarchy to the bogus libraries to... you guessed it... the necessity of a command line and a terminal. And curses, no less!
Not that I don't love Unix anyway. Not that I don't use it every day. But if you think millions of Mac users are going to start loving it because Steve Jobs tells them to... you are going to have to give me your dealer's phone number.
==
Library handling is RADICALLY different...
==
Yes, yes. This is part of what's so encouraging! I love it! It's the right thing. But... is it all good work? Or is some of it still going to leave people having fits?
==
MacOS 9 already supports multi-user desktops.
==
These "little details" matter. It needs to be disabled by default, in acknowledgement of the fact that an overwhelming majority of users won't use it, and could in fact get bitten by it. A million little details occur to me. Multi-user computers are fundamentally more complicated than single-user computers. That's complexity no one should have to put up with unless they ask for it. And even if they demand it, woe to the person who should offer them the unix security model in return.
Your comments are good. Thanks!
Re:I am salivating... (Score:1)
There are a lot of things in UNIX which are still very good, and which should go on in whatever new OS we make, such as the POSIX standard which, it seems, is getting supported almost everywhere. Things like preemptive multitasking, protected memory, true multi-user environments, named pipes, and quite a few other things should obviously be kept. But I think that beyond those basic things we should start over. If we were to create an OS which was going to truly be for the average consumer, we'd want to add things like a unified document format tag in files and dynamically-loadable drivers (à la QNX)--things which currently don't exist in UNIX, and for various reasons would be quite hard to add. Mac OS X has done a lot to add these things to UNIX, but I question whether or not, had OS X not had NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP herritage, whether OS X would use UNIX. Because the fact of the matter is that, when you implement all of those changes, you really don't have a UNIX box anymore in the traditional sense, but rather something totally different that's loosely based on UNIX technology. Whether there's any particular reason to start with UNIX to implement features like what you're asking, rather than to start from scratch or with another system, is something I would seriously question before the Open Source Community (tm) undertakes a project like this.
Meanwhile, about your complaint about X being the GUI: I think most people agree that X has major problems. Where I think most people fail to see something is that X isn't the only thing that is wrong with Linux GUIs. Linux GUIs are currently pretty much clones of either Windows95/98/NT/2000, Mac OS, or similar environments. Those GUIs were never designed for a UNIX system. If you want to build a GUI for a consumer system, those may be the way to go, but if you want to have a GUI for Linux, you should work to design a GUI from the ground up that is actually suited to Linux. What's better suited for Linux? I don't know. Maybe we just haven't figured out what aspects of Windows95's interface just aren't suited to Linux, which aspects are, and which ones we might be able to learn from but by counterexample and should start anew. Maybe what we need is something like Squeak's Morphic [squeak.org]. And there's the definite possibility that a GUI just isn't suited for Linux--at least in its current state. But my point is that the problem lies deeper than X; it lies with the current way we're trying to marry Linux to a GUI.
Re:BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:1)
I balk at the fact that it's being written by unix hackers - ex-NeXT or not. Be's signal failing in my mind was its cowardly inability to lose its unix compatibility to aim for something higher. Huge missed opportunity.
Yes, I know a unix kernel does not a unix make. Although it goes a long way in it's unmodified state. But this is obviously not the only part of unix Apple is including.
"but if they have an inittab file, and if they use init scripts, I bet it'd be a laughably simple exercise on their part to make an account called "dumbuser" and have the rc.M file su as dumbuser..."
Oh that's laughable, all right. The only simple part in this, though, is making Windows look like the HAL 9000.
But seriously, thanks for your comments.
Re:Think different? (Score:2)
Thanks for a very concise and well-spoken explanation of the exact point I've tried to make (much less successfully) to people complaining about "Think different"'s grammatical "error."
Excellent.
(Although your *'d sentences in the look examples are not at all ungrammatical:
This AIBO uses a CCD camera for its vision. That one looks differently...
...for instance. I leave the other as an exercise for the reader.)
--
Re:I wonder. (Score:1)
In all fairness to MacOS and Windoze, it's kinda hard to tell whether a crash is really a crash of the OS or the GUI. X has died on my SPARC multiple times, but I just kill it and keep going...
Re:MacOS 2001 == BeOS 1997 (Score:1)
---------------------------------
Alternate feedback address (Score:2)
Think Different(ly) (Score:1)
The Article Itself (Score:3)
The author does take certain aspects of the UI to task, and I really don't blame him. He is fair about it, rather than some reviewers who choose to do nothing but flame and complain. His arguments are well thought out and written, and he brings out certain concerns that, frankly, make sense. If you only read one article (or series of articles) on OS X, this should be the series.
______________________
Re:Now it's BSD, now it isn't! (Score:4)
From Creed Erickson at Apple:
>Hello all. I read somewhere (don't remember where right off) that
>terminal.app would not be included in the consumer release of Mac OS X,
>presumably for fear that novice users could/would dork up their system.
This is the first I've heard of it, but "they" rarely consult "us" about such decisions
AFAIK, we intend to ship Terminal.app with the general release. Whether it is installed by default is another issue.
From Justin Walker at Apple:
On the subject of product content, I'll say the following: first, the various rumor pages and alleged news services have consistently misrepresented, confused, and butchered any information that we've put out, so I'd err on the side of ignoring whatever you read that isn't from Apple.
Second, we havn't made any specific statements about what will and won't be in a "consumer relase" of Mac OS X. However, Apple surely does not want to build in any reliance on, or requirement for, mechanisms like Terminal. We have said that BSD will be part of Mac
OS X, because that's what our code is built on. Beyond that, there's little to say at this point.
From Hary Wilke:
just put it in the "folder of death", apple extras.
it will live very nicely with other amazing yet underused things like applescript.
Slashdot threshold building (Score:1)
I'm on page 3 and the article is really getting interesting but it's really slowing down when I try to go on.
Could you please hold off until I finish reading it?
Thanks very much,
Darby
---CONFLICT!!---
Thanks, you;ve made my day more surreal (Score:1)
Slashdot's Lazy Linking (Score:1)
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:1)
To quote John Siracusa (the author)...
"I don't know about you, but one word immediately springs to mind: DirectX. Well, obviously only the portions of DirectX that deal with screen drawing, but it's clear that Apple has designed Mac OS X's graphics subsystem to be as flexible as possible. And with QuickDraw, QuickTime, and OpenGL already implemented, I'm hard-pressed to name another API (other than X, which is already in the busy hands of Darwin hackers) that would be implemented in the future. This is pure speculation at this point, of course, but if it does come to pass, remember that you heard it here first."
Re:LISP Machines still unequalled (Score:1)
P.S. Screenshot?
Re:BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:1)
Systems can advance and use box or application layer emulation to do legacy work. It is already working for Linux, and Apple is obviously gambling on it. So I see no significant excuse for the rest of us not to have a sane, modern organizational and functional paradigm.
Re:Remember A/UX? (Score:1)
First of which, the "MacOS Look & Feel" was quite detached from the UNIX core. It was, quite simply MacOS running as a process on the UNIX server. In the first few versions, a modified MacOS 6 was included. In later versions, a modified MacOS 7 was included. This arrangement was very familar to anyone who had used Apple MAE (Macintosh Application Environment) product. MAE was a similar product that allowed you to bring up a classic MacOS environment on a SunOS or HP-UX workstation.
While it did give users the MacOS look and feel, it didn't give them much more. MacOS processes were still cooperatively scheduled inside the MacOS process. A crashing process would wipe out the whole environment. This was not good.
Even worse was the developer support for the environment. The UNIX environment had a few APIs to access the Mac Toolbox, but it did not have nearly the API set required to make the rich graphical environments that Mac users wanted. Coming back to my first point, is that even if you had written an A/UX graphical app, if the Mac environment crashed, so did your graphical app, eventhough it was running in a protected memory space.
Basically, what Apple had shipped was an OS that gobbled up RAM and only ran on the high-end machines, such as the Mac II (only if you had installed the upgrade PMMU chip) or the IIx. These setups cost $8,000 for a base system. The 8Mb of recommended RAM was enormously expensive in 1988. Why would users buy it? It made their hardware slower and their massive memories useless. Whereas MacOS 7.1 would only use up 2 Mb, A/UX would gobble up all 8 Mb when the MacOS environment was running. To it's credit, one of the good things that A/UX did do was virtual memory. It would dynamically allocate memory to the MacOS environment as it was used. You still had to give all of the MacOS applications hard memory allocations, but the environment would expand itself as needed.
Oh, there was one more thing. When it was first released, most "classic" MacOS applications wouldn't run in the MacOS environment. The MacOS environment required that applications be "32-bit clean". In the System 6 days, there were many apps that weren't- including many popular ones. This problem would pop up when system 7 came along, but by then most developers had revved their apps to be clean. Before system 7 was released, it became well known if you could get your app to run on AU/X, you could run on 7. Thus, A/UX did serve as an important development tool.
That's all I have right now.
Re:MacOS 2001 == BeOS 1997 (Score:1)
Re:Remember A/UX? (Score:3)
No, it doesn't sound familiar, because that's not what Apple's saying. You need to pay more attention to what Apple does say. This was true of Mac OS X *Server,*, but OSX Server was more a technology demonstration and a way of getting some extra revenue than a separate product. What this article was about was Mac OS X, which is a replacement for the Mac OS and intended to be put on all Macs starting next year.
OS X looks nothing like Unix from the user perspective, and is not for "high end" machines.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for A/UX was the resistence of Apple users to switching to Unix, even an Apple Unix.
That's because A/UX was transparently Unix, while OS X hides the command line completely. The standard install will likely not even include a command line utility.
Because Apple is using BSD code, and because ever-increasing numbers of Unix users come from Open Source Unix backgrounds, the success of OS X is largely tied to the success of Open Source.
What?
I really don't know what to say here, since it's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. OS X was developed almost entirely by Apple engineers, and they have the resources to continue to do so even if the OSS community entirely ignores them.
And there users aren't going to adopt OS X because it's based on BSD. They're going to adopt it for the same reason they adopted systems 9,8, and 7-- because it's the next upgrade to their operating system. The fact that it's Unix under the hood has no negative effect on its attractiveness to Mac users unless Apple doesn't hide those underpinnings well enough.
But if OSS fails, where will the Unix gurus be?
Who cares? "Unix gurus" are not a target Apple market. They sell primarily to graphics professionals, education, and home users. None of those users give a rat's ass about users, and most of them probably won't know a command line if it bites them.
Apple is not hitching themselves to Open Source. They are taking advantage of the OSS movement in hopes of cutting development costs and improving their product. They are also contributing valuable code to the OSS community. But they will be able to get along just fine if OSS flops.
Re:Why has it taken so long? (Score:2)
I don't find it that amazing. It's really hard work, involves a need for real research (the sort that requires real money) and I don't think that "someone in our own open source community" is up to it. There's a reason why most people use commercial OS's, and that, I'm afraid, is because they're the only ones an average human can use right now.
Re:Tune out the static trolls and FUD lobbers.... (Score:1)
Once the Darwin level is ported to intel, most of the remaining higher level items (the rest of MacOS X) would follow with relative ease.
I always figured that one of the big problems with porting mac-os-anything to the Intel platform would be that Apple tightly controls hardware. The drivers for my Diamond MX300 sound card have to come from somewhere, I don't think you can just magically throw Quartz and everything else on "Darwin for Intel" and play Mac QuakeIII.
-Erik
-ErikRe:Think different? (Score:1)
2.*That looks differently.
"Look" (like "be" or "seems") is a copula verb; this is very different from "think"! (think of the sentences "That is different" vs. "*That is differently")
Semantically, "different" in sentence 1 modifies "that", not the verb. In "Think different", "different" modifies the verb.
Adjectives vs. adverbs (Score:1)
- "Adverb", in most traditional grammars, is just a category to throw in words the grammarians don't know how to classify into other categories. Lots of weird words get classified as adverbs that a linguist wouldn't put together in the same category. For example, among adverbs there are sentence-modifying words like "occassionally", verb phrase modifiers like "quickly", adjective modifiers like "very", which are syntactically and semantically different.
- Morphosyntactically speaking, many linguists consider that "true adverbs" are just a special kind of adjective, with a special inflection. Morphology is not my specialty, so I can't tell you much there.
- Many languages lack adverbs distinct from adjectives.
- Even with that, in languages that do have adverbs, it is very common in the spoken varieties to use adjectives in their place. In Spanish, for example, I'd more normally say "El corre rápido" (He runs fast) instead of "El corre rápidamente" (He runs "fastly").
- This last thing happens also in French and many other languages-- adjectives are used in speech where grammar says that adverbs should occur. You've run into a phenomenon of language change that occurs independently in many languages.
My advice: take it easy. Grammar rules are supposed to help communication; they are a means, not an end, and it is perfectly justifiable to break them if your target audience will accept it.Now it's BSD, now it isn't! (Score:2)
There have been conflicting reports as to whether there will be an option to install a BSD "layer" under Aqua accessible by the user. Everybody's in agreement on the kernel, but nobody seems to know how many BSD commands will be available to the user.
Anybody have thoughts?
-carl
Re:Yes, I'm Mainly Interested In Aqua... (Score:2)
Hear, hear. Give us pre-emptive multitasking first, and make it work, then do something with the UI.
In fact, I've become persuaded that changes to the UI should be left to third party shareware developers. All but one or two of the UI changes since System 6 that I use were first offered as shareware system extensions (pop-up folders being the only exception I can think of, and I could be wrong about that, too). And even then, some of the best ones from system 6 (who remembers Super Boomerang?) didn't make it into the OS until 8.5 or 9.0.
I'm with you here. Aqua is a clear sign that Apple isn't making the UI choices that we users want. Let the elite users make them, and let natural selection sort them out. Then implement the best in a future release.
Of course, this approach functions the other way, too: If Aqua really blows livid chunks, then third party system extensions will fix it. But to me, that appears to be an ass-backwards way to operate. It's got to be the more expensive way.
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:1)
Frankly, a lot of the English grammar rules you seem to cling so strongly to were just born out of irrational prejudices of academics that didn't know much about language, and wanted English to be more "logical" and "latinate".
Double negations? You'll find a few in Shakespeare. Split infinitives, stranded prepositions? I think you can find very ancient examples of these too. Also, as I say in another post, the traditional category of "adverb" is very vague, and in many unrelated languages you see trends torwards a collapse of the difference between adverbs and adjectives.
I don't want to imply that normative grammars are no good-- only that many grammar rules for English are plain stupid, and that many "grammatical mistakes" in English have been around for centuries, way before the rules to proscribe them were created.
Re:I am salivating... (Score:3)
This Beast, this NewOS we're talking about may end up being only a remote relative of Unix, but maybe it should feel like Unix, if not for any other reason, just to be able to use the huge codebase of C/C++ code out there that's already been written for Unix.
It may sound like I am contradicting myself here, but I am really not. Unix is full of crud right now. And there are two ways to get rid of crud: 1) What BeOS or AtheOS have done; clean slate, only use portions of Unix design that you like, 2) What Apple did: Use a Unix framework and layer-by-layer remove crud, replacing it with better code of your own.
Because of the dynamics of OSS one of the rules of CatB is, in order to get people to work on a big OSS project, that some of the functionality needs to be there: i.e. shit has to work, so people can play with it. The overhead to do method (1) this way becomes much, much greater than method (2).
So, let's look around: what components are out there in OSS Unix-land that one can re-use in this NewOS w/o compromising on technology or design?:
The Linux kernel and device drivers; or if you want to be more cutting edge, the GNU HURD kernel. I'd go with Linux, because of the widespread device support.
GCC
Qt and/or GTK on the GUI front. I dunno how dependant they are on X, or if they abstract X functionality well.
There are gaping holes in this, of course, but it's much easier to start with something that already works, modify it to work under your very best design, and as components and functionality come in, you can potentially remove the old, aging components and put in new ones (e.g. swap the Linux kernel with a Mach-derived microkernel). I actually think most of this can be done starting with a Linux distro.
BTW, I don't want a great *consumer* OS. I think that distinction (between consumer and business, server and workstation) is bogus. A good design should scale; it should handle being a server just as well as being a workstation for Mom.
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Good review (Score:1)
--
Re:Now it's BSD, now it isn't! (Score:2)
Re:Kinda off topic - Lazy linking (Score:2)
Many amiga C/C++ compilers were set up to compile code that deliberately emulated unix-style linking by doing all the OpenLibrary() calls in a segment executed before main(), in effect making any possible linking failures happen at program startup, rather than bombing out 15 minutes into using the program. Macro Asm programmers, by contrast, tended to only open the librarys when needed - more memory-efficient that way.
It depended on whether the programmer thought it was more useful to have (a) a partially funcional program, or (b) nothing at all if the program wasn't fully functional.
In unix, you have the same choice ( via dlopen() ) , but the default is the (b) rather than the (a). This fits in with the unix philosophy of stringing together small tools with pipes, since a partially functional tool might feed garbage output into the next in the chain.
I've got your console app right here (Score:1)
MacOS X 4.4 BSD
login:
OS X (Score:1)
Re:BSD/Darwin and scriptable Mac applications? (Score:2)
I don't do anything repeatedly enough to warrant scripting in those applications, but, with Photoshop for example, you can send it a "do script [name its native script]" and it'll do it. Since MacPerl supports quite a few AppleEvents, you could probably kludge around the problem by, say, having Perl activate Photoshop and Smile or the Script Editor, then pause, then type and run a "do script", and save the output onto the desktop, where Perl or AppleScript (or Python) could dispose of it however you like. Since I'd never do this I haven't really figured it out (obviously!), but it seems possible.
And, though the name escapes me, I know there's a telnet-ish Mac script-by-web program available for free or cheap that supports whatever scripting additions are present in the box you're talking to, so it's very extensible. (Check out macscripter.net (I think; might be "-scripters") for hundreds of OSAXen.)
MacPerl responds to "do script [name]" too, so you can add however many layers of handoffs you need to make it run smoothly (or just more fun).
Wish I had an excuse to try it!
I'm admirative (Score:1)
well then (Score:1)
If you answered yes, you are a fucking moron.
Are these the same english majors who think we should apply Latin grammer to english?
Really though, you're going way overboard. I know an english major who likes the whole Apple campaign. Mabye it's because she is so smitten with her iMac.
I wonder. (Score:2)
tcd004
= Here are my Microsoft [lostbrain.com] and AICN [lostbrain.com] parodies, where are yours?
Re:Remember A/UX? (Score:1)
For a while the govt. wouldn't buy computers unless they could be POSIX compliant. So people who wanted Macs were allowed to buy them because they could run A/UX on it. They didn't, but that's what they had to do to get around the restriction.
More recently, this has been lifted. Which is not necessarily good - I like the idea of POSIX - but that's why A/UX vanished into deep space.
This is what I heard anyway.
Re:Eh? Why BSD? (Score:3)
SYSV (System 5) is the other traditional flavour. (AT&T)
So... Linux is a hybrid of both. Solaris is SYSV. Old SunOS4.0 was BSD. All the freeBSD's are BSD.
And...
The new Mac OS-X is built on top of a BSD kernel. (Note, saying it's BSD doesn't mean it's the exact same code, just that it's descended from BSD)
So.. the reason OSX is a *big* deal is because it *IS* unix, with a Mac desktop, that can run Mac apps. And also.. unix apps. And they open sourced their kernel...
Derived from Solaris? I think not... (Score:2)
SunOS in the pre-solaris days (before 5.0) was BSD flavoured. It was derived from BSD. BSD predates it.
When sun started calling it solaris (SunOS 5.x + Xsun +Openwin) SunOS was sysv.
BSD was absolutely not derived from solaris....
Re:As a long-time Mac user, let me say (Score:2)
Oh. Did you miss the fact that Mac OS-X *IS* macOS and *IS* Unix, at the same time? Oh...
Let me tell you.. if windows was a) built on top of a unix kernel, with real normal gnu userland tools, and source and b) had a proprietary windows interface on top of it, that was also x compliant, and supported win32... the world would be in trouble.
If MS did this.. WHOAH!
Re:Derived from Solaris? I think not... (Score:1)
No, that's not correct.  SunOS 4.1.3 was dubbed Solaris 1 (or maybe it was even 1.1.)  Solaris 2.0 was SunOS 5 and the rest of the operating environment bundled together.
FYI...
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:3)
More self-fulfilling prophecy. No one develops for the Mac, so no one uses the Mac, so why should I develop for the Mac? Hmm, maybe if you did develop for Macs, there'd be more software that would attract more users, that would attract more developers.
If platform X (whatever that is) is the superior platform on its own merits, take the leap and build for it! Why just follow the herd? Think for yourself. Think Different.
Back on topic, though, the idea of loadable bundles is very cool. It sounds much more extendable and flexible than current methods in either Windows or Linux. If it works as seamlessly as it sounds it will, the user experience should be terrific.
lazy linking (Score:1)
What the article didn't talk about is this: you can check at runtime to see if a library is present, and perform or not perform actions depending.
For example, take PAM. Right now, you have to compile for PAM or not for PAM (or DES, or whatever). Aggravating. With weak linking, you'd link against PAM, then check at runtime to see if PAM is around.
The benefit of this is that you can drop PAM on the box anytime, and bang...PAM is used. This assumes, of course, that the developer does the check every time instead of caching the result. Oh well.
Essentially, it makes shared libraries the equivalent of plug-ins. If the functionality is present, it's used. If not, then no problem. All you need are the headers and stub libraries, and you're off & running.
Re:Eh? Why BSD? (Score:1)
Re:BSD/Darwin and scriptable Mac applications? (Score:1)
You can already send apple events to applications using perl with the Mac::AppleEvents [cpan.org] and optionally the Mac::Glue [cpan.org] modules.
Writing a command line program to send that information is possible. And those tools could be run by a shell.
Re:Eagerly awaiting... (Score:1)
The Mac Finder continuously polls the directories on disk for any of its open windows, looking for new or changed documents. Any program displaying files can do this. Some programs are either poorly written and forget to, or are designed to be more efficient and don't waste the CPU cycles.
Tune out the static trolls and FUD lobbers.... (Score:5)
1) Mac OS is a WORK IN PROGRESS. Don't loose sight of that - when you read a RUMOR on something considere the sources -- also jumping to conclusions is beneficial to no one and only serves to futher confuse the issues and facts.
2) MacOS X is built on BSD. Apple took BSD and build a "Darwin", a new BSD variant. This is why is is opensourced.
Atop Darwin, you have Quartz (2D Graphics), Open GL, Clasic/Carbon, Cocoa, java, Aqua, etc
3) Terminal, the interface to the MacOS X command line, etc will be there for the "l33t" users who want them, BUT Apple strongly expresses that a no time shall the user ever be REQUIRED to interact with the low lever command line interfaces of MacOS X. So what does the mean?
This means, that Apple does not want me and other developers to expose that level to the end user in our programs. This is a HI (Human Interface) guidline. I could write an app that is fully command line based and sell it if I wanted to. The command will stay. All of BSD will be there and what you don't have you can download and compile till you puke your guts out.
4) Apple is even building their own command line tools -- there are tools to compile applescript at the command line, and even the new project Builder is a GUI to gcc, gdb, jdk, etc -- so all that kewl BSD underpinning is being leveraged by a great GUI.
Basically alot of the kewl AQUA stuff is built atop a unix command line util.
5) AQUA is a Work in Progress. I attended the Aqua Feedback Forum at WWDC 2000 and let me tell you that ALOT OF DEVELOPERS had ALOT to say about what they did and did not like in DP4. I would fully expect either DP5 (if they make a DP5) or the public beta to have alot of these suggestions in place.
They were VERY interested in the feed back, it was video taped, and there was an Apple Rep feverously typing notes into his powerbook.
Of the record alot of the Apple developers said they are listening and working on all suggestions. Just make sure they are sent to Apple.
For example- complains, suggestions, etc for the MacOS X Human Interface (AQUA) should go to:
HI@apple.com
Send them email -- don't rant about it in a public forum. Apple may or may not read it.
Can you actually expect them to spend hours trolling the net for suggestions and feedback!?
6) between now and the PUBLIC beta is the time the give Apple Feedback. When they release the public beta you will have EVERY oppertunity to give them feedback on what you like and do not like. If you fail to then you have no reason to complain.
It is much like you complaining that George W Bush is elected president, when you did not even go out and vote.
[btw i hate both Gore and Bush, but I trust Bush less than Gore]
7) Apple told every developer over and over in session after session to GIVE FEEDBACK TO APPLE. If WE (developers) do not give them feed back we are just bitching to the wrong folks. We need to tell THEM - NOT /., etc.
8) I would suspect that Intel / Window users might have pleasant surprises in store for them after MacOS X is shipped to consumers.
You see, MacOS X could be ported to other processors. Once the Darwin level is ported to intel, most of the remaining higher level items (the rest of MacOS X) would follow with relative ease.
9) I would suggest those of you who want to see MacOS X get ahold of a someone who has it -- I am sure you can find a Mac user with MacOS X lurking around somewhere.
Sit down, open a terminal window, download something GNU and try to gmake, gcc, etc it.
10) Get involved in the MacOS X Public when it comes out -- and remember to give Feedback, Feedback, Feedback.
Enjoy.
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
just the opposite should happen. Develop in cocoa and the apps port to windows (and bsd?).
Hell, develop in java and swing. Better java apps are coming out. I've seen them in development. Just because corel couldn't do java office apps, doesn't mean that others could not develop good java apps for other software niches.
Re:As a long-time Mac user, let me say (Score:4)
Let me assure you that the only trouble would be the drop in productivity as all windows developers experienced simlutaneous spontaneous orgasms.
Trust me on this one.
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
>"everyone who understands the basics of english
>grammar" and you have my point.
English grammar is a myth! It is a total and complete myth that English has a formal structure! The concept of "English grammar" is nothing more than retroactive continuity by those who fear something that cannot be predicted or described in minute detail. Formal grammar is a dying holdover from the days of scientific determinism.
My god, why the hell can't people understand that if your words can convey your meaning, it doesn't matter *how* you convey it? Language is a means, not an end. It is merely a tool to be used, not a law to be upheld or an idol to be worshipped on a pedestal!
I will boldly split infinitives! I will end a sentence with a preposition! I will dangle participles! I will do all these things because I damn well feel like talking like a human being! If you can understand what I'm saying, then the job of language is accomplished!
EOR
But I agree on your other point, the job of that ad campaign *was* to sell computers to morons. Anyone who buys one gets what they deserve. I feel sorry for the folks who have to use them at work.
Re:Yes, I'm Mainly Interested In Aqua... (Score:2)
Instead, you're adapting NeXT, and changing it to be more Mac-like. Thus the Dock, which I believe is a NeXT feature, replaces several different MacOS 9 features that were never written for NeXT.
D
----
Slashdot and Apple news (Score:2)
There is an article on Low End Mac about how Slashdot is prejudiced against Apple news [lowendmac.com]. Don't you all think that it's time for this religious war to end, now that Mac OS X is a flavor of Unix? Both camps have a lot to learn from each other. We should rally together to topple Windows domination.
Re:Eagerly awaiting... (Score:2)
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:3)
The "loadable bundles" method of modularization seems far superior to the use of DLLs that need to be registered, and require the computer to be rebooted, in order to install.
Great, glad you think so. Remember that because it is going to come up later in my post.
The new UI is good-looking, but the lack of customization features is disappointing.
I think the UI will be very customizable. From Ars: "You can still move or rename Extras.rsrc in DP4 and end up with a somewhat spotty approximation of the old platinum interface. No, I'm not going to screenshot it again. Yes, this means that themes will be possible. No, this does not mean that Apple will release the specs for such theme files."
I've also read info from previous DP's about modifying things such as window zooming (defaults write com.apple.finder ZoomRects NO) and using Interface Builder to directly edit Extras.rsrc. To me this all sounds like the novice users will have an endless variety of freeware/shareware products to customize their UI, and more advanced users can do it themselves. It's a shame Apple can't please everyone, but the door is far from closed in this respect.
As always, Apple brings a great product to the table--nonetheless, I still refuse to buy one of their products.
I've heard it before and it makes no more sense today than on any other day.
In my mind, the benefits of an open system and a larger user base make the WinTel platform superior for product development. If Apple were smart, they would try to make it easier to port Windows applications to OS X.
Mac users are not hurting for apps. If ones entire platform choice is based on a specific software package, then by all means choose accordingly, but otherwise lack of software is not a problem for Mac users. Where there is a gap, one can always use Virtual PC. Most other popular aps like MS Office already have fine Mac versions. And why should the Mac OS always be a slave to poorly ported windows software? Instead of ports, Apple is trying very hard to serve the dev community by introducing better environments such as Cocoa.
From Ars Techica:
Previously known as the "Yellow Box", and as the OpenStep APIs before that, Cocoa is the most modern API in Mac OS X. The name change from Yellow Box to Cocoa is yet another horrible computer industry pun centered around the Java programming language. It's meant to highlight the fact that all of the Yellow Box APIs are now accessible via Java as well as Objective C.
Cocoa is NEXTSTEP's native API updated for the modern world and made accessible via Java. As any old NEXTSTEP developer will tell you (at length) if given the chance, NEXTSTEP had technology in the 1980's that's just beginning to appear in mainstream computing today: object reuse, sophisticated message passing, network transparency, runtime binding, clean separation of the UI from the "business logic", and platform independence."
I've read a lot of good about Cocoa, it may be worth a look.
In my mind, the benefits of an open system and a larger user base make the WinTel platform superior for product development.
More application developers write for Windows than for the Mac, and bridging the gap between the two platforms and promoting more software development would do far more to improve the Mac platform than simply making their machines technically superior.
Okay, you've already admitted that the loadable bundles are far superior to DLLs. And that the machines are becoming 'technically superior', so why not use some of this insight of yours and consider the possibility that these innovations along with all the other nice features under the hood of OS X could one day redefine the landscape of the computer world. Perhaps you should reconsider your quantity over quality way of thinking. Microsoft's time on top may not only be limited to the Justice Department's legal proceedings, with open source, and now OS X, the future of the modern OS and consumer choice has never been brighter.
I am salivating... (Score:4)
BUT the real question is: Why isn't anyone in the Open Source World doing this? Why isn't anybody cleaning up the kruft that is Unix/Linux/BSD? I don't want any more
Apple has shown the way; bundles kick ass. XML for system configuration kicks ass. OSS can copy that design and improve on it:
XHTML for documentation; searchable, anotated documentation that can be tied back to the Internet --damn it, that's where "errata" belongs: as a link to my local manual; not buried in some "knoweledge base" somewhere.
Protected userland documents that are *not* tied to some a priori defined hierarchical structure. I want a 'soup' of documents I created that can be searched, sorted, sliced and diced by a local search engine.
I want a system that can introspect for a change; I want PHP to be able to find Apache by itself, configure it and itself (after asking of course) and, while it's at it, do the same for MySQL. OOP is not just for GUIs: System-wide, componentized configuration a la OSX extended even further.
X needs to be thrown away; just dump the whole ugly freaking mess. It belongs somewhere to access remote Unix machines, but it does not belong as the main layer under my GUI. BeOS (and AtheOS) has shown the way. Can we get the AtheOS GUI code and plug it in under Qt or GTK?
This is OSS: enough coders and the problems *will* be solved...
[Rant Off]
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Sure do! (Score:2)
I found it pretty impressive. It definitely was a better server environment than MacOS was -- for one thing the Berkeley file system was way better than HFS. It was very easy to administer too. Plus it chock full of all the usual Unix goodness. You could run practically all the important open source stuff like Perl and gcc, and you could easily do the usual internet services like e-mail, ftp and DNS. Plus you had a nice GUI on top of a preemtively scheduled and memory protected OS. At the time was way ahead of anything in the Microsoft line up at the time in terms of sophistication. Performance was quite good considering the hardware. I think if A/UX were available on modern hardware and open sourced, it could be contender today.
Unfortunately, Apple flipped the bird at all its A/UX customers when they switched to PPC; they didn't port A/UX and didn't give Appleshare Pro users any kind of upgrade path. I spent weeks pleading with various people at Apple to cut some kind of deal with my Appleshare Pro customers. These were the customers that bought into the most expensive Apple stuff; I thought they should at least get the same upgrade rights that people who opted for lower end solutions did.
I can honestly say I've never met with such shocking indifference to customers in any company I've ever worked with. Their smug security that the customers would roll over and take whatever Apple dished out was absolutely stunning to behold. They didn't even have the decency to pretend to be embarassed or sympathetic. They simply didn't give a shit, even if the customer had just paid a premium for a dead end product on Apple's say so.
This was one of the seminal events that turned me from an Apple supporter to an Apple detractor. Later it became clear that they extended the same attitude towards their developers as well. I could go on for pages about the bad things they did to developers.
Today I wouldn't develop for the Apple platform unless I could do it as a free side effect of developing for Win32 or Unix. Maybe it doesn't make sense to hate a corporate entity; maybe everyone's different over there. But I definitely have a once-burned-twice-shy feeling about that company.
Re:As a long-time Mac user, let me say (Score:2)
For the longest time, I have been harassed by PC users, Linux advocates, and NT whiners. And now? Now I have a BSD-powered operating-system! Looks like it's my time to shine!
---
Dude, don't be an ass. You're giving the rest of us Mac users a bad name.
Everyone else:
We disown this guy, and claim no affiliation to him. If he shows up in our 'camp', it's only because he is tagging along. We'd much rather he went away.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
If you don't buy that, you can go for the implied "of things that are" in the slogan. Apple would want you to think in the same way, but of different things (like, say, a sealed chunk of amorphous plastic with an embedded monitor, a "keyboard," and a "mouse").
Hope this helps!
--
New empires...began ebbing and flowing all over the place like Moon Pies on a hot sidewalk.
Why has it taken so long? (Score:3)
Listen, I understand that the corporate emphasis has been on the success of making cute little boxes and all. I know that and it works for them. Yet, it is amazing that someone particularily in our own Open Source community hasn't taken the clue and built an easy to use windowing interface for the end-user and left the procrastinating Apple in the dust. As long as there is a terminal and GNU commands to be taken and Xfree86 for those who want to go bare-bones then the geeks out there will be happy. Apple for once has the right idea. Make the system easy to use for the end luser and built on top of a system made to take loads of punishment.
If they were not so tightly tied to their proprietary hardware I would say that Apple had a chance of taking some steam out of the Linux community. However, because they are so stingy with their technology they have no chance of that even if they give part of the OS away. I hope that the UI gives the GNOME and KDE folks some ideas.
I hope even harder that they will take the hint and try to move the interface forward as opposed to just copying the coolest ideas from this or that other OS. Our whole movement has been about making the better mousetrap. Maybe it is time to do one-upmanship on the Apple folks and reinvent the mousetrap all together.
Watch out for the trap (Score:2)
You speak about the 'RightWay(TM)' as whatever works for each person. I believe that the argument over which way is right is about what are appropriate criteria for determining what works best.
How much is code portability worth to you? How much is the peace of mind that the IDE vendor isn't sabotaging your code behind your back worth to you? Do you even think these things are issues?
DB
Re:Watch out for the trap (Score:2)
Re:Eagerly awaiting... (Score:2)
The beauty of the (Classic) Mac OS is that there is no CLI. The Mac OS and Finder are not simply shells ontop of a pre-existing substrate interface (ie, Windows Explorer, KDE/Gnome, etc...). If the Finder says it's there... it's really there! There's no way for it to get out of synch with the disk. (short of a disk error, and in that case a CLI utility would have the same problem)
This is the same issue that people seem to forget when they talk about customizability and installing/deinstalling software. (and what will be so beautiful if the "bundles" thing really takes off). On a Mac, if I don't want to run quicktime, I just (physically) drag the "Quicktime" files out of the extensions folder... Presto! Restart and Quicktime is deinstalled. Don't want Apple Guide? Do the same thing.. Built-in web sharing? Find-by-Content indexing? Automatic Time synchronization? Use the same method...
When something is designed to be used by a GUI, it will find alternate methods to do whaat You all might think can only be done efficiently by a CLI.
Sure, grep is great, but can you toss out 24 arbitrary uniquely-named documents in a 256-item folder all at once with rm ?
Don't diss the interfaces... they each have their advantages...
Re:Eagerly awaiting... (Score:2)
Re:BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:2)
First off, the directory heirarchy has been rearanged into something that makes much more sense. Second off, you never need to access a commandline in the upcoming MacOS X. Period. End of discussion.
The commandline is there only for those who want it. ALL administrative tasks can be handled (and indeed, are BEST handled) from the GUI.
<<Not that I don't love Unix anyway. Not that I don't use it every day. But if you think millions of Mac users are going to start loving it because Steve Jobs tells them to... you are going to have to give me your dealer's phone number. >>
From the perspective of a Mac user, not that much has changed. You have Aqua, and you must log in, and there's more stuff that you can configure but that's about it.
<<Or is some of it still going to leave people having fits? >>
Apple has done a remarkable job of hiding what little is left of "Unix" under the GUI.
<<These "little details" matter. It needs to be disabled by default, in acknowledgement of the fact that an overwhelming majority of users won't use it, and could in fact get bitten by it. A million little details occur to me. Multi-user computers are fundamentally more complicated than single-user computers. That's complexity no one should have to put up with unless they ask for it. And even if they demand it, woe to the person who should offer them the unix security model in return. >>
First off, the added complexity of having to log into a Mac is trivial. You double-click your name, and type or speak your password. Anyone who has ever used an e-commerce site is familiar with the concept.
Second off, while under the hood a multi-user system is fundamentally different, the end user experience need not be very different.
My parents are using an iMac with MacOS 9, set up for multi-user login. They have no problems with it. They log in, and then from then on it is just a Mac.
-JF
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Knowledge is Power - and it's FREE!!!!! (Score:4)
And READ THIS PDF [apple.com]
This is the Same Manual that was handed out in printed form with MacOS X DP4 at WWDC to developers.
It is a GREAT read for those of you who have a clue -- or want one ;-)
Re:Eh? Why BSD? (Score:2)
Okay, flames off. Grab some cocoa and rally 'round, and ol' Uncle Brian gonna tell you about some other guy named Bill and his friends...
Unix didn't really become Unix until John Lions wrote the Lions book (and any Slashdotter who doesn't have a copy should be shaken mercilessly until enough money to either buy or photocopy a copy falls out; about US$30 should do it for a legit copy, and a trip to Kinko's would be much cheaper, not to mention totally appropriate if you know the story
It's easy enough with all the Linux hype these days to lose sight of where it all began, but here's the story: back around '76, when AT&T shipped Unix V6, the University of California at Berkeley got its hands on a source license and its students started hacking away at it. Somewhere along the way, BSD supplanted TENEX and its proprietary brethren as the OS running the backbone of the then-ARPANET; as a result, it became THE wide-area network OS for the eighties. Software such as the BSD TCP/IP stack (still the standard outside the Linux world) and sendmail are still at the core of much of the net, and most of it came out of Berkeley.
Along the line, many of these students struck out on their own (most notably Bill Joy at Sun), and when they went off to build their workstation systems, they took BSD with them, thus bringing about systems such as SunOS and HP/UX, as well as several that are now long forgotten; not only was the BSD license in effect a donation to the public domain, the code itself was something that the engineers themselves had developed, which was more than could be said about the multiple permutations of Unix coming out of Murray Hill, NJ. BSD even came to the PC, in the form of Bill and Lynne Jolitz' 386BSD, a precursor to the modern BSD designs.
The modern BSD era began in 1994, when UC-Berkeley's Computer Science Research Group, disbanded a few years earlier, regrouped to finish the BSD story at Berkeley. The release they made was called 4.4BSDlite, and was actually quite widely available in bookstores at the time. It consisted of a CD-ROM containing a mostly-complete AT&T-free source tree (with a few unreplaced but critical AT&T files removed) and four books containing man pages and other docs.
This event is what created two of the four modern BSD variants (FreeBSD and netBSD); OpenBSD was a fork off of netBSD that stressed security concerns, while the newest major variant, Darwin/MacOS X, came out of Apple's post-acquisition merging of NeXT's Mach/BSD hybrid OS and the 4.4lite codebase. BSD was also the base for OSF/1, the only major variant of which is Compaq's Tru64 Unix.
Today, I think BSD is viewed as a one-off, a newcomer in a world dominated by Linux. I suspect most of the history I've just related simply isn't all that well known anymore, and it certainly isn't media-friendly (what, no underdog-makes-good? No flashy technology? No David-vs.-Goliath? HACKERS?! Not interested, sorry...). This is a shame; that's why I'm posting this.
I think the reason that BSD persists today (apart from having about the best TCP/IP stack available) is because it's a link to the past that most commercial Unices haven't preserved. By running a BSD, you're expressing solidarity with some random hacker poring over a third-generation photocopy of the Lions book on a brand-new VAX twenty years ago. And hey, I prefer penguins to daemons myself, but that's a connection that we Linux users can't make.
Saying that BSD is related to Linux is wrong on many levels. Apart from both being open-source Unices, there is no real connection. Linux is its own beast, and I think over the long term it will eventually evolve away from its Unixness somewhat. Minix, now freed from its old copyright restrictions, will probably morph into an embedded-systems OS; I'd love to see it on a WinCE (MinCE?) unit, for example, since it's just about the perfect size. But BSD will still be carrying the Free Unix torch years from now. Long may it.
/Brian
FLEXIBILITY IMPORTANT!! (Score:3)
OOG THINK APPLE NEED TO REALIZE FLEXIBILITY IS IMPORTANT!! CONSISTENT USER INTERFACE IS GOOD, BUT SHOULD ALLOW USER TO CUSTOMIZE INTERFACE IF USER IS CAPABLE OF HANDLING IT!! IN LINUX, OOG HAVE ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE DISPLAY INTERFACE OF X , WINDOW MANAGER, WIDGET LIBRARIES AND DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT ALL SEPERATE MODULAR PARTS!! OOG CAN CHOOSE WHAT NEEDED!! SOMETIMES PARTS NOT WORK TOGETHER AND ACT REDUNDANT, BUT OOG CAN TWEAK THEM TO MAKE WORK!!! OOG HAPPY!!
OOG WOULD LIKE APPLE TO MAKE FLEXIBILITY LIKE LINUX IN FINAL MAC OS X!! OOG SEE APPLE GOING SLIGHTLY THAT WAY BY MAKING DOCK SEPERATE APP!! BUT NOT ENOUGH SIMPLY MAKE FUNCTIONALITY POSSIBLE AND EXPECT THIRD PARTY DEVELOPERS TO FIGURE OUT ON OWN!! APPLE NEED HELP THIRD PARTY DEVELOPERS FIGURE OUT!! MAYBE EVEN RELEASE CODE FOR THINGS LIKE POP-UP WINDOWS AND APP SWITCHER TEAROFF UNDER ASPL, SO CAN BE PORTED TO MAC OS X EVEN THOUGH APPLE NOT PORT THESE THINGS!! APPLE NEED ANTICIPATE EXPERIENCED USERS ARE GOING TO NEED INTERFACE MORE IMMEDIATELY POWERFUL THAN AQUA!! APPLE ALSO NEED ANTICIPATE NOT EVERYONE LIKE HORIZONTAL LINES WITH ALTERNATING SHADES OF GRAY AND TEXT ON TOP!! OOG NOT LIKE THOSE LINES!! HURT HEAD!!! OOG NOT LIKE UNNECCICARILY PANED INTERFACES OR ANYTHING WASTING SCREEN SPACE!!! BUT AQUA BUILT AROUND IDEA OF USING ALL SCREEN SPACE POSSIBLE!! THIS GOOD FOR SOME PEOPLE, BUT STILL LOOK AT AQUA HURT OOG HEAD!!
[slashdot.org]
APPLE NEED ANTICIPATE WHAT USERS WANT!! APPLE NEED REALIZE WHEN UPGRADE TO MAC OS X, MANY USERS TRY TO HACK INTERFACE!! APPLE NEED TO ACCOMODATE USERS AND RELEASE APPEARANCE THEME API, AND MAKE BEGINNINGS OF API FOR REPLACEMENT TO THINGS LIKE DOCK AND MAXIMIZE BUTTON TO PLUG INTO!! OTHERWISE MANY OF APPLE'S MOST EXPERIENCED CUSTOMERS WASTE LOTS OF TIME, AND THEN STILL LIVE WITH QUIRKY INTERFACE WITH STRANGE BUGS BECAUSE HACKS NOT DONE RIGHT, AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH SOME APPLICATIONS BECUASE HACKS WORK AROUND OS RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH IT!!!
AT VERY LEAST, IF APPLE GOING TO IGNORE NEEDS OF EXPERIENCED USERS IN INTERFACE, APPLE NEED TO GUIDE INTERFACE HACKERS!!! EVEN IF APPLE NOT IMPLEMENT THESE THINGS THEMSELVES, NEED TO ENSURE THAT INTERFACE HACKS GO SMOOTHLY!!! WOULD BE VERY SAD TO SEE QUARTZ DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY SHACKLED PERMANENTLY TO LIMITED INTERFACE!!! WOULD ALSO BE SAD TO SEE HUNDREDS OF MANHOURS WASTED IN REVERSE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE SO HACKS CAN BE MADE, SINCE TIME COULD BE MUCH BETTER SPENT IN MAKING SHAREWARE FOR NEW OS!! OOG THINK IT NOT IN BEST INTERESTS IF ALL OF PROGRAMMERS INTERESTED IN MAKING WORKAROUNDS FOR AQUA RATHER THAN MAKING SOFTWARE TO EXTEND OS X FUNCTIONALITY!! [slashdot.org]
Eagerly awaiting... (Score:2)
Second--great product! The one thing that always bugged me about Macs was the lack of a terminal. OK, the GUI says the file is there, but I never believe anything till I see it in ls...
More--standard UNIX command-line tools. Powerful stuff like grep underneath a shiny GUI. A nice development IDE which runs on top of opensource development tools...which is 100% The Right Way (tm).
I've never owned a Mac, but I am seriously considering purchasing one of these things whenever they come out. And I'm willing to wait as long as it takes. Paradigm shifts aren't developed overnight...It looks to me like Apple has a real next-gen OS on their hands. I think Jobs has really given them a kick in the ass. I think OSX will continue to surpass Windows in its GUI, and finally better it with its power.
Hats off to Apple!
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
In this case, 'different' is a flat adverb. Don't understand? I'll let this bit from William Safire explain it:
Got it now?
Think well. ???
Using a noun to modify a verb? That's what I'd call 'thinking different.' ^_^
--
Re:It's Stable. (Score:2)
So apps that eat most of the CPU themselves are going to be slow, but apps that make a lot of system calls can concievably be much faster.
Re:Watch out for the trap (Score:2)
You, individually, may be smart enough to look beyond the steering efforts and negotiate the minefields. But the fact that you need to do that influences your code like it or not and it also influences the code that other's write and you use. Code that steers you towards a partcular OS can be avoided by a % but the aggregate effect is that the platforms that are being steered towards get more software and those being discouraged will have less. This leads to lowered practical OS choices for even the smart programmers who don't submit to steering.
DB
Re:Why has it taken so long? (Score:2)
Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
In my mind, the benefits of an open system and a larger user base make the WinTel platform superior for product development. If Apple were smart, they would try to make it easier to port Windows applications to OS X.
More application developers write for Windows than for the Mac, and bridging the gap between the two platforms and promoting more software development would do far more to improve the Mac platform than simply making their machines technically superior. It would be a pleasure to write for Mac, but I am unwilling to bear the extra cost of developing for two platforms and rewriting a lot of code. Apple, pave a path for us to migrate along and we will come...
Re:Watch out for the trap (Score:2)
2) There are a lot of people who want some of the special features present in compilers (like #pragma once) and know enough that that code won't work on another compiler. These features are not a standard part of the C or C++ spec, but are in demand anyway so vendors have to come up with their own method of doing it. Visual has a couple of nice ways of doing things like exporting library functions, and inline asm, that are just plain nicer than the way gcc or Watcom does it. Since there is no real standard for these things, MS can't be blamed for not making their compiler like everyone elses. As in any compiler (even gcc) you have to write standard code. The price you pay for portability is losing some of the neat, but proprietory, features present in all compilers.
Re:Watch out for the trap (Score:2)
This leads to computing disasters like the code to generate spurious errors in DR-DOS. The case just got settled for gobs of money but it isn't likely the only instance of MS code tampering, just the one that had enough money for lawyers to drive it to settlement at decent terms. It's this executive pressure for hidden code tampering to make MS less interoperable with their ISVs and competitors that makes MS a walking, talking disaster waiting to happen. Use their tools if you must but stay near a lifeboat if they decide *you* are a threat to them.
DB
Yes, I'm Mainly Interested In Aqua... (Score:4)
Use of bold-faced application name in place of small application icon - He admits this is much clearer for novice users and "according to Eric Schlegel of Apple, the eventual goal is to allow the application menu to take the form of an icon, an icon plus a name, or just name, according to the user's preference." Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
Useless Apple Logo - "The Apple logo at the center of the menu bar remains (and remains non-functional), but blessedly disappears in DP4 when an application's menus extend past it." Not a solution, but at least it no longer breaks the system.
Finder is now Desktop - Aside from a learning curve for the Mac veterans, "Calling it the Desktop makes more sense and, thankfully, does not hurt experienced users."
DP4 includes Preference Panels - "This is quite an improvement over DP3"
You can "Kill" the dock - In addition to improved organization of the dock (apps on left, everything else on right), and the return of the bottom 4 screen pixels (previously used for underlining active apps), you can send a "Quit" Apple Event to the dock. How much can you complain about a feature you can turn off? Seems like the next logical step to make the dock a Preference option.
So, he has some (valid) points about the Dock still (Icons aren't obvious tiles - only the icon itself is clickable), but other than that, where's the "Bad News" the heading promises? Sounds to me like they could (and possibly are trying to) respond and fix his every complaint and he'd still be upset about the new User Interface.
-----
BSD murders MacOS, dons its skin (Score:5)
It is obvious that mating a mature, modern kernel with a reasonable user interface is the finish line of a marathon which pretty much every systems player is hurtling desperately towards.
- Linux will beat X to death until it is impossible to see through the bloody pulp on your screen. Then (one day, I pray) they will replace it with something sensible.
- Microsoft will keep dumping code into the DOS/Win95/Win98/WinNT/Win2k landfill until they've made the largest functioning (?) program ever created.
- And Apple... Apple is somewhere in between. Smart enough to use BSD (only Linux would have been smarter
;-). Smart enough to discard X. But are they smart enough to discard ALL that which makes Unix awful?
I realize it seems easy in principle. I understand that it is in fact desperately hard. Put yourself in that systems engineer's shoes. It is painful beyond measure to take a perfectly good Unix like BSD and then toss out backwards compatibility with all your Unix apps just so that Mac users all over the world won't wake up one day and discover they need to log in as "root" and find their files buried somewhere deep inside a directory called "/usr/home/root/.msword/c|/WINDOWS/MyDocu~1/". They put up with it every day. You can almost hear them screaming here in New York. "Let those bastards eat CAKE!" So what if unix filesystem hierarchies, library handling systems, common executable namaes, and so forth seem exactly as half-assed and hair-brained as they are...My point is simply this: Mac users do not want unix. They want a stable MacOS. They want it no matter how much all those NeXT people flatter themselves. They do not want to "log in" to their powerbook.
I have heard many things that encourage me that Apple understands this, and may therefore be the first to create a Unix-stable, xerox-style operating system. I have also seen many things that discourage me, because they indicate Apple is buying the benighted notion that BSD-compatibility is worth a damn to their business. It is not. Let me repeat: it is not. And furthermore, it will eviscerate the utility of the MacOS. Do you hear me, Tevanian? Hide that damn shell. Hide it somewhere where we will never find it.
Unix users are smart, self-reliant people. We can find plenty of ways to get our jollies without mastering our problems onto millions of MacOS CD's.
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:4)
Bingo! And what is the prime directive of all marketing campaigns? To get noticed!
I would say that it was a brilliant move. They are sort-of saying, some people are so pedantic that they nit-pick about the grammer used in advertisements, but we are not like those poor souls... we think different.
(This reminds me of a pretty funny rumor: Steve Jobs is notorious for parking his Mercades pretty much wherever the hell he wants on the Apple campus, usually taking up at least two spaces. As the story goes, some brave employee snuck up and put a sticker on his back bumper that said "Park Different".)
oops (Score:2)
Re:Now it's BSD, now it isn't! (Score:2)
Hacking with DP3, (I haven't touched DP4 yet) it was pretty much all BSD userland. It comes with GCC and the libraries needed to compile any of the BSD tools that you want. (Though I remember that it was a fairly complete set.) Back then, DP3 didn't even have a web browser, so I promptly fired up Terminal.app, ftp'd the Lynx source and compiled. Viola! Instant browser.
BTW, Terminal.app defaults to
Re:Now it's BSD, now it isn't! (Score:5)
Inside Mac OS X: System Overview [apple.com]
But specifically, from page 42:
In DP4 it's all standard BSD, matter of fact when you telnet in it says right up front it's BSD 4.4. Shell is tcsh but I'm sure you could install whatever gets you hard. Emacs is there too
Re:I wonder. (Score:2)
Why? The DTP industry seems to get by very happily on the less-than-stable current MacOS.
--
Think different? (Score:3)
Can you say, "Comma splice?"
OK, let's look at this more closely. Shoeboy seems to suggest that Apple marketeers are morons because they are using an adjective ("different") to modify a verb ("think"). The other possibility is that the construction "Think different" is, in fact, different from what Shoeboy thinks it is. Or, maybe it is a pun. Or, a more figurative use of language.
Consider the following examples:
In the above, I have marked with an asterisk those sentences that I think are actually ungrammatical in English. A question mark denotes a sentence that is either dubious, or is unlikely to mean the same thing as the unmarked version.
Shoeboy might notice that the "adverb" versions of these sentences look strange (not "look strangely"). They seem pretty weird. I don't have time to provide a full lesson on the syntax of the "look" construction and its friends. Suffice it to say that the rules for when and where you use adjectives and adverbs with verbs that can take fuller complements concerning the state or existence of the subject are not as clear as Schoolboy might wish to believe.
Now, what that has to do with "Think different" is that "think" is a verb that often takes a complement that expresses the existence or state of some entity. Also note that in a sentence involving ellipsis, that you can get non-imperative sentences with phrases like "think different" in them pretty easily, and even imperative versions with a little bit more effort:
Compared to other Wintel offerings, do you think Apples' products are the same or different?
So, I maintain that Apple's slogan really doesn't stretch current American usage much beyond (if at all beyond) it's current state. Now, you might argue that most readers are not likely to come up with the above dialogue at the drop of a hat. And I agree. But the whole point of advertising is to make a striking statement that gets people to pay attention to you. Now, some people try to do this just by being provocative for no obvious reason. Shoeboy does this, for example, by using repetitive obscenities:
More sophisticated people might use some kind of verbal trick, pun, or game to achieve the same effect. And it is usually more effective.
Does anybody think Apple's ad writers are just the same as the drones who write, say, Dell's ad copy? Think different.
Re:Modularization Is Cool! (Score:2)
Although it is not dead-on-topic, I hope your comment gets modded way up, becuase you hit the nail right on the head.
Apple is not trying to say "think differently"... Just like when people say "think big", they don't mean "think bigly".
Also, being flexible with grammar takes a page right out of the infamous Jargon File of hacker vernacular, which proclaims "all nouns can be verbed". :)
Re:Why has it taken so long? (Score:2)
Re:Yes, I'm Mainly Interested In Aqua... (Score:3)
The classic Mac OS has the following useful interface features:
The apple menu
The control strip
Pop-up folders in the finder
The application menu
His steveness has unceremonially blown away *all* of them, and replaced them with the dock.
The dock is grossly inadequate to the task. First, these four interface elements perform different (although overlapping in some cases) functions. I don't think it's possible to replace all of them with one interface element. Secondly, the dock is a bad implementation of all of these.
The apple menu takes up a tiny amount of screen space and allows rapid access to common functions. It is universally available and its contents are fully customizable. The dock, on the other hand, takes up a great deal of space, and it must further share that space with other apps. In addition, because it is not hierarchical, it can only hold 10-20 items comfortably.
The application menu serves the function of a task switcher and a crude window manager. In addition to listing the names of all open applications, it can be torn off from the menu bar to make a floating applications pallette. This pallette can be made quite small and can be placed anywhere on the screen. The dock does a decent job of performing this function, but it is less customizable, it doesn't list the names of applications, and it takes up a hell of a lot more screen space.
The control strip provides rapid access to common system configurations. I keep volume, bit depth, screen resolution, and bit depth panels in it. This allows me to change these four settings in under a second, and it takes up a rectangle of screen real estate of under 20 pixels high and under 80 pixels wide. The dock simply doesn't compare. In its present form, it can launch control panels, but it does not provide the immendiate, direct access the control strip does. And unlike the dock, the control strip can be anchored anywhere on the screen and can be minimized to under 20 pixels square.
Pop-up folders are a feature I don't use, but they are highly customizable (buttons, icons, lists) and their hierarchical nature allows access to hundreds of items in a matter of seconds. The dock doesn't provide anywhere near the functionality to screen space ratio.
I could live with any one of these going away. And I could handle them being replaced by improved versions. But when all four of them are replaced by a single element that doesn't work as well as any of them and takes up more space than all of them combined, then I see that as a massive reduction in the usefullness of the OS.
Not only that, but Apple seems to have a compulsive need to rearrange interface elements that were just fine the way they were. The minimize and maximize buttons should be put back on the right side of windows where they belong, the application menu should go back to the right side of the menu bar (to prevent the File and Edit menus from bouncing around) and the apple menu needs to be put back on the left and it needs to be a menu and not just a logo.
The trash belongs on the desktop in the lower right. And there should at least be an option for fixed disks to show up on the desktop. These are arbitrary preferences, but they are what Apple's user base is used to, and it is stupid to change them simply because Steve thinks it's fun to change things around. Apple should concentrate on replacing the OS's creaky innards, and leaving interface changes for future versions.
OK, I'm done ranting now. Suffice it to say that Apple has not succeeded in pleasing this Mac use with the new layout. I only hope that third parties provide ways to get back some of that lost functionality, and that Apple allows an option to turn off the dock.