Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

A Glimpse At Apple's New Core 192

Posted by timothy from the whitewash-that-fence dept.
Coolvibe writes: "Apple has updated their Mac OS X page. There's screenshots of the final version there. I myself am still running the Public Beta and the stuff that's shown there is just a *tad* different than what I am using right now :) For instance, the dock now has a context menu, as shown here." And speaking of Apple's core, Justin0407 directs your attention to this NYTime article on Steve Jobs, in which "Jobs gives us his insight on how he's going to save Apple and try and keep it afloat. Building on other's ideas of a PC or Mac being the 'hub' for all digital appliances, Jobs says Apple will embrace this concept."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Glimpse At Apple's New Core More

A Glimpse At Apple's New Core

Comments Filter:

  • "..when you select something with a single click, the far right pane displays a larger icon of that program/picture/folder &tc's icon there. This icon is double clickable as well. If for example instead of IE it was QIII that was selected, the icon would merely be the QIII icon."

    This is the "preview" feature of the new finder. Selecting an application icon will just give you a larger view of the icon (up to 128 x 128, I believe), but selecting a document can give you a preview of the document's contents. This means selecting a JPEG will show you a thumbnail of the image, while if you select a Quicktime movie it will actually play the movie for you in the preview pane.

  • Apple's stock is in the tank.

    Along with a lot of others. stocks go up, stocks go down.

    Processor speed is stuck at 500 MHz

    please take the time to update your flame

    There are legions of corporations and individuals who have been disrespected by Apple--from the BeOS community to the Apple clone industry, all of whom comprise a formidable enemies list.

    ooooh "disrespected" I'm sure apple is shivering in fear! So do you need to know a secret handshake to get in to the "Apple enemy list clubhouse"? (now for a flame of my own : the Be community is only a formidable enemy if they start car bombing. A formidable enemy is Microsoft who despite wanting to be in bed with apple also wants to kill apple)

    Motorola, is hurting and hopes to leave the desktop processor business. This week Motorola announced 2500 layoffs

    okay explain how Motorola closing a factory in Harvard Illinois that makes cellphones means that Mot is leaving the desktop cpu biz? Let me repeat myself : a factory that makes cellphones. Designs cell phones? no. Designs processors? no. Design the cell phone's case? no. Design anything? no. And it isnt like Mot doesn't have other cell phone factories

    The most reasonable solution would be for Apple to open up. Open up its hardware specs and software

    If apple opens both the hardware and the software then what exactly would apple be selling? stickers with the Apple logo? This would make money for apple how? flame on baby

    btw you do realize that you've posted this several [slashdot.org] times before? [slashdot.org]

  • There is an excellent NATIVE web browser for Mac OS X, called OmniWeb. You can download it from www.omnigroup.com.

    I was under the impression that ANY carbon application was native to both Classic OS as well as OS X. This is what apple have to say here [apple.com]:

    "What is Carbon?
    Like Classic apps, Carbon applications run on Mac OS 9 -- but they also run on Mac OS X. They'll get all the great features of Darwin, like protected memory for crash-resistant computing and preemptive multitasking for a more responsive system, as well as the new Aqua look and feel. "

    And the IE in the PB was a carbonised app so it got the protected memory, multitasking &tc. As for the part about where apple got the ideas from i am not aware of. It would be a pity if apple did just grab the idea for sherlock from the ppl who make OmniWeb.


    How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.
  • I don't think that the original poster cared about Aqua. I don't. If (and I am considering it) I get a G4 for running OS/X, my advantage would be being able to run Macintosh applications (including games like Starcraft) on a UNIX system with a nice graphics rendering engine (Quartz, baby, quartz!)

    What my unix box needs now is a nicer rendering engine. We'll see where XFree86 takes us!

  • its prudent to have separate partitions, and had an unexpected bonus for me. my classic partition got corrupted so i was able to save it using X and not lose any data. kewl.
  • seems like a waste of money when a company can get a piece of crap PC to run Linux and Apache....?

    unless they want to dish out a lot of $$$ for the extra mac hardware...
  • All right on wincent.org [wincent.org] they show the vertical dock, from the build at macworld. Apparently, it's now a defaults option. That is, orientation right, and pinned.

    Pretty darn cool. Remind's me of the old next bar. I'll probably choose this option over the centered dock, and Desktop icons.

  • OSX is where we all want to be (Score:5)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @06:35AM (#491389)
    Unix functionality right there beside real support for multimedia, and real support for the important apps we inevitably use (Word, Excel) by virtue of everyone else using them.

    This appears to be a phenomenal product. I am seriously considering ditching my windows and linux boxes both and moving to a Mac once this hits the shelves.

    Its just seems that OSX is where Gnome and KDE want to get to, but will probably never arrive. While I believe in these open-source efforts, I can't be bothered to wait around for them anymore.

  • i don't like IE because its more likely to crash my mac than any other program, in fact nothing else does - apart from entourage and word now and then. hmm i wonder who makes them too?

    IE also has an ugly interface and doesn't have the fabulous features of a certain browser from germany...

  • also, has anyone yet said that they'd love to use apple hardware but they think its so much more expensive?
  • If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm, but since their Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market.

    This is a market in which Microsoft and it's primary competitor Symbian are going after, and to many it would appear to be the future of computing.

    The funny thing is, it took a long time for the Newton division to turn a profit. And shortly after it did, Steve killed it.

    One of Steve's character flaws seems to be that he is willing to let personal feelings interfere with business decisions. Newton was a pet project of John Sculley, his old adversary, so the general consensus is that he wanted to eradicate any legacy Sculley left behind.

    Steve also killed the Claris software division, which I believe was also started by Sculley. Claris had been very profitable during its run. If one of the main criticisms of your platform is that you don't have enough software apps, does it make sense to kill off a profitable software division? Of course not. Now we see, though, that Steve is interested in building more killer apps in-house. What a novel idea (glad he thought of it!).

    Apple needs Claris again, if for no other reason than to have a major software publisher that is keenly interested in Mac-only and Mac-first software titles. Could it be any more plain how Microsoft has built a fortune from acquisitions and publishing? Apple has much to learn. I've said this before, just imagine if Apple had acquired Bungie instead of Microsoft and released Halo on the Mac a couple of months ahead of other platforms...it would have had a big impact.

    And speaking of games, no tier-one game publisher is interested in releasing Mac-first titles. Until the Mac starts getting tier-one Mac-first and Mac-only games on a regular basis, gamers will always scoff at the Mac. Claris was in a perfect position to make that happen for Apple.

    Steve has done a tremendous job since his return, but of all the cutbacks he made, those are the two that gripe me the most. Steve needs to learn how to swallow that massive ego of his when it's in the best interest of the platform.

  • Having access to a command line *is* remote administration. Netinfo can also be administered through command line tools (try man netinfo on a mac os x box sometime). Heck, you can even write your own netinfo aware tools, the headerfiles and calls to use are on the same manpage :)

    I am still waiting for the VNC server to be ported to it. I *do* have VNC clients for MacOSX though
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!

  • Apple has updated their Mac OS X page. There's screenshots of the final version there.

    Those screenshots aren't necessarily from "the final version"--OS X hasn't even gone gold master yet. They're just from the version Steve Jobs showed off at MacWorld.

  • Hello?! Wireless information devices, huh? I use a G3400 PB on an airport network every day. It may not have much of a range, but it kicks ass over anything M$ and Symbian have to offer today. Now, if only I could get Guiliani to implement a contiguous wireless LAN throughout Manhattan.

  • Token complaint about the gumdrops (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They REALLY need to get rid of them, and no making them all the same color does NOT help. Sure, they cool and new and cute now, but after you use them for a few months on end, they will get stale. Moreover, they look childish.
  • BTW, here's some more screenshots [bluap.nl] (not my site) of the latest build.

  • Use lsof. Shouldn't be forever until it's ported.

    Boss of nothin. Big deal.
    Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

  • Whoops (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22, 2001 @06:53AM (#491400)
    You forgot the required slam about the one-button mouse in the article listing.
  • That does not take away the fact that Carbon apps can still moan and flake if they were programmed for Mac OS 9. This is actually the main reason not to use UFS yet.
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!
  • Yep, and it also uses the Netinfo domains for the settings, which reflect back in ~/Library/Preferences/*.plist which are all XML files. This just breathes coolness :)
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!

  • How'd it go? (Score:3)

    by konstant ( 63560 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @01:48AM (#491403)
    How did that old ad from Macintosh go? $>CNGRTLNS.MCX!
    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • Well my god look out ... BeOS invents popups.

    Please take a look at a few shareware Mac programs:

    a) Now Menus
    b) PopupFolders

    both of which enabled popups to hierarchially browse the hard disk.

    Naden.
    it-guys.com/naden/

  • Thanks for all of the responses.

    Her iMac has the original 32mb. The impression I'm getting from the Ars Technica article and the responses is that it might be a bit of a stretch to get OS X up and running smoothly on this maching.

    Priority, get her machine more memory before putting down the cash for the OS? Sound right?

  • Keep in mind that the x86 is Billy's territory..

    Besides that, Apple's hardware has never failed on me. Every Mac I've ever owned is still operational. My 68k 33mhz Mac at home with 8.1 works a helluva lot faster than my P166 here at work running '98.

    If you've had so many problems with Macs, perhaps you may not know exactly what you're doing when you sit down in front of one.

  • Yo moderator what crack are you smoking? What was wrong with my post???


    How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.
  • That's not too good. System files I can understand requiring a fairly rigid directory structure. As for applications, documents, etc. their location shouldn't matter. Computers are tools for users, not the other way around. If Joe Blow prefers keeping all his documents in the same directory as a program, why shouldn't he? Not everyone is as anal about file organization as many /. denziens, and they don't have to be.

    Lord knows, I'd be pissed if someone told me that I wasn't allowed to keep my computer in my bedroom, and that it HAD to be in the den or something. Let people do what they want up to the point where it actually breaks the machine. And then try to improve that machine, cause it shouldn't break on such a stupid thing.
  • I do happen to know what I'm talking about here, I just can't talk about it. Just wait and see.
  • IIRC, this conract expired on 1st Jan 2001. I think it was being considered that the mozilla timetable would allow N6 final to be released in time for it to be the new heart of AOL.
  • type G FIND . That should switch you to the finder. That trick can also break you out of an app freeze if the 3 finger salute fails.
  • Apple is caving in and dumbing down OS X because old school Mac users can't handle change. They are blowing it. Steve Jobs in the past would never back down, he would tell people to learn a new way to think/work. I was excited about OS X, but now my interest is starting to dimish.
  • I assume that since Apple is using the Mach 3 kernel that they are running with a user mode server ?? Does anyone know ?? We used Mach 3 and the OSF/1 single server on the Paragon supercomputer and could never get around the performance hit that was caused by the user mode server and all the protection domains you had to cross to do anything. (networking in particular.)
  • Oh come on! Every time anyone mentions OSX and microsoft, someone will pipe up with the old "a port for linux will be soon!!!". The fact is, the carbon API that 90-odd% of OSX apps use is just a tidied-up classic macos API. Even the nextstep-based cocoa relies heavily on quartz and other proprietary features. It'll be hardly easier to port from osx that it was from os9. However, the third api set for osx is Java, and that's another kettle of fish entirely.
  • MySQL works on OSX right now. Someone at Apple has submitted patches to PostgreSQL to get it to build & run on the golden master.

    jpb
  • Nobody posted this yet...

    username: dotslash
    passwd: slashdot

    There goes my karma :)
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!

  • AOL owns netscape? They STILL use IE in AOL

    ISTR, based on reading (a year or so ago) the findings of fact in the MS case, that AOL is locked into a contract that obliges them to maintain IE as their browser for a span several years. That term might be up in a year or two, but in any event I think they're bound to it at the moment. In that light whether or not IE is better or worse than Mozilla isn't really relevant...



  • If the Bells & Whistles are W3C standards, and work in Mac IE and Windows IE, but Netscape doesn't support the standard, is it rude of the web site to utilize them? We had this question with my corporate site.

    Alex

  • Re:Whats all this IE hate? (Score:4)

    by macpeep ( 36699 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @07:18AM (#491419)
    It's closed source (but this isn't the biggie)

    I agree. Really, who, except Linux users really care? This may seem like a flamebait but seriously, I'd say 99% of Windows users don't even KNOW what open source is, much less would they care if the source was open or not. I'm a software engineer and I sure as hell have better things to do with my time than look at 50 megs of browser and OS source code after work.

    It runs exclusively on Windows and Mac, and the Mac version (and the rare non-x86 Windows versions)

    Windows, Mac, HP-UX and Solaris, if memory serves. And even if we forget the UNIX versions, which might have dubious quality, that still covers some 95+% of all computers in the world.. "exclusively" is a little misleading when only a marginal amount of hardcore, impossible to please open source fans are "left out" (that would choose NOT to run the browser anyway, even if it was available for their platform).

    are not often compatable with IE specific content because IE specific content usually relies on x86 ActiveX

    What?! That's complete rubbish. Hardly any sites use ActiveX. I use IE (except when I'm trying out Mozilla builds) and I have it set to warn me about ActiveX and I don't remember that I would EVER have come across a site that uses ActiveX! If you're going to diss a browser and you are using 3 points to do this, you could at least come up with something remotely based on reality. That was just a plain lie.

    It extends the HTML standard encouraging authors to use this to the detriment of compatability with other content.

    HTML? Not really, except MARQUEE (sp?) maybe, but then Netscape has BLINK and Lynx lacks support for 90% of HTML so that's not really the big problem you're making it out to be. What is a little more worrying is the document object model and CSS support, which just plain sucks on *EVERY* single browser including Mozilla and even the latest Opera version. Even in CSS, the support IE has is the best, IMHO, but you are right in that a little too much "innovation" has been made in this area. However, given the current state of CSS support and scripting standardization in general, I think it's a little unfair to single Microsoft out. At least they have the best CSS support out there right now. If you're so desperate to boycot a browser, go after Netscape Communicator 4.x and start hacking on Mozilla.

  • I agree that Konqueror is the next best browser, second to IE. That fact that Konqueror is free and free makes it better than IE in the end.

    I know you don't need to run KDE to use Konqueror, but let Konqueror be evidence of KDE's success.
    KDE [kde.org] Konqueror [konqueror.org]

  • runs exclusively on Windows and Mac

    Actually, it seems that there is a Solaris version, and possibly HP-UX as well. Go to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp [microsoft.com] and view products for Solaris &/or HP-UX. I see version 5 editions of IE & Outlook Express for both operating systems.

    So, the question from there is will a binary executable for one of those run on Linux, or is WINE emulation a more productive route to try?

    As for the ActiveX stuff, yeah, that's bullshit. But just don't use it & you're mostly okay (as a user, disable it and as a developer, avoid it). IE really is a good browser, especially the 5.0 version on Mac, which renders pages beautifully and seems pretty standards-friendly to me (decent CSS & XML support, etc). Mozilla is a hog, and while I'd love to see it do well, I just can't afford to let it have all my ram & disc space, only to crash all the time & have an ugly interface besides. I'm terribly disappointed in it. IE, I reluctantly have to say, is just plain better, and it's probably more available than you realize.



  • Unlike the client, the new Mac OS X Server is not based on darwin. I've had a copy of a beta of it for about 2 months now.
  • Of course, it's not as pretty.

  • server apps = MacOsX Server (Score:5)

    by firewort ( 180062 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @12:32AM (#491424)
    the Mac OsX server product has been quietly updated to encompass just these kinds of intranet / extranet LAN/WAN serving.

    it'll be the same as the desktop product, except with the apps for more server oriented things included in the box.


    A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
  • Does your system support all the popular multimedia formats with viewing/authoring software?

    Does your platform support the latest browser technology? (read: does your platform support IE?)

    Does your platform support the most popular user-applications?

    Granted, there are many applications that are available for AIX that are not available for OSX, but these are in extremely vertical markets (where AIX should prosper anyway - it is not meant as a consumer product).

  • I seem to remeber Apple using telnet for remote admin on MOSX but in the apache screenshot it says SSH. Have they switched??
    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • Re:RHAAAH (Score:3)

    by CoolVibe ( 11466 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @02:03AM (#491428) Journal
    Well, just drag it out, realease it, see the 'poof' and it's gone. Oh, and delete /Applications/Internet Explorer to really get rid of it

    Uninstalling IE just became easier :)

    (Yes, I use OmniWeb on MacOSX PB for my Webbrowsing)
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!

  • The computer should work for me and not the other way around.

    That doesn't mean it should have to wipe your ass for you. The desktop was designed to be a place to begin access to the filesystem and maybe hold shortcuts to frequently used apps. It is incredibly sloppy to use it to store your personal files. Computers should work for you, but you have to use them as they were intended, just as you can't expect a manual transmission to shift for you just because it should "work for you."

    -----------------------

  • BeOS really isn't an option now that Be is dedicating itself to devices.

    As it stands, BeOS itself had a rather crude interface and zilch support for modern useful software like...browsers and word processors.

  • Really? I spoke without your first-hand knowledge, but was under the impression that osX and osX server in its newest incarnation would be sharing the same codebase, only one benefitting from server apps and server appropriate capabilities.

    Server in its current incarnation (1.2?) is mach 2.5 with bsd4.4 and a primitive version of classic called bluebox, no?

    OsX for the desktop is mach 3.0 with Bsd4.4 and a fanciful set of gui, new apis, and display pdf instead of display postscript.

    certainly apple would bring their server os up to the same kernel that their desktop os is using. Have you posted anything about the new version of Server? can you say anything about it and how you know it's not from the same codebase as darwin?

    very curious.


    A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
  • I have no idea what the *native* Mac OS X APIs are like but the Carbon APIs are not derivatives of NextStep, they are just cleaned-up Mac APIs without all the legacy cruft.
  • The big pimp Microsoft keeps the old Mac ho alive with a weak, but steady stream of addictive crack applications. Without the pimp's apps, the old ho will die. The new Be ho (like the Netscape ho. remember her?) tried to bitch slap the pimp. BIG MISTAKE! Da pimp withheld his crack apps.

    This is real.

  • Yes, I know this is off-topic but you seem to be the type of person I want to pose this question to.

    I've been trying to gauge the reaction of fellow mac users to the idea of creating a mac-like fork of GNOME, with all of the mac keyboard shortcuts, menu selections, dialog buttons where they should be, global menubar, etc. A lot of mac users are going to find to GNOME no better than the wintel UI ('cause it basically *is* the Wintel UI), and I think the computing public should not be exposed to another ten years of M$ GUI design mistakes, even if the people repeating them (GNOME) does really have the best of intentions.

    If I developed this beast, would you (or anyone else reading this post) be inclined to choose it over the existing GNOME?

  • Knowing Apple, they'll come up with some way to gloss segvs over; you also have to take into account that, by all accounts, Quartz is loads more stable than X.
    BTW, that debug screen is the MicroBug in-ROM debugger; there's an Apple technote related to it that I can't remember the link to right now. It's intended mostly for doing debugging with two machines, one with MacsBug (a much higher-level debugger), and one with your app running, stopped by MicroBug. Some commands in it are:
    g (address)- exits debugger, continues execution at current address, or at the specified address
    dm address - dump memory contents at address
    sm address value - set the contents of memory at address to value
    Don't remember the rest off the top of my head - the most I ever have used it for is impressing and/or scaring tech-illiterate people at my former Mac-heavy school. :)

    "If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
  • Do you trust MS enough to let them know your entire purchasing history?

    No, but I don't have much evidence that M$ is stealing my purchasing history.
    I haven't seen any security advisories about M$ stealing user data, and IMO, they don't have to.
    They are a monopoly, so they don't need to make bits of cash on the side selling demographics.
    To be completely honest with you, I trust M$ more than AOL.
    Keep in mind the source for Netscape is NOT open, only the source for Mozilla, which is a different product.

    I'm a lot more concerned with things like RealPlayer, which have proven security/privacy holes.

    You can see there isn't a "report https accesses" module.

    Ever heard of a packet sniffer? Or a personal firewall?
    Network traffic analysis may not be built in, but it is readily available.

    There's no denying M$ is evil, but AOL is just as, if not more so, and Mozilla is still a ways from being done.

    --K
    Gotta go, I think some black helicopters just flew over.

  • Whats all this IE hate? (Score:4)

    by iomud ( 241310 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @02:11AM (#491450) Homepage Journal
    Why do people hate Internet Explorer have you used it lately?! It's awesome, it's quick to load, less of a resource hog than some other browsers and dosent choke on pages with complex tables ie that giant jerky re-render when you scroll down. It's just plain better than anything out currently so stop your Mozilla Netscape Nazi-ing and just giving that microsoft won the battle of the browsers.

    Apple has always tried to embody quality and their choice to use IE is a good one would you rather see netscape 6? Dont even get me started on Netscape 6, AOL owns netscape? They STILL use IE in AOL not that I use or endorse either but it just goes to show you that netscape hasnt been good since 3.x and the continued development of netscape is like some houseguest that wont go home, it was nice when it showed up but now it's just anoying.
  • It might just be that IE on OSX is kinda beta-ish, but it's slow, and has lots of bugs. It *is* workable however, only don't load java applets and don't be too enthousiastic minimizing and restoring it (and saying: "wow, that genie-effect is really cool") while it loads a page, or you will end up having to kill it through Option-Apple-Esc.

    Not that OmniWeb (the other browser for MacOSX) is bulletproof, but it's more stable.

    I can't wait until the mozilla porting effort to macosx is getting some results.
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!

  • ... Though after using a NextStep-derived window manager for a while, I will happily say that saving things to the desktop - one of the things they are putting back IN to OS X is for weak minds, sloppy thinking, poor organization, and folks who spend lots of time and money on tools they are too lazy to understand.

    "Where are my files? Where are my aliases? Where is my underwear?" It still amazes me that people think you have to be some kind of computer genius to understand "system files go here, applications go there, documents go here or with the application" and refuse to learn those things after a decade of working with computers. I mean, do they go calling the office manager looking for the stapler because there isn't a note taped on top of the desk telling which drawer it's in? But they have no problem calling tech support and spending half the day screaming that they can't work because some desktop alias to their favorite application got trashed. I guess some of it is age of first exposure to computers, but it's much more fun to pretend that it's all stupidity.

    I support about 30-40 users and I've found a good cure for people putting their stuff on the desktop. When I give new users their computer orientation (how to access the file server, which printers to use, etc.) they are all told that they have a "Documents" folder/directory and they must put all their documents in that folder or sub folders or it will not be backed up. Several users choose to ignore this, and I remind them every time they have a problem with their computer and I go to thier office to fix it and see the desktop just packed with documents. I live for the day when something bad happens and they ask me to restore the files. I'll simply tell that that I would be able to do just that, if they had followed the directions I gave them several times. Then I'll just do my best BOFH laugh and leave the room.

  • Re:MS Office for OS X (Score:5)

    by Ryano ( 2112 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @02:51AM (#491476) Homepage

    A Mac OS X version of Office doesn't really make versions for other Unices more likely. The version Microsoft will release in Autumn will be OS X native, but via the Carbon API. For those of you who haven't been keeping up, Carbon is a new version of the "Classic" Mac OS API and MS will not have to rewrite Office from scratch in order to make it OS X native.

    So the chances of MS releasing Office for Unix remain slim, unless Carbon becomes available on other Unices. I would say that the chances of this are even slimmer.

    However, perhaps there is a project I'm not aware of to implement the Carbon API on Unix? It strikes me as a prohibitively complex task.

  • Well, I suppose it depends on how you interpret that. Everything I've read about this so far indicates that the new version will be Carbon. "Written specifically for OS X" does not necessarily mean developed in Cocoa.

    This article at MacWeek [zdnet.com] seems pretty confident that what will be released is a Carbonised version of Office.

  • What's with the IE hate? Could it be they have no care for standards save their own? Could it be that if more people start using IE just because it's fast that the Linux/BeOS/etc and eventually Mac communities could be left without a browser? Or could it just be some of us like the fact that we can view the source code to our browser to know what is _truly_ going on?

    I really don't know what is wrong with people who don't use IE. We must be idiots.
  • I'd hate to use an OS so tied to legacy code or to users so used to an antiquated GUI that it will never really advance.

    Wait a minute. I am.

    poor widdle me. [ridiculopathy.com]

  • Re:How about Apple's new core dumps? (Score:4)

    by CoolVibe ( 11466 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @05:31AM (#491483) Journal
    When Quartz and/or Aqua crashes (*if* they crash, it only happened once to me), you end up in the console. When the kernel panics (only happened once with me), you end up in the kernel debugger. I don't know if that will change in the final version though.
    --
    Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org [hackerheaven.org] will!
  • A few things:

    1) IE runs on Solaris and HP-UX. I've used the Solaris version. It's very good. OExpress for Solaris is also excellent.

    2) Konqueror. The 2.1 post beta builds are simply amazing. Abosultely! I now use Konqueror for 99% of my web browsing. I've only had one site that renders it improperly. It even uses Netscape plugins, so I've got a good browser that's fast, standards compliant, has good javascript support, excellent Java support, and the good 'ole Flash plugin. (Now there's someting that ought to be OpenSource'd..)

    Really, Konqueror has arrived. It's so awesome now that I don't use anything else. Check it out!

    Oh, and in case people don't know, it has pretty decent XML support too! I've used it to check out a few XML+CSS pages I made and it did a better job than IE, almost as good as Mozilla in this regard.

    Cheers,

    Ben
  • Even with the NeXT acquisition, Apple is still pathetically slow in releasing new OS software. Mac OS X was due for release over two years ago. Where is it today? Still in beta.

    I have made this point in some Mac forums just to play devil's advocate, but honestly, to be fair to Apple, they've done a lot with this OS that wasn't originally planned. MacOS X, as originally announced, was due to ship in Fall '99. What you may be thinking was going to ship in '98 was Rhapsody, which did ship, not too late, as MacOS X Server, in early '99.

    MacOS X Server was most of the original promise of Rhapsody(they killed Rhapsody for Intel and YellowBox(aka Cocoa) for Windows). The problem was, even before MacOS X Server shipped, Apple had heard from the major developers that no one was very interested in taking their Classic MacOS apps and completely rewriting them for the YellowBox. There was something called the BlueBox, which is basically the same as Classic in MacOS X today, but it's not really an acceptable solution to have all your major apps running in an evironment that doesn't have all the advanced features of OS X.

    I think Apple also heard that Rhapsody was too complex for most consumers. Many things have to be done at the command line, and that is simply unnacceptable to most Mac users. So Apple created MacOS X. The differences between Rhapsody and OS X are Carbon, Quartz and Aqua. It is these three things which I'm sure are consuming most of Apple's development time. They're complex projects, and will end up being very beneficial to users.

    And no, I don't think you can compare OS X to Copland. Copland IIRC never got out of Alpha, while MacOS X is two months from shipping, and already very near release quality.
  • Don't trust anything that keeps you from looking inside.

    Definately. But IE has been getting a lot of 'attention' ;) from security analysts lately,
    and I have yet to see any evidence of covert data collection. I consider it relatively safe and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks at this time.

    >Ever heard of a packet sniffer? Or a personal firewall?

    The difference here is that you choose to put (and setup) these on your machines. If you decide you want to log certain transfers, so be it. At least you got the choice.

    If your ISP is doing it, well, that's no good. I'd get the heck away from them and get on a real ISP that respects your privacy.

    Agreed.
    I am in NO way saying covert logging is acceptable.
    I was stating that you don't NEED something to be open to see if it's sending out covert packets, you can use any common network tools to check.

    Hell, I think I'd rather check open products with the packet sniffer than reading the code....
    Certainly takes less time than wading through 10k lines of network code looking for evil write()s.
    (And if you ever HAVE looked at Mozilla code, you'll know what I mean...)
    Having the source does make it easier to PROVE there is a problem tho.

    Three words: Bell Phone Book. :-) Just because you have lots of money already and are a monopoly doesn't stop you from getting even more greedy.

    True, although I see service providers tend to be more insidious than companies that ship actual products (even if those products are intangible).
    This is part of the reason I find AOL to be scarier than M$.

    I still remember the "old days" [not so old, really]. Before MS quit wasting their time going after friends sharing software. The days where Microsoft threatened (and, I believe, implemented in early betas) to include a phone home feature in Chicago that would report a scan of the users hard drive. I don't think I kept the magazines that discussed it (stuff from '94 is just a little out of date).

    Oh, they haven't stopped with this yet. They're trying to get a similar anti-'piracy' 'feature' into Whistler.
    BUT, this thread isn't about Windoze OS, it's about IE, and more specifically, Mac IE.
    M$ is evil and controlling - we already know this.

    And lets not forget the NSA key.

    The NSA Key is probably not:
    Here's what Schneier has to say about it. [counterpane.com]

    While Microsoft is better than AOL, it's sort of like comparing being stamped on by an elephant and mauled by a bear. They both suck.

    Very true, but just because a company puts out turds 98% of the time doesn't mean they CAN'T put out an acceptable, even useful, product.

    I'm actually using Mozilla 0.7 right now. It's great. It feels like Netscape 4 (which was easy to use, when it worked), and is really fast. Plus it renders HTML quite well.

    Mozilla isn't bad. It's getting there, but I still like IE better for daily browsing.
    Maybe in three months it'll be good enough for daily use.
    Konqueror, on the other hand, is prolly the best one for freenixes right now.

    Just a sidenote: Any particular reason why your website just forwards you to slashdot? Just wondering... :)

    Just a bit of satirical commentary about blind linux and open source zealotry.
    The attitude of 'Linux is the be-all end-all One True OS for Every Purpose' just grates after a while.
    My real site will be here [sausageparty.net].
    (No, it's not a redirect to goatse.cx, either.)

    --K
  • MS might be stealing my purchasing history, but since their browser is under such tremendous scrunity I agree, it would have came out already (plus, there's a wallet feature in IE which next to noone uses).

    AOL, however, just plain scares me with their marketing tactics. Not only do they nail you with advertising while on their service (my family had an AOL account from 1995-2000 -- I jumped ship but my little sister wanted to stay on), they even nail you after you leave!

    I remember canceling the AOL account over the phone (after several insistent "no I do not want to stay on"'s. Then they said "OK, sir. Sorry for your cancellation. Now here's a special message" and they pitched their long distance plan.

    What company uses these kind of tactics. It's sorta sick how newbies get roped into this shit.

    -
    -Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.

  • Re:And another thing (Score:5)

    by Ryano ( 2112 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @03:02AM (#491495) Homepage

    What's more, these UI changes are discussed in much greater detail at Wincent.org [wincent.org]

    This is a hands-on review of the build which was demonstrated at MacWorld. Some of the key points are:

    • Multiple monitor support in place
    • Instant wake-up from sleep
    • Hierarchical browsing from the Dock (but only 5 levels deep)
    • Mouse sroll wheels supported only in Cocoa apps (e.g. not the Finder)
    • Network utility provides GUI for netstat, ping, traceroute etc. (and port scanning!)
    • Quicktime movies play while in the dock
    • Many new languages supported - ability to switch between languages seamlessly
    • Text-to-speech, speech recognition
    • SSH support by default

    Plus lots of other stuff.

  • It looks like you're mixing version numbers. OS X is a variation of BSD 4.4 Lite on a heavily modified Mach 3 kernel.

    --

  • Should have kept the Newton (Score:4)

    by faichai ( 166763 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @03:37AM (#491499) Homepage
    From the NY Times article, about Jobs' vision of the future I find I quite funny that they are chasing the PC market, and trying to extend it's lifespan.

    If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm, but since their Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market.

    This is a market in which Microsoft and it's primary competitor Symbian are going after, and to many it would appear to be the future of computing.

    Had they kept on going the likes of Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia might have well been more interested in Apples product than Psions. Then they would not have to worry about making up silly visions of how they want the market to be, and instead deliver what the market wants.

    This is not to say that I think the PC is dead, just that the broad appeal of having easy access to all your necessary information while on the move is a big draw to the general populace. The geeks will still of course prefer their fat pipes, multiple desktops and the raw power that their PCs provide as well as minimal exposure to sunlight. Although most likely they will still not want a Mac. Oh well...bye bye Apple.

  • Unfortunately for Microsoft IE for Windows and IE for Mac are too Win32/Mac specific to facilitate an easy port to other operating systems. The prior IE port to Unix entailed running the thing through a Win32 emulation layer, hence the reason it was crappy slow, especially over X.

    It's possible that somone could write a Carbon API layer on Unix but I imagine that would be just as difficult to do it is for Win32 what with Apple's penchant for changing APIs, lawsuits etc.

  • Since the app's a native MacOS X app, it's possible that GNUStep's a stepping stone for making an IE port (because MacOS X's developer API's are NeXTStep derivatives...) but I don't think it'll happen or that anyone will want it if it does happen- like someone said, MS has little care for standards except their own.
  • They should all run fine via Classic, but performance will be no better than on OS 9. If the applications are carbonised, you should notice significant gains in terms of stability and probably performance.

    The biggest problem for IE and all "Carbonized" apps is that they were originally written for a fossil OS with half-baked implementations of VM, pre-emption, multi-threading etc. - things other operating systems have taken for granted for years. That means without additional (and substantial) coding the OS X version might run natively, but it won't be significantly different from the same app running on OS 9 - if the app is single-threaded on OS 9, it will be on OS X etc. For that reason I wouldn't get my hopes about IE being that much better on OS X unless Microsoft intend to rip apart their rendering & network stuff to take advantage of threads etc.

  • I'm sorry if change frightens you, but without it, we'd still have nothing but CLIs (not that a good CLI is bad :) ). The thing is, you have to make a huge jump forward every now or then or nothing will ever really happen.

    ------
  • You are correct that you may not *need* to partition, but I personally would recommend it, or at least have 2 OS 9 system folders. OS X puts some stuff in your OS 9 system folder which can (in the PB) cause conflicts when running in OS 9.

    Not to mention the fact that OSX re-arranges the hierarchy of everything, including where your system folder is, and this confuses the HELL out of some apps when you are in OS9. If you compound it with Multiple Users you'll find that it gets worse.

    The best sceme, as others have said, seems to be 2 partitions with OS9 on both, so OSX doesn't mess with your OS9 boot environment.
  • I too am another chronic desktop abuser. I know that sometimes my desktop gets too messy, but that's because the computer is there to help me get my work done, and it's my tool to use in the most optimal fasion for how I work.

    While I know and understand that data needs to be put away into folders, there sometimes isn't a happy medium between a well-sorted and organized hierarchy, and timeliness of access. That is, when you derive a system for organizing your data, (for example: pr0n: \Redheds, \Lesbians, \Blowjobs, \Threesomes, \Blonds, \Asians, \TrailerPark etc.) sometimes you develop some convolutedly deep structures, especially if your interests and projects are very broad and diverse (pr0n\Redheads\Fetish\Peeing\OnCelery\. . .) and your favorite files take several minutes to find, drilling down into the hierarchy, you want quick access to them, but maybe you can't remember if it's Redheads\Fetishes\Peeing\OnCelery, or Teenager\Fetishes\Peeing\OnCelery or Lesbians\Fetishes\Peeing\OnCelery (which raises another issue about file-systems, in some cases, a relational way of organizing would help) - and by the time you've explored the other possibilities, you're too distracted, and you forget what you were looking for in the first place. Desktop shortcuts are great for that kind of thing.

    Also, sometimes, your system may be doing some crunching in the background (TraciLords\Fetishes\Peeing\OnCelery\TraciPee5.mov ), and your GUI gets sluggish, so drilling down through all of these directories gets to be a pain.

    If you go through a period where your "work"load is high, and you don't have time to get rid of obsolete or lesser used links on your desktop, it starts to impede workflow.

    This is what COMPUTERS are for - the flexibility of features. People can organize data that is not only more appropriate for how they work, but also how they think. For some users, this even changes from day to day - thank God the computers allow for that flexibility. To sit up there in your ivory tower of Computer Science and tell a user how they "should" and "shouldn't" use a tool, is kind of \pr0n\Redheads\Fetishes\Anal.

  • But, to be safe. (Score:3)

    by interactive_civilian ( 205158 ) <mamoru&gmail,com> on Monday January 22, 2001 @04:11AM (#491524) Homepage Journal
    You are correct that you may not *need* to partition, but I personally would recommend it, or at least have 2 OS 9 system folders. OS X puts some stuff in your OS 9 system folder which can (in the PB) cause conflicts when running in OS 9.

    My personal recommendation is to install OS X on a separate partition, and then install a basic install of the OS 9 system folder on the same partition to be used for the Classic environment. Then you can remove the redundant extensions (Quicktime, Open Transport, etc) and copy over any needed extensions from your main OS 9 system folder.

    This has the advantage of keeping your main OS 9 folder untouched by OS X. It also has the advantage of speeding up the boot time and lessening the overhead of the classic environment of OS X because you have removed many extensions that it will try to load but don't work anyway.

    This is a little safer than blindly allowing OS X to do what it pleases to your OS 9 system folder.

    Anyway, this is how I have been handling classic in the PB. Also, it has allowed me to keep using the classic environment (OS 9.0.4) while upgrading my main system to OS 9.1.

    out.
  • With the migration to BSD, there's gonna be a whole lot of segfaults. This raises another question: in Linux, when X segfaults, it bumps back to text mode and displays, "Segmentation Fault. Core Dumped." But what will OSX fall back to? That debug screen that you get when you press that button next to the reset button? I've pressed that button, and the only way I've gotten out of debug mode is to restart the whole damn thing.
  • Also the great people at OmniWeb ported Q3A to Mac OS X. Here it is [omnigroup.com]. This port is a 20% improvement over the MacOS 9 port. I love it! Enjoy.
  • Well, we know of the rumors. Yes, they're rumors- but Bill and Co's not stupid. Careless, sloppy, and arrogant they are- stupid they are not (consider that they've basically hoodwinked the world's populace into buying their barely functional eye-candy apps...).

    However, having said this, while MacOS X happens to have Mach/BSD, the programming API's all Apple's doing and abstracts away most of the underlying OS. Succinctly put, in order for this to make fruit for MS on the Linux front, they'd need to license and make a version of the MacOS X layer for Linux or make GNUStep fill in the holes between it and the MacOS X developer API. Not likely to happen unless MS is desperate and hurting BADLY.

  • Re:Whats all this IE hate? (Score:3)

    by Ryano ( 2112 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @04:36AM (#491532) Homepage

    "From what I've heard IE for OS X is actually the same IE that runs on OS whateverbeforeX but it runs in OS X's emulator."

    Not so. The IE (beta) that comes with OS X Public Beta is a native OS X application and is not run through the "Classic" Mac OS emulator. It is a "carbonised" application, which means that the code has been made compliant with the Carbon API, a cleaned-up version of the Mac OS 9 API. Carbon applications run natively on both OS X and OS 9, and they take on the interface behaviour of the host OS.

    The current shipping version of IE would run without modifications through OS X's "Classic" environment, but would not be able to take advantage of any of the modern OS features intoduced in OS X. Carbon allows developers to take advantage of these features without submitting their application to a complete re-write. However, a good deal of code-cleaning is required, and my guess is that Microsoft still have a ways to go before IE is as stable as an OS X application should be.

    Makes you wonder how other preOS X apps will run.

    They should all run fine via Classic, but performance will be no better than on OS 9. If the applications are carbonised, you should notice significant gains in terms of stability and probably performance.

  • There is a compatibility environment called "Classic". Basically, it spawns Mac OS 9 (9.1 is not supported in the Public Beta) into a single Mac OS X process.

    I have yet to find a productivity application that doesn't work well: CyberStudio, CodeWarrior (although version 6 is a Carbon app, and runs native in OS X), Word, Excel, even most games run well. The only apps which don't work are those that need direct hardware access.

    You actually DO need to run a full OS 9, though, since there are many APIs which are not supported in Carbon/OS X. Those APIs are the main difference between Classic and Carbon apps.

    Russell

  • Re:Should have kept the Newton (Score:4)

    by Blue Adept ( 48849 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @06:09AM (#491536)
    I happen to be wearing my Newton Developers t-shirt this morning, so I had to respond.

    I really loved developing for Newton and working with the Newton team at Apple. While I only really did Newton Books I came to love the Newton Development Kit. Everything about the Newton was cool.

    Unfortunately Apple probably did the right thing in dropping Newton. That market belongs to Palm, and Palmish devices. Microsoft and its partners have followed down the path that Apple recognized as a dead end. Consumers want batteries that last forever and a tiny form factor. Watching movies on a PDA, or running big apps looks great during demos, but these over-built PDAs cost too much and burn up their batteries to fast.

    I had this crazy idea that Apple should have replaced Copland with the Newton OS. It was architecture neutral (p-code based) so they could run on Intel or anything else. It was OO to the core which made it a pleasure to program. It was more stable than any OS I had owned up to that point, and it could truely revolutionize how we use computers.

    With OS X and its Java API we will have a lot of what Newton could have brought to the table. I am not sure a handheld version fo OS X would be as cool as Newton because, again, it would result in a large and costly battery killer. Add a color screen and you are guaranteed a flop.

    Jon
  • No, i didn't. They *are* using the FreeBSD kernel, and PB is running a heavily modified FreeBSD 3.3 on a heavily modified Mach kernel.

    Nope. Explain why "sysctl kern.symfile" would print "kern.symfile = \mach.sym" on a non-MACH kernel?

    Besides the IP stack has a lot of anoying little problems not in FreeBSD that I remember from the NeXT. Like needing the arp cache cleared once in a while. Oh, and a very mach like "top" (which I would post along with a FreeBSD one, but slashdot rejects it as "lame"). The MACH one is reporting a lot more thread info and four memory stats vs two.

    I know Apple says a lot about FreeBSD, but they don't quite say they are FreeBSD. They can use FreeBSD device drivers, but that can be done with a shim layer (which is a good idea -- it would be nice if they had one for Linux and NetBSD drivers as well).

    It still ain't bad. It is a lot better then OS9, but it isn't as nice as it would be if it were on a modern kernel (like FreeBSD 4.x, or Linux).

  • partitions NOT needed (Score:3)

    by nycdewd ( 160297 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @12:56AM (#491541)
    you need not partition to boot between MacOS 9 and OS X, matter of fact if you want the best performance from running Classic under OS X you best put them both on the same partition (word to your mother) and as i say, you can easily boot between straight-up OS 9 and OS X...
  • I still remember the "old days" [not so old, really]. Before MS quit wasting their time going after friends sharing software. The days where Microsoft threatened (and, I believe, implemented in early betas) to include a phone home feature in Chicago that would report a scan of the users hard drive. I don't think I kept the magazines that discussed it (stuff from '94 is just a little out of date).

    Har -- In the "old days" Microsoft was one of the most pro-piracy companies around. MS-Office going from a 10% to a 90% marketshare was driven almost purely by give-away copies and casual piracy. The only anti-piracy feature they ever bothered implementing was the licence key, and even then many products had a 1111-11111... back door.

    Now, we have the "new days" coming up -- Office is already registration locked for home/small office users, and the next version will require a licence key server for corporate use. OEM CDs are bios-locked now. Whistler will implement a registration scheme like Office, perhaps even for corporate users and servers.

    (As for the Chicago Phone Home feature, that actually shipped as the "registration wizard" in W95. It was completely optional and scanned for certain select programs, mostly Microsoft ones but also DOS WordPerfect and Lotus Notes.)
    --
  • I'm sure its been posted here before, but can someone update me with what unix apps will be able to run on OSX when its done? I think I remember apache and a few other things being available but what about other main stream apps. Is it just a matter of a recompile or is the BSD part too nonstandard to port to.

    Most command line apps should recompile either out of the box, or with a little nudging. Apache comes with the OS, and I believe Fred Sanchez is making sure new builds continue to work. MySQL has built some OSX binaries, but most of them appear to be for the older OSX Server 1.x (Mach 2.5-based, no Aqua). Somebody is working on PostgreSQL.

    The X11 apps are a different story because you have to get your hands on a X server first. There are several different efforts/approaches to this. The most seamless is a relatively expensive ($300) commercial product from Tenon [tenon.com]. It runs X apps alongside native OSX apps. You can exit to raw Darwin and run something like XFree86, but you cannot run any OSX native GUI apps until you launch back into the window server.

    Overall, anything that runs on *BSD should be able to make its way to OSX pretty effortlessly. Some of the remaining kinks should be worked out by the time the shrinkwrapped product hits shelves on March 24, and I'm sure things will continue to evolve via Darwin. Work done on Darwin is routinely synced with the OSX tree and vice-versa.

    Also note that the revamped version of Mac OS X Server [apple.com], which will come up several weeks after March 24, will be based on the same core as consumer OSX. It will add server-specific packages and some very cool GUI tools for things like Apache and IP filters. It comes with PHP, Tomcat, and MySQL preinstalled. WebObjects with an unlimited license is also included (previously, a 50 client connection per minute limit), as is a mail server, ftp server, and samba. The last three have UI interfaces for them.

    A have a full write-up [wildtofu.com] of this new version of OSXS2 on my site. It's slick.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

  • And another thing (Score:5)

    by biglig2 ( 89374 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @01:03AM (#491546) Homepage Journal
    OK, a glimpse of OSX's new core isn't a bad attempt at a pun, but it's very innacurate. The post is about a couple of UI changes - very far from kernel changes which you imply.

    Woo, now I've started slagging off the content of the posts. I knew I was being too nice all this time.

  • Multilayered issue (Score:3)

    by TheInternet ( 35082 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @06:46PM (#491550) Homepage Journal
    Consider this, the old NeXT display postscript and NeXT Step code are still proprietary even though neither technology is currently used by Apple.

    I'm not sure they could release the source to DPS, even if they wanted to. They had to pay a licensing fee to Adobe for every copy of an OS that shipped with it. NextStep code as a whole, though, is very much in use at Apple. However, some parts of it have been released, such as NetInfo.

    Despite the misleading hype, Apple is still closed source. [...] If one has any illusions that Apple is an Open Source company, one need only to speak to the developers of GNU Step who will greet your query with a hearty laugh. Apple open source? No, don't kid yourself.

    Who is this attitude going to help?

    This is not a black and white issue. It's multilayered and I think it's likely you need more information before you can make a judgement as to the worth of Apple's efforts.

    Apple took a big first step with release a fully-functional Unix-based OS in Darwin. True, many of the components (Mach, BSD, etc.) were already available to the public through various other sources and licenses; but this is the foundation for both Apple's consumer and server operating systems. Why is this significant, you ask? It's significant because Apple's engineers are actively developing and improving the core OS on a daily basis. Any time they do this, you benefit. You don't even have to do anything. You just get free code, and Apple writes the check. And furthermore, this code is released under a license that has already had a few revisions, and pretty much everybody seems to be happy with at this point.

    Complaining about Apple not releasing the rest of OSX is pointless. Apple, being a publicly-traded, for-profit company, needs to make money. Its positioning as an easy-to-use platform means it cannot possibly justify basing profits entirely on support (not that this business model is flawless in general), and Apple as another x86 box maker just isn't logical. The reason the company could justify the three year development of Mac OS X to its shareholders is that it knew it would gain it back in hardware and software sales. If there was no profit to be made by selling the product, OSX would simply not exist, and the advancement of all operating systems would be affected accordingly. Like it or not, Apple has been and continues to be a is a major influence in evolution of personal computers. As much as slashdotters slam Apple, it's doing pioneering work in Unix usability. This benefits everyone.

    Essentially, you're expecting Apple to sit there and spin straw into gold for you. That's not the goal of open source. It's about give and take. Apple is giving you half the kingdom for free, and you just turn around and demand the other half? This attitude only discourages other companies from participating in open source. If you insist on being inflexible and taking an all-or-nothing standpoint on OS source release, then you're going to end up with a whole heap of nothing. You can't just expect Apple to abandon its current revenue streams all at once. That lacks balance and forethought.

    The development of every platform cannot be structured identically to Linux. That's just as bad as everything being based on Windows. To avoid inbreeding, you need a variety of concepts, organizations and even business models in order for software to continue to advance. Apple is doing the best thing it can possibly do for the community while still keeping its product line intact.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
  • No, they are not using a user mode server. They decided to move that into kernel space to deal with the performance issues. Even without the user mode server, Mach offers a lot of benefits. Try browsing the darwin-development mailing list archives at http://www.darwinfo.org [darwinfo.org] for more info.
  • If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm,

    1) The newton was not 'plodding', it was a source of a (small) profit at the end, as opposed to the 250-500 million loss it had to date. The Newton Inc group had wonderful plans....

    2) The newton would not have displaced the palm. For under $300, you can get a palm. Even the prototype pocket Newton (a palm sized newton) was unable to hit the sub $500 mark.

    Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market

    There were only 2 successful settlements for the way Apple dumped the newton. One was in the telecom industry, they were using the 2100 as a base platform.

    When Jobs became El Jefe at Apple, the Newton engineers left in mass to palm. If Jobs had managed to buy Palm computing, these same employees would have left again. The only Newton-centeric talent left at Apple was the group who delivered NCU 1.5 years late and riddled with features like a 2 gig free space limit. (Yes, if you have more than 2 gig free space, NCU doesn't work.) Once the 32 engineers left for Palm, the Newton was dead.

    Oh well...bye bye Apple

    The big dog is Micro$oft. If you believe Open Source and Unix is the "next big thing", Apple has the Unix angle and the Open Source angle. If Apple upsets the old NeXTSTEP/new cocca developers, they have an exit option this time around.....GNUSTeP. Apple has to tread lightly, less they drive away more developers.
  • "I seem to remeber Apple using telnet for remote admin on MOSX but in the apache screenshot it says SSH. Have they switched?? "

    Netinfo is used for remote administration, not ssh nor telnet. Having access to the command line to do any form of remote admin is totally unneccissry in MacOS X. Now invisible ssh connections could be how Netinfo connects to the remote server....

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @06:23AM (#491559)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • There's always the option of their usual response to GPF- a little bomb warning you of the error made.

    So what they're called segfaults under UNIX? A GPF is a GPF, they exist on every protected mode processor. As for what happens if Quartz crashes, it'd probably just take you back with a warning, and give you the chance to restart Quartz (or perhaps do it automatically.)

  • From what I can tell, MacOS 9.1 is basically a transitional release between the "old" MacOS and MacOS X. Most notably (and a little annoyingly), it moved my Applications and Utilities folders into one called "Applications (MacOS 9.1)". I can only assume that this is how MacOS X will separate old apps from new ones.

    It's a good thing that aliases on the Mac are dynamic. The OS installer moved things around, but all my handy "shortcuts" and installed applications still work fine.

  • Uhh, JCR - Sherlock is NOT a web browser. It is a search engine that can index and search both local and remote volumes, and also query multiple search engines online simultaneously. Omniweb is just a (extremely good) browser.
  • And while you may think that Mac OS X will do it all and be the cat's meow today, what about four or give years from now? It will be outdated and stale, lacking new, useful features. Linux and *BSD can and do keep up with the latest OS developments, but Apple will always lag behind.

    Read up on your OSX docs, son. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about:

    Mac OS X System Overview PDF [apple.com].

    - Scott
    --
    Scott Stevenson
    WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
  • I never said I had a problem with a few desktop shortcuts, but the actual files shouldn't be kept there long-term. Also, we have this nifty thing called "Recent Documents."

    As for sitting in my ivory tower of computer science at RPI, should mechanics sit in their ivory towers and tell us how we "should" shift so as not to trash our transmissions?

    Though I must agree with the response below about how Win2k handles it much better, and in fact is just far greater in general. In fact, I'm using it to type this...

    -----------------------

  • True, Win2k for me is a not too bad second choice from BeOS, but with much better support. However, keeping everything on the desktop is still a bad practice, if you must it would be better to leave My Documents maximized, you get ALL the space to put your stuff in, and can even put shortcuts to your drives if you want.

    -----------------------

  • You're missing the point.

    Sure you can have a bunch of consumer devices to access and consolidate information, view movies, read books, make phone calls. But you're always the passive observer in these situations. Jobs is saying Apple will sell the products that will allow you to create DVDs, create web sites, compose and mix music etc. One-trick pony devices aren't appropriate for this sort of stuff.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
  • Netinfo is used for remote administration, not ssh nor telnet. Having access to the command line to do any form of remote admin is totally unneccissry in MacOS X.

    This isn't entirely true. NetInfo has no control over things like Apache.

    - Scott
    --
    Scott Stevenson
    WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close