Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Jaguar Brings Back AirPort Software Base Station 60

Posted by pudge from the one-of-many-things dept.
EelBait writes "I'm surprised that few people have picked up on this, considering how much noise was made when Software Base Station was unavailable on previous versions of Mac OS X. But, as I was reading through the 'and more' section of the list of new Jaguar features, I came across the AirPort Software Base Station item. You'll need to scroll down to the Networking section. You'll also see things like IPv6, IPsec, PAM, and Active Directory." Bringing back this and USB Printer Sharing are two of the many good things about 10.2.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaguar Brings Back AirPort Software Base Station More

Jaguar Brings Back AirPort Software Base Station

Comments Filter:

  • IPsec with AirPort (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SiMac ( 409541 ) on Sunday August 18, 2002 @03:37PM (#4093902) Homepage
    It would be sort of interesting if Apple added IPsec support to the AirPort base station (or at least the software base station.) It was shown a while ago that WEP was insecure, and IPsec seems like a much better way to secure a network, as long as the speed hit isn't too big. I've wondered why no other hardware vendors (with the exception of Cisco, with LEAP) have tried to make a more secure version of 802.11b...Perhaps Apple could lead the way here?

    • Re:IPsec with AirPort (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ster ( 556540 )
      Newer Base Stations (or maybe even newer versions of the firmware for all Base Stations) support LEAP. Also, IPSec is part of 10.2. I would imagine that, if it's not already in the GUI, making IPSec work with AirPort would be a matter of configuring some stuff in /etc or NetInfo.

      Or not. ;-) I'm just talking off the top of my head here.

      -Ster
      • It's possible that by IPSec they mean only a client, and not a server. This would make it pretty difficult. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if they made an IPSec server available only in Mac OS X Server. Hopefully, this won't be the case. It would be a non-issue at my home (I do have a Linux server), but probably would severely hamper adoption by a regular joe without $1000 to blow.

        Anyway, Apple really could do some work on LEAP authentication. A password in the style of is not quite user-friendly (plus if you mess up on the username, it's a pain to fix it.)
        • Does IPSec even have clients and servers? I thought it was P2P, but then I don't claim to know anything about it.

          Anyway, Apple really could do some work on LEAP authentication. A password in the style of is not quite user-friendly (plus if you mess up on the username, it's a pain to fix it.)

          Have you used LEAP with AirPort? I can't even get my AirPort card to see a LEAP-enabled Cisco base station.
          • I can't even get my AirPort card to see a LEAP-enabled Cisco base station.

            Perhaps they've hidden the SSID? In that case, you'll have to type it in yourself. It may very likely be "typhoon" or "tsunami".

            You log into LEAP by typing "<username/password>" into the password field (the angle brackets are important). If your username is part of a domain, you will need to enter "<domain\username/password>" instead. If you get tired of typing this every time, go to the Network control panel and type the SSID/password into the appropriate boxes of the Airport tab for auto-logon.

          • IPSec is really the big thing that got me excited about 10.2(and Windows network browsing and Quartz Extreme and CUPS and PAM blah blah.) My co worker and I were trying to figure out how to securely deploy 802.11b. I'm waiting for next week to really get to hack on this but the current plan is use an IPSec VPN(and throw WEP out the f'ing window) to secure the line of communication. I will set up either an OpenBSD, FreeBSD or Linux(preference in that order, yeah I know I've got a BSD partiality) firewall and only allow traffic over the IPSec VPN. From my inital research I found some docs on doing hardwired IPSec communication but in theory that should apply to the wireless as well.

            here's some useful links. I hope to be able to adapt some of the information to suit using OS X.
            OpenBSD IPSec [openbsd.org]
            FreeBSD IPSec [freebsd.org]
            Windows 2000 to FreeBSD [wiretapped.net]
            DaemonNews Article [daemonnews.org]
            FreebsdDiary Article [freebsddiary.org]

            After pondering the "secureness" of using IPSec in lieu of WEP I've come up with one weakness and one side affect since clients get DHCP addresses in the clear and any communication to the wired LAN is encrypted. Say jane sales chick shows up with her personal laptop and tries to use the wireless network in the office she gets a IP address but can get into the wired net because she can't esablish a IPSec VPN. Joe cust service has his laptop in the office too. he get an IP but gets blocked by the IPSec Firewall. as a side affect there is nothing stopping Joe and Jane from swapping music, warez or pr0n. The only weakness I can think of is that Johnny hacker could try to exploit one of the wireless clients(if there are any) and use that as a jumping off point to the LAN or to his credentials. Another thing I've given some thought to is depending on the overhead of IPSec you could take the onion skin approach making the side effect a little more difficult to non tech type(we all know how secure WEP is) by also using 64 or 128 bit wep in addition to IPSec.

            Since this is all theory until next week when I get Jaguar. Feel free to point out any stupid lines off thought I've got going on here. If I'm successful I'll probably document it and post on the Web.
            --
  • If USB Printer shareing works under DHCP this time around? The problem was that the computer that hosted the shared printer had to have a static IP, otherwise the clients would not be able to find it again.

    This gave one of the beautifully useless, undocumented "Type 14354" errors.

    • Re:I wonder.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by PeekabooCaribou ( 544905 )

      Apple probably includes this functionality as part of Rendezvous [apple.com]. (Rendezvous allows for networking with "zero-configuration"). Their site only mentions hardware options, where networked computers automatically find Rendezvous-aware printers, but given the nature of the interface I would think they could extend USB Printer Sharing to use it, also.

    • Re:I wonder.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by seven5 ( 596044 )
      yes, they do. USB printer sharing is enabled with Rendezvous. There isn't a single thing to set up. In fact when going to print on my iBook, the shared printer was already there. I did absolutely nothing to set it up. Its very convenient, andone of my favorite technologies in 10.2. I'm really looking forward to the different ways devs use this.

  • How many of Jaguar's "150 new features..." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Sunday August 18, 2002 @05:15PM (#4094242) Homepage
    ...are actually just OS 9's old features?
    • It's getting tiring to hear about people saying "OS 9 could do this and OS X can't blah blah blah." This used to be very bad before 10.1 was released, but I do not blame anyone for this as 10.0.x was not truly a complete commercial OS. However, since 10.1 was released, there really has been no competition: for users with machines capable of running X (basically any G3 with decent RAM), OS X is an excellent choice. All major applications (or quality alternatives) now run native, there is no major slowdown as in 10.0.x, and you get to enjoy all the great things that are exlusive to OS X like Aqua and Unix. I used 9 for pretty much it's entire lifespan until X came out and even though I loved it, I'll never go back to an OS where I need to reboot bare minimum once a day and can't multitask. If you want to deal with this in order to use a couple minor features that aren't yet in OS X, go right ahead; it's your loss, not mine.
      • All major applications (or quality alternatives) now run native
        Well, I am tired of hearing *that*. Quite a few bigshot applications do not run native at all. Quark is one example, but even if quark gets its act together, the printing office I regularly do freelance stuff for is not going to switch its 70 macs to OSX because a lot of stuff has not been ported properly yet. (their 4D application for instance refuses to work properly under OSX)

        Right now, OSX is becoming a stable, usable consumer OS. But for serious work, it still lacks a lot of features.
        • Quark is one example, but even if quark gets its act together...

          Which they won't, since they fired their most senior software architects right before OS X was announced. Oops.
        • But for serious work, it still lacks a lot of features.

          Like what? Maybe I've never done serious work before, but in the year or so since I've been using OS X as my primary OS (for work), I haven't found a single thing that I couldn't do (except for watching Real media clips, which was recently rectified). Correcting your statement, I'd go with:

          OS X has quite a few features that make it more ideal for serious work than OS 9; however, a few key applications have yet to support OS X, making it an unsuitable OS for some work situations.
      • I would make one additional requirement. A supported graphics card. Don't get me wrong I have been running OSX on my Wallstreet powerbook since the public beta. But it has never been able to play movies, and the GUI is sluggish. Anything without a GUI is very snappy indeed, but as a user GUI speed is very important, and as far as I can tell that is all about video card support. I do X because I use the unix, but 9 is much more responsive on that hardware.
      • All major applications (or quality alternatives) now run native, there is no major slowdown as in 10.0.x, and you get to enjoy all the great things that are exlusive to OS X like Aqua and Unix.

        The first two statements are complete BS. Many major software tools have not been ported to Mac OS X -- Max/MSP, Director, QuarkXPress, etc. Much of the software that I use is noticeably slower in Mac OS X 10.1.5 than in Mac OS 9.2.2, including that unworthy abomination that they've passed on the name "Finder" to. About the only GUI apps in Mac OS X that are faster are Java apps and Mozilla. God forbid you want to play any games like Baldur's Gate 2.

        As for the last bit, Apple can take Aqua and shove it. I'd rather have a responsive, consistent, and well-designed GUI than the eye-candy lobotomized NeXT crap that Apple pawned off on us with the Aqua "user experience." I used to bleed the Apple rainbow, but with each day I use Mac OS X and each time Apple releases another unimpressive, sluggish system for 150% of what I could pay for a top of the line PC I wonder, "Why do I still bother?"

        Using a Macintosh is about the user interface, and today's Apple is killing everything that was once great about the platform.

        • What more consistent and responsive and well designed gui is there than Aqua? I've never seen one that comes anywhere close in usability, speed, and quality.

          And each release gets faster, Jaguar is a hardware upgrade in a box. The UI speed is amazing.

          Oh, and the "%150" claim about PC prices-- that's funny. Apparently, you've not priced a PC lately, or you think a 2GHz processor is twice as fast as a 1GHz processor.

          It gets tireing hearing all these complaints about apple from people who either don't understand the technology or are just making stuff up. Apple is kicking ass in all the areas you complain about... wtf?

          • What more consistent and responsive and well designed gui is there than Aqua?

            Let's see... How about Mac OS 9? Do you even understand the basic principles of HCI that made Mac OS 9 so great, or are you too caught up in the eye candy to understand? It does not let users take advantage of muscle memory the same way Mac OS 9 did by constantly moving the standard 3 menu items (File, Edit, View) with each application switch. It throws away the advantages of the inifinite depth of the four corners of a desktop that Mac OS 9 allowed users to exploit. It has an inconsistent Finder that randomly resizes list columns as you move around and that refuses to retain spatial organization of files within folders. Don't even get me started on the Dock. There have been many articles highlighting the numerous flaws of that GUI element that anyone who actually bothered to examine in the Beta days should already know about.

            And each release gets faster, Jaguar is a hardware upgrade in a box. The UI speed is amazing.

            Amazingly underwhelming. I don't know about you, but the responsiveness on my 400 MHz G4 is terrible compared to Mac OS 9. Windows and X11 are snappy and responsive on my friend's old 233 MHz Pentium II. Plus the Mac OS X scheduler is so poorly written that setting the priority on any process down to its worst value will still not improve GUI responsiveness. If the process wants the CPU constantly, it will get it regardless of priority. I simply cannot believe that you actually think the UI speed is "amazing." Moving around and resizing Windows should be instantaneous on a 400 MHz machine!

            Oh, and don't buy the marketing hype. "A hardware upgrade in a box" is a tacit way of admitting that Mac OS X is a sluggish, poorly written OS in the first place. You'll find on other OSes that there's not so much room for improvement anymore.

            Oh, and the "%150" claim about PC prices-- that's funny. Apparently, you've not priced a PC lately, or you think a 2GHz processor is twice as fast as a 1GHz processor.

            Live in denial, man.

            With the exception of their SIMD units, Altivec vs. MMX/SSE, the CPI and instruction throughput advantage on PPC chips ain't what it used to be. I remember back in the day when PPCs were clocked the same as Pentiums AND faster per clock. Those days are long past. AMD chips are on par with PPC chips are the same clock speed for the types of processing that a system will spend 95% of its time using (unless you do nothing but run Photoshop filters).

            AMD chips are also clocked 50% faster and cost a third to a fourth the price of a G4. Even P4s, which don't perform quite as well at the same clock speed are clocked twice as fast AND cost much less. Have you actually looked into Macintosh CPU upgrades lately? Upgrading my Celeron system to the fastest PIII-FCPGA available would cost me less than $200, with $120 being a good breaking point. Upgrading my G4 would cost me over $1K to get a chip that performs at 70-80% of a mid-range x86 chip.

            Don't buy into the whole claim that G4s are just as fast as P4s. The claim only holds up for certain specialized operations that 90% of the software you run doesn't use. For the general case bread-and-butter integer, floating point, and memory manipulation operations, G4s trail the x86 family. Perhaps this wouldn't be the case Apple could actually use smoe modern memory modules instead of getting half the performance out of an underclocked DDR memory system -- which, I might add, is a recent addition to a family of systems whose high-end systems have been languishing under PC133 for the past 2 years while every non-budget x86 system has moved on DDR or RDRAM.

            This is old news. The only thing that can save Apple's hardware is if IBM actually markets that Power4-derived chip for Apple desktops and they crank up the memory bandwidth.

            It gets tireing hearing all these complaints about apple from people who either don't understand the technology or are just making stuff up. Apple is kicking ass in all the areas you complain about... wtf?

            I'm tired of mindless sheep who think marketing drivel is wisdom from the mountain top. I use Macs and PCs side-by-side, day-by-day. My PC at work is a 600 MHz P3 running Win2k that's of the same generation as my 400 MHz G4. Guess which one processes Genome@Home work units faster? Guess which one I can actually run Genome@Home on without killing the performance of my desktop and making simple window operations unusable? Between my rock-bottom $400 dollar Celeron system with built-in Savage4 graphics and my G4 that has a better graphics card and twice the memory, I'd like you to guess which runs Warcraft III faster.

            Unlike you, apparently, I've actually used the Mac since the System 6 days, and I've experienced first-hand the loss of productivity and ease of use that came with Mac OS X. Yes, Mac OS X crashes far, far less often. Yes, cooperative multitasking wasn't that great (but it wasn't that much worse than Darwin's kernel's attempt at preemptive multitasking). However, Mac OS 9 had years of usability studies and HCI research behind it that was all thrown out the window for eye candy. There is absolutely NO reason why the GUI paradigm from Mac OS 9 couldn't be kept, but they preferred to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
            • Just a note, but next time you're looking at PC chip prices, make a note of the amount of L3 cache you're getting, not just the MHz/GHz. The new G4s have 1MB of L3 cache and the 1.25GHz chips will have 2MB, I believe. Last I checked, the only Intel processors with that size of L3 cache are Xeon's - most of the Xeons I've seen are pretty pricey. I think you can get your hands on a 700MHz Xeon w/ 1MB L3 cache for about $1300 or so, a 1.6GHz will set you back about $3700, though. Now, we're only talking the actual processor. Next, grab a decent motherboard. By the time you've finished, I imagine you've spent more than the $1699 that a dual-867MHz G4 system costs, even if you throw in the 15" flat-panel display.

              Cheers!


            • I've used the mac since pre-system 6. System 4, in fact.

              I know CHI well.

              You think your opinions and familiarity with Windows and PCs means that you can decide whats "good" and whats "bad" CHI.... and you're wrong.

              Just another PC fanatic who is living in denial.

          • You just can't be serious. OS X is UNBEARABLY slow. You've "never seen one that comes anywhere close in usability, speed, and quality", huh? If you meant that no other OS comes close to being as slow as OS X, then yeah, I agree with you.

            OS X is a cruel joke and a waste of good hardware.

            • *cough* troll *cough*

              I was just going to assume you were someone running Mac OS X and thought it was slow, until I read some other posts on this subject made by a certain jchristopher...

              you have no idea what you are talking about and you just look foolish for pretending.

            • Unbearably slow?

              That's funny. Its certainly sluggish on my 9500, but then, that computer is so old its not even officially supported.

              All these people complaining about the speed of OS X are just bashing it-- I doubt any of you have ever even installed it.

              Let alone used it on modern hardware. I thought it was zippy before, with jaguar it became instantaneous.

              Dragging this full window around (not outline as you get in "speedy OS 9" but full window, with greater than 60Hz updates to the window.)

              Yeah, its unbearably slow. Sheesh. I've never seen an operating system that could do that, not windows, not OS 9, not nothing.

        • Having worked for both NeXT and Apple and also having prior to joining either company and selling Macs to PCs running System 7.x to Winnt 3.51 either you have a serious case of the whines or have been stuck in an inefficient user interface design.

          If you have serious experience with NeXTSTEP/Openstep you would laugh at your own comments regarding UI Design.

          The Single User designed environment of MacOS of old is just that, a Single User environment designed well for its time but its time was passed up long ago.

          The Multiple User designed environment of NeXTStep is still superior to MacOS X but thanks to the world of compromise we only slowly get a blend of both worlds.

          The one aspect that the new "Finder" should incorporate is the Workspace Manager Shelf which you would find exceedingly useful. There should be an option to toggle between such available/non-available functionality, I agree, but that will take time.

  • More details at Apple.com (Score:4, Informative)

    by stevenprentice ( 202455 ) <stevep@gocouBALD ... edu minus author> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @10:32PM (#4095287)
    http://www.apple.com/airport/swbase/ [apple.com]

    Apple has a great page set up for this.

  • Apparently the beta version(s) of OS X had support for serial ports, and it was ripped out.

    Getting access to the serial ports, via a USB-to-serial converter, is the sole reason I still boot OS 9. My Newtons need it. My GPS needs it. Just because Steve thinks serial is dead doesn't mean all other devices disappear. The day I can't get at my serial gear, by booting OS 9 or otherwise, is the day I quit upgrading my Apple gear.
    • Apparently the beta version(s) of OS X had support for serial ports, and it was ripped out.

      Nonsense! As others have pointed out, the new XServe has a serial port on the back. Also, as any Darwin developer will tell you, IOKit supports serial devices [apple.com] natively from MacOS X.

      Just because Steve thinks serial is dead

      Steve obviously doesn't.

      Here's a thought - there isn't a useful MacOS X-based GPS program available out there to talk to all those Garmin serial-based gadgets out there. I've a GPS II+ which I use all the time, but it pisses me off bigtime that there's nothing for MOSX which will store and sort waypoints & routes. So rather than bitch and moan about it, let's go write one! I can offer MacOS developer skills (CW8/Darwin/*NIX/Carbon) & would be willing to make a start. Anyone else interested??

      • I can bring equivalent development skills to the table. You can figure out how to e-mail me at www.milbaugh.com
      • I used GPSy under OS 9 and was really happy. I know that there has been some talk about porting that app to OS X. I would email them and see if you could help port that app. It was very nice.
      • ...and sometimes it doesn't.

        Serial port access under Mac OS X seems quite dicey. An informal poll among Newton types, who either get to use USB-to-serial adapters or Ethernet if they're lucky, shows that access by OS 9 apps running under Classic to serial ports is an on-again, off-again affair. Currently, I have to boot to OS 9 to get access to a serial port.

        In practice, it seems that serial port access depends on luck.
  • I'm running build 6C115 and theres no Software Base Station included.

    AFAIK, build 6C115 is the Golden Master. So what's going on?
  • Not only does jaguar have Software Base Station for AirPort, it has a built-in DHCP server/NAT router for ethernet as well (both are in the sharing preferance pane). Two check boxes are all it takes to share an internet connection over AirPort and a standard wired TCP/IP connection. Isn't the mac great?
  • Sounds super cool! I work in a company where several of us have mac laptops but the company is too cheap to put down the $300 for an airport base station. It would be nice if we could set up a software base station on each laptop and set it to automagicly turn on when any of our laptops are connected to ethernet. That way just one of us has to be hardwired at any given time. Anyone know if it will work? OTOH, doesn't this sound like a future security risk for companies? Now the IT department has to not only secure the copper but the air too!
  • I have one word for you: Brickhouse. You can do all sorts of crazy firewalling and routing with that program, and there's a particularly easy wizard that'll let you set up a basestation-esque connection. I dig it.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A cucumber is not a vegetable but a fruit.

Close