Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
OS X Businesses GUI Operating Systems Software X Apple For Mac OS X Hits 1.1.1 (Finally) 109

berchca writes "So it looks like for Mac OS X has finally hit 1.1.1 (for X11). They've also stated they probably won't do a native (Aqua/Carbon) release until OOo 2.0 is out, in late 2005 or early. Great work guys! Now I can get decent macros." I hope 1.1.1 has some speedups over 1.1.0, which works well but takes forever to start.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. For Mac OS X Hits 1.1.1 (Finally)

Comments Filter:
  • by Sonic McTails ( 700139 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:30PM (#8709922)
    I remember reading how you can check the code out and compile of Darwin/Mac OS X, but the code checkout itself took an hour over my connection, and I only have a 500MHz G3, I'd be old and grey before it finished. Anyway, I'm going to see if this can kill off PowerPoint (I already replaced Execl with Gnumeric, and Word with TextEdit (I found TextEdit to be just more damn efficent at being a word processor then Word ever was), and if not, keep searching so I can de-M$ my machine.
  • I'm just curious: What's wrong with Fink?

    Hundreds of ports, doesn't interfere with the rest of your system (at least not with mine), and a nice front end [].
  • by sc00p18 ( 536811 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @10:09PM (#8710158)
    Not sure what his problem with fink is, but I dislike it because there aren't enough packages available in stable as binaries. It seems like everything I try to install is in unstable or unavailable prebuilt.
  • by Nexum ( 516661 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @10:56PM (#8710408)
    You're quite right. OS X is perhaps the greatest operating system that's ever been available, truly sheer brilliance - not perfect, but now using Windows XP feels like going back to Win 3.1.

    But we really need a nice office suite, sure there's MS Office, and I prefer it to the Windows version for several reasons, but there is no choice here. Everything except for MS Office is a half-finished non-full featured also-ran and that's a sad state of affairs. There's so much software in EVERY other category for OS X, I want for nothing but more choice in Office suites. seems to be the only way out of this situation, but those OS X porting guys are having one hell of a time - until version 2.0 comes along, theres going to be no native Aqua stuff, and I think we're really looking at 2nd quarter 2006 before we have an installer and full featured Aqua OSS

    I know there are about 2 people working on the OS X port, partly because there's just not a lot of momentum because the main source team needs to finish parts of the 2.0 release before the OS X porting team can even begin.

    Well... at least we'll get it before Longhorn :)
  • Try Mellel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `yrogihpma'> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @12:03AM (#8710842)
    For those who need a good, basic word processor with advanced language and academic style features, it's hard to beat mellel. Check it out at []. Cost is $29 shareware, so you can't beat the price, and it is definitely much better than MS "I reformat every document to make it not really Turabian because 'it looks like you are trying to write a letter!'" Word.
  • OpenOffice1.1.1 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ViperTalon13 ( 766578 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @12:39AM (#8711050)
    I installed OpenOffice last last friday from the 1.1.1RC3 source and it doesn't seem slow on my comp. Personally I think it looks good in X11 with KDE as the wm. Takes less time to start than any of the MS Office apps.
  • Re:Slow starting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Photar ( 5491 ) <photar&photar,net> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:15AM (#8711761) Homepage
    Yeah, you're right, after I posted that I thought about it a little. but I only need to do one char comparisons because thats what he is talking about how many chars are being compared... Its much slower if its got further to look.
  • by guet ( 525509 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @05:00AM (#8712157)
    yep, that's great.

    "looks like you don't know how to use Fink"

    well, I'll tell you what, I had exactly the same idea as this guy last night and tried to download the subversion package, and gave up half way through recompiling the new version of Fink (WTF, I just downloaded it as binary and it wants to download (AND COMPILE!!?!?!?!?!?!) a new version of itself??). You're about as helpful as the myriad documents I had to plough through to get that far.

    It's a mess, and if you're used to that kind of software deployment and want to put up with it, great, but frankly, it's about 10 years behind the rest of the world. I don't mind messing around on the command line to get a command line tool up and running, but what's with this 'auto-update' that actually has to compile most of the software again and a graphical client that doesn't even manage to hide the command line (please type in your response (what, you mean, like on a command line but with a little dialog that gets in the way?)) and has lots of cryptic menus (selfupdate-rsynch)? Yes, I *can* go away and find out what the menus in the app mean, but it's a tool for getting new software, not photoshop; I'd expect the menus etc to be straightforward and legible for someone who's not familiar with the program. It could at least have chosen a default update method rather than sticking at that point. The flat file layout (just like on the command line then, how about nested trees of categories at least?) and basic GUI I could put up with, but it took two hours to get software that should have been painless to install.

    Why exactly should I have to download and compile a new version of software and all the libraries it depends on just after I've downloaded the binary?? Then it gives me messages like this... (note the mistake (at least I damn well hope so) in file size). The only advantage is the dependency checking, which it doesn't even seem to work all the time.

    Need to get 4933kB of archives. After unpacking 1980MB will be used.

    Take a look at bundles on OS X (ship the used version of the library with the app, in a nice neat package), then look at fink and tell me it *just works* if you know what you're doing. For certain values of knowing what you're doing, yes it just works. I think the point of the parent poster was that he doesn't want to have to go through all that pain just to try out some software. Not that he can't 'learn fink' but that he doesn't see the benefits which repay all that effort. Ah, I must go, I have another 'please provide your response to the command line' message.
  • Re:Try Mellel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zangdesign ( 462534 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @06:01AM (#8712288) Journal
    I tried Mellel and it rocks - fast, cheap, and easy to use. I also tried Mariner while it's not as good (it "feels" ever so slightly clunky), I eventually keep having to go back to Word, due to the needs of my clients. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to force them to switch applications.

    But, man, if I was - it'd be the first one I'd make them use.
  • by water-and-sewer ( 612923 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @09:21AM (#8712929) Homepage
    Yes I know it's slow and I know it's hard to build and I know the average computer user won't probably know how to install it.

    But just having it there is already a step in the right direction. It means all the docs I developed on my Linux box are openable one way or another on a Mac, and that gives me a lot more confidence to keep using the sxw file format. I'm feeling patient (already had my coffee today) so I can wait for 2.0 to come out in Cocoa. Keep investing in that file format. Send your docs to everyone you know, with links to the OO.o website to solve their "incompatibility" problems. We'll get there yet.
  • Installer! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zpok ( 604055 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:13PM (#8715483) Homepage
    As always: I'm not a developer, it's the coolest thing, people giving their time and brains to OSS projects.

    Still: a major gripe:

    The installation instruction page is baffling. Too many dependencies, too much stuff to be installed and set up. And what non-programming user will install developer tools?

    I've dabbled with Darwin and fink just enough to know it isn't for me. In the end it was able to download and install 0 software, in countless hours of fiddling. That's when I decided I'd use my time more productively begging for binaries than re-schooling myself. You see, contrary to popular belief, most mac users aren't normally blessed with a background in UNIX/Linux ;-)

    But also for organisations and companies using OS X, what's the advantage of OOo when you have to depend on such a cumbersome process?

    Suddenly - when including IT hours - MS Office is cheaper or at least not that expensive. Insert CD, drag and drop Office folder in your Applications Folder, done. Oops, that seems to have cost the organisation the better part of a whole minute ;-)

    ANSCD (and now something completely different):
    The Gimp 2 has recently come available, and a developer has compiled an OS X binary that's just wonderful to install. Brainless one-click totally OS X standard installation process. Meaning you can install Gimp on a bunch of macs in say one hour or less? And just about anybody could do this, not just the IT guy/grrl.

    And when starting up Gimp - double-click the icon, duh! - X11 is launched in the background. Meaning that although it needs an extra Windowing manager, it doesn't distract you with this. X11 is standard in OS X 10.3 (Panther) so that made it a total non-issue for me. Sweet.

    Meaning: although Photoshop is still A Better Product(tm), Gimp is an OSS package that every low-budget mac user - or organisation with few graphic needs - should, can and most likely in the future WILL consider.

    OOo at this moment is not. And that's solely based on the install process. Pity, no?

    Two final remarks:

    1) I try to keep informed about OOo and understand it's an uphill battle for the two (2????) OS X porters. Kudos to them for turning out the update.

    2) It's a myth that every mac user is loaded and loves to spend tons on software. OSS is eyed very very closely by the mac community since OS X. When - if - KDE gets its native port, you'll be surprised by the amount of KOffice downloads. I didn't get the pre-alpha to run yet, but at least installing was a no-brainer.
  • by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:30PM (#8718167) Homepage Journal
    OK, well, I am a customer. I'll pay $50 for OpenOffice, but only when they have a native Aqua version.
  • by mivok ( 621790 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:30PM (#8720219) Homepage
    Darwinports [] worked pretty well for me installing subversion. I can't remember now, but I think it still requires some compiling and setup to get darwinports working, but once it is done, just type port install subversion, and it compiles and installs, without depending on anything stupid like X if it isn't needed.
  • by EricHsu ( 578881 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @11:36PM (#8721921)
    OOo has its problems. But of all the non-MS office packs I've used, and I've tried practically all of them, it is the only one that is even remotely adequate for compatibility. And this is the number one sticking point for office suites.

    NeoOffice/J is acceptable looking and acceptably fast. Load time is slow, but I only load it once per boot. The only other program I'm pulling for is Nisus Writer, which used to be the best, and now is in a lamentable state. If they can get their act together (tables) and get better MS compatibility, they have a shot.

    I guess I'm also hoping Apple is secretly developing a killer office suite. :)

  • I don't know what "base" quality means,

    then you shouldn't have spent four paragraphs responding to me.

    "Base" quality is quality without moral judgement. If Microsoft Office 2003 were suddenly released under the GPL, would OpenOffice still be the better choice? If Longhorn were to be released as Free Software, why would anyone still use Linux?

    There is nothing self-conflicting about the Open Source movement, or its principles. Sometimes, the closed, proprietary product is simply better--and (pay attention now, this is the important part) any energy spent on convincing people to use the inferior "open" or "free" product is wasted effort.

    Or, to be even harsher: if you attempt to alter the values of a person so that they use poorly designed, ineffecient software soley because of its moral weight, you have created an ecology that cannot stand and you have doomed your follower to economic failure--which is exactly the fate that a wholly proprietary system would eventually doom him to.

    Something similar can be said for purchasing athletic shoes

    Yes, let us shift the discussion from software to another industry--the principles of the discussion shall be much better illustrated by analogy.

    As you correctly stated, no one would dismiss a tyrannical manufacturer's product on moral grounds if they did not have the information about the manufacturer's amoral behavior.

    However, you make the incorrect assumption that any other manufactuer's shoe would be both equitable in quality and preferrable in moral weight. Such is not necessarily the case.

    Assume, for the sake of analogy, that all shoe manufacturers, save for Grand National Union Shoes, or GNUS, are strongly religious organizations that only employ those who convert to their religion. GNUS, of course, employes people of any religion, because they believe in Religious Freedom. Unfortunately, GNUS shoes are somewhat lacking in shoe design; while functional, they are neither as ascetically pleasing nor simple to use as their competition's.

    Now, of course, GNUS sells its lower-quality shoes at a much lower margin, as GNUS is fortuitous enough to be a not-for-profit corporation with executives so dedicated to religious freedom that they are willing to work for less. There are even economists and political scientists who laud GNUS as a superior company, are willing to support GNUS through patronage and donations, and will trot out argument after argument that GNUS shoes, being just as good and cheaper and morally better, should be the dominant shoe.

    But, due to the lower base quality of the shoe, GNUS shoes are a fraction of the market--though popular in comparatively niche markets, such as military refugee shoes and ancient times reinactments.

    Of course, GNUS shoes can exist as a small fraction of the market. Or, they can hardness and dedicate their energy not in making their shoes look better, but in making their shoes actually as good as or better than their more expensive competition.

    So, to clearly state my point:

    We have to teach people to think about human rights when they shop. We have to teach people that they can't divorce their purchasing power from politics

    No, we don't. There is a measurable value that people place on morality--there always has been, and there always will be. How else do you think that the religious American South perpetuated slavery for so long, or that the current international drug trade has continued for so long?

    The single thing that must be done to increase usage of Free Software is best thought of in abstract capitalist terms. We must cause the value of Software Freedom to exceed the cost of using software that is objectively inferior. History is shown that only a great minority are willing to sacrafice their quality of life for a non-mortal (i.e., not life-threatening) Freedom in others. Because of this, the best place for any adherent of Free Software to direct his

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.