Hacking Mac OS X 486
Bill Hamm writes "DB is carrying a deep interview with Jonathan Rentzsch, who created an open source technology to allow other developers to inject their code into any running process to alter its functions and written papers for IBM to program the PowerPC correctly. The interview is huge and technical, and all over the place in terms of content. Some of the things discussed are the reasons for corporate America's resistance to buying from Apple, software optimization, the importance and history of 10.4's Core Data, why WebObjects is no longer relevant, the status of PowerPC compilers, and why Mac OS X's Finder should be killed off."
Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Informative)
And for more on mach_inject, referred to in the summary, see Jonathan Rentzsch's website [rentzsch.com]...and an interesting list [rentzsch.com] of mach_inject and mach_override users.
As for the Finder, it may be true it was a "compromise" of sorts between the NeXT world and the Mac OS world. But it wasn't necessarily the social compromise between "personalities" within Apple it's pained to be; it was likely more of a technical one. It's not perfect, and it's woefully inadequate for some tasks that involve managing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of files. But it's still more than sufficient, and there's no reason to completely junk it: it can continue to evolve and be improved upon.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, ESR began a strange, revisionist compaign to try and rewrite history, which has all but failed.
Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Cracking [wikipedia.org] refers to people who break into computer systems using nefarious means. Ie Kevin Mitnick is mentioned on the wikipedia page, as he should be since he is probably the worlds most notorious cracker.
Just because the media says it, doesn't mean it's true. And if a cracker ever refers to him/herself as a hacker, you can rest easy because all your base will not belong to them. Anyone worth their merit knows the correct definition and differentations between cracking/hacking/spidering/phreaking/etc.
And just in case you all are too lazy to read the links... Linus Torvalds is listed as a famous hacker. This is the true definition of the term. It's not because he ever broke into computer systems, it's because he's a good programmer.
Also of note is that in the computer science community the word "hack" has gone on to have a somewhat negative connotation. For example, "Dude this code is such a hack." Although this refers more loosely to the "hack and slash" programming methodology... which often results in ugly code that is held together very loosely.
However, an ugly code "hack" and the word "hacker" are distinctly different. Please refrain from falling prey to false assumptions based on media in the future.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not true (Score:3, Informative)
A thin crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough.
One that cracks, especially:
A firecracker.
A small cardboard cylinder covered with decorative paper that holds candy or a party favor and pops when a paper strip is pulled at one or both ends and torn.
The apparatus used in the cracking of petroleum.
One who makes unauthorized use of a computer, especially to tamper with data or programs.
Offensive.
Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, espec
Re:Not true (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole reason this discussion keeps happening is that it is not a "well known fact."
Just because the media says it, doesn't mean it's true.
And just because the Jargon File says it's not doesn't make it false.
Linguistically, words have no transcendent, objective "true" or "false" meaning. The "correct" definition of a word is simply however most people use it. It is not the original
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true that the general public uses the word in a certain sense... so why fight it?
Well, I actually have to take exception with your assumption that words have no "correct" meaning. Every word has a correct meaning, and yes it depends on the circumstance.
I'm not vehemently opposed to the popular usage of the word hacker, but people need to know that the term has really been appropriated by the media and used to distort reality.
For example, computer crimes now have such a huge negative connotation attached to them (probably because they're grossly misunderstand even by so-called computer experts) that you could spend almost twice as long in jail for "hacking" a bank than if you showed up with a gun and threatened peoples lives in the process (but didn't kill anyone).
If you hacked a bank, yeah you probably pulled off a magnificent hack, both in the way it was originally intended, and in the way it has come to be known.
I just wanted to help people remember that we are generally a bunch of brainwashed patsies, and we need to reclaim some critical thinking!
Look at the replies to my original post. People totally side step the issue nitpicking little insignificant points despite the glaring fact that the term "hacker" does have an alternate meaning.
I agree that ordinarily arguing semantics is a fairly worthless endeavor, but in this case I have to take an exception. It's not like we're arguing how to spell the rapper $0.50's name (Fiddy, Fifty)... we're discussing a concept vital to the forefathers of computation.
People like Gosling, Wozniak, even Jobs to some extent... these are some of the people we owe our thanks to for the modern PC, and these people were the true hackers.
We disservice them by letting the media contort an art form into something which is viewed as illegal.
Like any art form... a tool can be misused. The sculpturs shaper can easily be used to kill, just like a hammer, screwdriver, hell even a paint brush... but just because a few people kill with a hammer, do we start associating the word "carpenter" with villian?
No.
But then again... most of us understand carpentry don't we... not that we can all do it. But it's something every person can at least grasp.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
3.
a. A person with an enthusiasm for programming or using computers as an end in itself. colloq. (orig. U.S.).
1976 J. Weizenbaum Computer Power & Human Reason iv. 118 The compulsive programmer, or hacker as he calls himself, is usually a superb technician.
1977 Time 5 Sept. 39/1 Some 500 retail outlets have opened in the past couple of years to sell and service microcomputers-and serve as hangouts for the growing legions of home-computer nuts, or `hackers' as they call themselves.
1982 Sci. Amer. Oct. 110/1 In the jargon of computer science a hacker is someone who spends much of his time writing computer programs.
1983 Byte May 298/1 `Hacker' seems to have originated at MIT. The original German/Yiddish expression referred to someone so inept as to make furniture with an axe, but somehow the meaning has been twisted so that it now generally connotes someone obsessed with programming and computers but possessing a fair degree of skill and competence.
1984 Which Micro? Dec. 17/3 A hacker might spend more time playing his own version of PacMan than on useful program development.
1986 A & B Computing Nov. 16/3 The on-screen help is for the casual user but there's plenty for the hacker who wants to tinker with the software and tailor it for special purposes.
b. A person who uses his skill with computers to try to gain unauthorized access to computer files or networks. colloq.
1983 Daily Tel. 3 Oct. 3/1 A hacker-computer jargon for an electronic eavesdropper who by-passes computer security systems-yesterday penetrated a confidential British Telecom message system being demonstrated live on BBC-TV.
1985 U.S.A. Today 18 Oct. a1/4 A gang of 23 teen-age computer hackers has done `significant damage' to Chase Manhattan Bank's records.
1986 TeleLink Sept.-Oct. 25/2 Just for fun, the hackers decided to drop a few APBs (All Points Bulletins) into the local police computer, with the result that, when out driving in his car, he was repeatedly stopped.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Interesting)
Like the poster that started this debate, I get annoyed with people going on and on about "hacker" not meaning computer criminal although my main objection is with them trying to tell us that the *proper* name for such people is "crackers". People that crack encryption or copy-protection schemes are called crackers, but hackers - sorry, people who break into computer systems - have never been called crackers by anyone except people who are trying to reclaim the word hacker.
Now before this post gets tagged as redundant I'll get to my point which is that ESR may have been well intentioned in getting the media to understand that 'hacker' can be a good thing, but HE PICKED SUCH A STUPID ALTERNATIVE LABEL FOR THE BAD GUYS THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD USE IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE. Just listen to yourself!
A while ago (on a different board) I was explaining to someone how I regarded this hacker/cracker thing as revisionism as I'd always known hacker to be used for bad guys and only since I learned to program as being a good thing. He got very annoyed and insisted I was wrong. I just blew it off at the time but them I decided to do a little research and looked at Google Groups USENET archive. The earliest reference I could find was from the early '80s and it was - wait for it - someone complaining about the media misusing the term "hacker". Given that 20 years have elapsed since and the term probably only dates from the '60s, it shows that people have been 'misusing' the term for at least half its life.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Finder does not seem to be multithreaded, if any network communication gets stuck the whole thing does. Even on large directories it's slow. And the way it insists on showing you previews of files (using QT) and then failing. I have to admit that I only use it as application launcher and simple file operations. For anything else the command line or mc works much better.
I like the UI, but the core should be rewritten.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:2)
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:2)
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a fan of OS X -- my PC's now just a Wintendo games machine. The Mac has a whole slew of applications I've come to rety on which are just plain better than alternatives (in my experience, of course).
I also think OS X has some really interesting technology in it, and I find it a real pleasure to use.
I don't have a problem with how the Finder works. Of course, there's room for functional enhancements, but I'm not crying out for anything at the moment. But it really handles previewing (especially over network links, as noted) awfully. It's the only app that causes the spinning-wheel on my system. The idea that waiting for the view of a network share (or even my iDisk) to refresh should cause every other Finder window (including the Desktop) to freeze is crazy. Finder's much better than it was in 10.0, 10.1 (where there was literally NO threading) or even 10.2. But the core really needs some tweaking.
QTPlayer's not so bad. I've got the Pro version, since I like having Pro's editing and conversion features. It does its job well, but not spectacularly. I'm not going to rant about it because in a few weeks time, I'll be running Tiger with a much-overhauled QuickTime 7.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI: I've got a 1.42GHz Mac Mini and a 500MHz G3 iMac (the old 'gum-drop' style). Even the G3 can handle most DivX's I throw at it, and the Mini's fine even with these [divx.com] DivX-HD trailers... both using QuickTime for playback.
Let's look at what codec you're using. QT codecs are kept in
Bear in mind that it's not too clever to have multiple codecs installed which can handle the same formats. So move any existing DivX codecs out of the above folder. You'll have to restart QuickTime (and any QT-using apps -- hell, a log-out/back in will do it for sure) for the new codecs to be used.
Note that QuickTime sometimes chokes on the indexing in AVI files which use MP3 audio tracks. Symptoms include no or stuttering video, or perfect video but stuttering/no audio. This is purely a stream indexing problem -- there's a tool on the 3ivX download page above called DivX Doctor II which will create corrected files (and maintain PC compatibility). Note that there's no re-encoding going on, just a bit of tweaking to the indices -- takes a minute or two to fix a 2-hr long film. I've got a little Folder Action Script attached to my Movies folder which automatically runs any
Finally, if you're playing DivX's with AC3 audio, get the AC3 codec from here [insaneness.com], and drop it in with the other QT components at
QuickTime Player itself has never been a performance slacker on my two Macs. Duff codecs are another story
Hope this helps! There's absolutely no reason at all you should be having problems with DivX files on your Mac.
Chris
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Informative)
But it blocks for network responses. This is really, really annoying. I wouldn't call it the shittiest thing, but it definitely needs some rejigging. If you've been using OS X since 10.0.3 then you'll remember that the Finder has indeed come quite a long way since then.
My hopes are high for what 10.4 will bring. The problem as I see it is that earlier versions of OS X have had quite a bit of the underpinnings in a certain amount of flux. The Finder (or indeed any 'file manager') is an important element of how the user interacts with the OS. Which means that things like CoreData, Spotlight and other enhancements give an opportunity for a proper overhaul of Finder which makes the most of these technologies. Time will tell I suppose.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't be something like:
1. Person had one, but sold it.
2. Person worked on/with them at his place of employment.
3. Person used on at his friends house.
4. Person actually understands the issue at hand.
Nice attempt at invalidating his comment, should work for more gullible slashdotters.
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:3, Informative)
As a Quicktime Pro user, all I can say is that the player is a piece of shit- it hasn't evolved much since 1999 and it really, REALLY needs to. Quicktime the API is GREAT for video work, I wouldn't use anything else, but for playback? o
Path Finder (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:2)
will this troll ever die , please mod it down agai (Score:4, Informative)
What is amazing me most is the fact the someone has moded this up
People this is a trol and a very old one that has been posted a great deal.
from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_troll [wikipedia.org]
What's wrong with finder? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:5, Informative)
To understand the basic complaint about the OS X Finder look at this ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com] article.
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, most of the article seems to be about pimping an alternative design ideas (mainly credited to Tog) which don't sound better than the current design in any way whatsoever (IMHO, YMMV, uh... IANAL.)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:5, Informative)
No it didn't [arstechnica.com].
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:3, Interesting)
More "It's still not done the Tog way, therefore it sucks" whining.
The core complaint:
Any window can still be "transformed" from a "file browser" to a "regular folder" and back again at any time.
I call that a Good Thing. The only possible objections are based on old-school MacOS Human Interface Dogma^H^H^H^H^H Guidlines zealotry.
Let me know when Ars starts complaining about something that matters.
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is essentially asking for a finder that works like the spatial Nautilus (this isn't surprising given that spatial Nautilus was designed based on this series of Ars Technica articles). We all know how well spatial Nautilus was recieved. I don't think you can win - there is no "better" only "different".
In the end I quite like what Nautilus has ended up with - you can pick or choose between the two options, and both are reasonably (if not exceptionally) well implemented.
Jedidiah.
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:What's wrong with the dock? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes there are more advanced application launchers out there. But the normal users won't need/use them. Save these specialized launchers for the shareware market.
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:2)
What? The dock works just fine, and it looks cool doing it. You care to actually elaborate and justify this unsubstantiated statement, or just remain a troll?
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:2)
Re:No 'Up' button. (Score:3, Informative)
A better choice in my opinion, though, is to command-click on the window title. That's been a feature of the Mac Finder since System 7.
Re:What's wrong with finder? (Score:3, Funny)
The person submitting this CLEARLY did not RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
The interviewee argues that WebObjects is still relevant, and the fastest way of coding Web Applications, but is in danger of becoming irrevelevant if Apple do not update it soon!
Re:The person submitting this CLEARLY did not RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
so basically is this just like (Score:2, Interesting)
allowing users to modify whatever's running? interesting idea, and might be useful for developers who would like the ability to code in real time and see their changes implemented as they make them....
So basically... (Score:2)
Automator (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like this is the promise of Automator [apple.com] - once every app can understand Applescript, every app can interact with every other, without the user.
Re:Automator (Score:2)
What, no overlords joke tie-in?
Re:Automator (Score:2)
"I, for one, welcome our new overlord automators!"
Re:Automator (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot, for one, has automated our new overlord welcomers.
Re:Automator (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wondering.
Re:Automator (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Automator (Score:5, Informative)
Short version: Automator lets you chain together very small bits of code called Actions to create Workflows.
Think of Actions as being like UNIX tools, and Workflows as being like command pipelines, and you'll have the idea.
Automator is not a general-purpose AppleScript tool. You can write Actions in AppleScript if you want -- though Objective-C is better, in my opinion -- but you can't use Automator to just talk to any application with an AppleScript dictionary. That's not its job.
Huge tech interview at Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
A huge technical interview on Slashdot?
A guess that means no one will read it, but everyone has an opinion.
FWIW, the code is... (Score:5, Funny)
Nice comment, too:
Missing step... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Discover the original function's address.
2. Test the waters.
3. Make the original function writable.
4. Allocate the escape branch island.
5. Target the escape island and make it executable.
6. Build the branch instruction.
7. Optionally allocate and engage the reentry island.
8. Atomically:
a. Insert the original first instruction into the reentry island.
b. Target the reentry island and make it executable.
c. Swap the original function's first instruction with our c
payroll? (Score:2, Insightful)
at the risk of being mod'd flamebait... this just oozes Apple marketing speak. seriously... "powerbook lifestyle"? i'm a proud owner of a PowerBook G4 1Ghz 1GB RAM 80GB HD... but i don't live the "lifestyle"... i use it because it g
Re:payroll? (Score:2)
It's "laptop." (Score:5, Insightful)
For the longest time, Mac-heads used "PowerBook" to mean "laptop" the way some people use "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."
Re:It's "laptop." (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because with the advent of the PowerBook 100 Apple basically "invented" the laptop. Do a touch of research and you will see before the PowerBook the portable industry was *frightening*. Every laptop since takes its design directly from the PowerBook.
Compilers (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at this on IBM compilers on mac os x. According to SPEC ratings int performance is 11% to 50% faster using xlc and floating point is apparantly even better. Most of the performance gains are over 50%. Apple of all people can afford a compiler to at least compile their own OS on. The free software side of me in the other hand is happy that they are choosing to improve the gnu compiler instead but it honestly doesn't make any sense to me since they can get a practicaly free huge performance gain on a relatively cheap purchase of a compiler.
-bloo
Re:Compilers (Score:4, Interesting)
-bloo
Re:Compilers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Compilers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compilers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Compilers (Score:3, Informative)
Finder Extentions (Score:3, Interesting)
The beauty of TortoiseSVN (CVS) is that they integrate to the Windows Explorer, which is in turn used by *most* applications in windows for managing files allowing the version control to be very well integrated with the entire operating system.
Unfortunately on Mac the only decent graphical way of managing Subversion is through eSVN, although there are other projects out there, this one shows the most promice ( I have not actually tested on Mac yet though.
If Apple could allow for Icon overlays and adding of file attributes similar to Windows Explorer it would be a huge improvement to the usability of OSX for GUI based hacking.
For Core Mac'ers - Checkout the activity on TortoiseSVN project on tigris.org. There is a huge amount of activity on this project as it is widely used by a very diverse group of hackers. Unfortunately a differentiator on the side of win32.
JsD
reluctance of corporate America (Score:2, Interesting)
With Apple, they have only a single source for both their hardware and software. The hardware range is limited and prices are essentially fixed by Apple. The operating system is used by only a few percent of compute
Or the other way around... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, APIs aren't protected I.P., you could make Quartz-compatible APIs for X11 and add them to GNUstep.
It would serve us better to emulate the good things we see out there, not knock them down to our level.
Re:reluctance of corporate America (Score:3, Interesting)
If they become larger, then yes clones should be brought back.
Re:reluctance of corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost to darn much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, does the receptionist/accountant/sales person need a Dual 2.5 G5? Hell no. An iMac would even be overkill. But, a Mini IMO may be a nice alternative, especially if you have a room full of CRT's laying around like more and more IT departments are acquiring these days (LCD upgrades at my last two places of employment). Sure, you absolutely can buy cheaper PC's than $500, and many wouldn't need the built in FW, Radeon 9200, iLife, etc... that go into the final price of the Mini (throw in a keyboard and mouse too), but take away admin costs (if all hell breaks loose on an any of our Macs, I can reinstall a clean version of the OS in 20 minutes without touching the user space or installed apps) and it more than makes up for it IMO. Now, enter the OS intuitiveness wars below:
great read for developers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still trying to figure out how it was posted on /. It's sure to just confuse a bunch of people who read the summary and think it's all about how 'the finder sux'... which is the shortest section in there. What's weird is I'd never noticed that hiding the Finder toolbar and sidebar changed the window from bushed metal to aqua look! While I have to admit that's stupid, I'm not sure it's a reason to toss the whole thing ( just make it all one or the other... I hate brushed metal, so I'd make it aqua, but just pick one, Apple! ).
Of course, I'm in the 'why the hell would you want to hide the toolbar and sidebar' camp, and thus don't often see the aqua-look windows unless I'm undoing something some old-time can't-learn-anything-new all-this-useful-file-navigation-stuff-confuses-me OS 9 user did. I guess that just shows my NeXT vs. Mac OS bias. For me, the Finder is not the biggest problem in OS X. It's the Menu bar. I've realized that it's not so great on larger screens. It's perfect for the Mac Classic screen, but it's not what people look at to figure out what the active application is. I promise, if there's a flashing cursor in a text field, the user is _sure_ that's the active application, they're not looking at the menu bar... it's a broken interface designed for a 9-inch screen. I'd say that's my NeXT bias, but I've spent a lot of time watching people use OS X, and they do _not_ pay attention to the menu bar, which ultimately makes it just a bit of lost screen real estate. Too bad that's the one thing that's not likely to change about Mac OS. Otherwise, OS X is the best thing _ever_.
Re:great read for developers (Score:3, Interesting)
(In fact, if you'll notice, most Windows/Linux apps really only have one menu bar; it's just that it's a moving target.)
Now, I'd be fine with a NeXT-s
Re:great read for developers (Score:4, Interesting)
Sigh. I guess I knew I'd draw that response. And I agree with everything said in Joel's take on muscle memory, etc ( yes, I'd seen it before ). Really, I really, really do. Until just over a year ago, I was a big, big supporter of the Macintosh-style application menu bar. I was glad to see it ( along with a few other Mac OS ideas ) added to what is essentially otherwise NeXTStep. Muscle memory is huge. Things that are always there and used frequently should always be in the same place. To a large extent, the desktop-based application menu bar does all of that and fits the "Aquiring Target" idiom.
Except for one problem. It's application-specific, not system-wide. It's contents and menu placement varies from application to application. In that it's an application-specific menu, not a system menu, it actually -fails- the "Target" design you mention in many ways. Is the "File" menu for "Safari" and "Activity Monitor" in the same location on the screen? No! The second has a longer title, and thus the "File" menu is shifted significantly to the right as a result. And that's the most consitent menu item- the Window and Help menus are almost never in the same location. The menu bar is never really the same between two apps- how many apps don't even _have_ a file menu? How many apps have a "File" is rarely used, or would be better named something different? Actually, you'll have a hard time thinking of an app without a File menu, and that's the idiom's saving grace- that application developers do tend to actually follow Apple's HUI guidelines, because they don't totally suck and do actually help users find their way around. I'm not totally anti-separate-menu-bar, don't get me wrong. It took a lot to get me to think it's not all it's cracked up to be.
The menu bar also is supposed to serve as a visual clue as to what the current application is. This is where it fails the hardest, and it's not really it's fault or the designer's fault, it's the user's fault. The user just doesn't pay attention to it. They're focused on the window they're looking at. They're looking for the little blue line around the dialog box, the flashing cursor, their input point, whatever is visible. Not the menu bar.
Ever watch a novice or new Macintosh user try to figure out what's going on when an application that is not the desktop is running but has no open windows? How many users keep apps running because they think, windows-style, that once the last window is gone, they've quit the app? When no windows are showing except a finder window, why would you need an extra click to make that finder window active? Worse- and it would be bug-related- god forbid if you have some app that shows an insertion point or other sign of focus when it doesn't actually have focus. Watching users confronted with an app like this is what convinced me that the menu bar really doesn't work to ID the current app - it doesn't matter one lick what application title is showing in the menu bar, the users aren't looking there, and literally can't see it on their 19" monitor when they're looking at an app window.
The observation that users don't key on the application name in the menu bar, the fact that the menus aren't always in the same place for different apps, plus the ( often ) long spatial distance placed between data ( the window ) and control ( the menu ), and lots of time watching users fight with confusion and productivity issues due to these things... that all led me to quite reluctantly decide that the application menu bar, while it was perfect for a small Mac Classic sceen, doesn't really provide the big win that it should. I realize that nobody is going to listen to that complaint and that lots of people love that UI design and it's not going anywhere. I'm just saying that if you're going to pick on the Finder, which is arguably not entirely broken and could be fixed instead of thrown away, I'd like to talk about the Application Menu. Maybe there's a way to fix it, too, but... there are definite problems there, and it doesn't solve even some of the issues it's supposed to address as currently implemented.
I agree--Finder is a disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
looks-wise: when going from 9 to X, they threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater. consider active and inactive windows. in OS 9: foreground window had 3d effects all around it. EVERY OTHER WINDOW was solid light grey and a 1-pixel darker grey outline, period. no question about which was which. in OS X, it's waaaay too overly-cutely-designed and too subtle to be useful. OK, so the drop shadow is a bit smaller? great, that'd be tought to see even if my desktop picture *weren't* black. And the stoplight buttons are not there? OK, thanks. and the titlebar text goes from dark grey to medium grey? OK, super. OS 9 made the state of the computer *obvious.* OS X hides it behind pretty-but-subtle cues.
And the performance isn't nearly what it could have been. Every use BeOS? You make a file on the desktop from within an app, boom, it appears in the background instantly. OS X: make a file or folder, click on the desktop to (hopefully) force a redraw, and a moment later (on a dual-G5) it'll show up. Editing a file that you can see in a window in list view? Save it and BeOS updates the 'date modified' column in the background instantly. OS X? Click the file and it'll update. And the Finder is especially lazy about updating disk usage when you have the 'calculate folder sizes' option checked. C'mon, Apple... I had BeOS R3 for Intel and PPC in *1998*! It's 2005 now! Want me to send you my old CDs?
perfect quote: "Finder X is the compromise between the Mac OS folks and the NeXT folks. Neither won, everybody lost."
great quote: "the entire bastardized notion of switching from metal to aqua and hiding the sidebar when clicking on the toolbar chiclet in the upper right-hand corner. Bonus: notice how if you click on the extreme right of the chiclet and try to switch back, you fail -- the window theme switch moved the chiclet slightly to the left and now you've got to follow it. Gag. Folks, this type of stuff makes Gnome look good."
Re:I agree--Finder is a disappointment (Score:3, Informative)
The End of Lost Software (Score:4, Funny)
"..and why Mac OS X's Finder should be killed off."
Precisely, one of the reason I find OSX so annoying to use; this 'Finder' assumes software is somehow lost already. A debilitating metaphor to say the least..
Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)
At least "Finder" implies you will actually find something you are looking for. Consider please the term "Explorer" which implies a long journey, at great cost and possibly without success at the end. Nothing could be more apt to describe Explorer and the annoying little dog that couldn't find drugs in a reggae bands luggage.
Finder: OK, Keeper: Better (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple needs to come up with something like Trapper Keeper [tvtome.com], so I won't lose my files. Apple could even replace Jeff Goldblum with Rosie O'Donnel. Yeah, I know. That last bit is brilliant.
Injecting code - blech. (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem is that interprocess communication under UNIX isn't very good, was added late, isn't portable, and isn't used much. So apps tend to be monolithic, and intercommunication takes place at a very high level, like CORBA, XSLT, or Java RMI, if at all.
So trying to interpose new features at a lower level tends to involve horrible hacks. In the DOS era, there was "hooking" interrupts (a concept faithfully replicated in all Microsoft's OSs to date.) Then came "injecting DLLs." Now there's this.
One of the sad things about UNIX/Linux is that the original concept of little intercommunicating programs has been lost. Because the original intercommunication mechanism (pipes) was so weak, the concept didn't generalize.
I often wonder how different the history of UNIX might have been if, when you invoked a program, you got results back. You get to pass command line arguments and environment variables into a subprocess, but all you get back is a status code. This one-way model permeates the UNIX world. It's one reason that shell scripts and makefiles tend to be so blind.
What's needed is a sane approach to interprocess subroutine calls. Multics had this. QNX has it. Mach has support for it, but nobody uses it much.
Re:America's Hesitation (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubling the size of your IT department in order to deal with technical problems is MORE expensive...
Which, many believe, is exactly the conspiracy that IT pushes on management. Bad computers justify their very jobs.
Re:America's Hesitation (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Funny)
look at academics - Mac use there is enormous, because academics are intelligent enough to choose the best. they also use computers to do actual computer work, not just the occasional email and word document.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, in my experience in academia, most users in the humanities use the computer for word processing and email. Are there CS depts that use Mac's as their primary desktop? I would imagine it's Windows or Nix.
Business users have much higher dema
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that's why there are Mac users, Windows users and X users -- for my part I find it incomprehensible that there are people who prefer the Windows paradigm of stacks of windows they blindly Alt-tab through, or having all their open Word or Excel documents globbed together in a giant opaque square. And I don't see why those globs are more attractive in the office than at home. But I'm glad we have a choice.
By the way, when people bitch about Mac usability by complaining about the drag-disks-to-the-trash issue that was resolved a decade ago and has always been a non-issue for any user I've ever seen -- the absence of any second criticism tends to make their point in the opposite direction of intended...
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's possible to be a BOFH on a Mac network as well: Workgroup Management [apple.com] allows the administrator to control access to the dock, system preferences and applications, among other things. It even works with Active Directory.
You will need a copy of OS X Server, but that's only $500 or $1,000. What BOFH can't hide that expense amount in a budget request? Especially if it means sticking it to t
Re:What does "rebuilding the desktop" mean? (Score:4, Informative)
The Mac OS Finder has an internal database which stores meta information on files. It mostly handles what creator types and file types map to certain applications, but it performs other duties as well. The idea is that each file has a 4 byte creator type which says what application created it and a 4 byte file type which classifies what type of data is contained within the file. When you open a file the Finder does a lookup to find out how the file should be treated and what application should be notified of the action.
Occasionally this database would get out of date, would require compacting, or would be come corrupted. To rebuild it all you needed to do was to get the Finder to restart and then hold down the option and command keys. The Finder would then take a few seconds to recreate the database and clear up any issues.
Rebuilding the desktop fixed most of the problems that Mac OS was prone to. The rest of the problems were either bad preferences, a bad system extension, or bad hardware. Typically the first step in diagnosing a Mac OS problem was to first rebuild the desktop database, then reset the PRAM (a set of preferences retained between reboots), then test to see if there was corrupt preferences, then system extensions, then hardware. Overall you usually caught problems quickly and they were easy to correct.
You can read a bit more about rebuilding the desktop here [essentialmac.com]
Currently under Mac OS X the desktop database is much more advanced. It uses different methods to keep track of files and auto-corrects problems that used to hang up the Finder. Thus you do not have to worry about rebuilding the desktop database under Mac OS X. In fact the entire Mac OS X operating system is much more stable than the pre-Mac OS X systems.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose it's a usage debate, really, but it always made sense to NOT maximize Windows in the MS-OS's way. It's disgustingly wasteful. With higher res displays, one should not be asking for a wider view of a single window, but how one can use that space for multiple windows. That's efficient multi-tasking, in my opinion. Not having one giant square blocking everything else from view.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) I use my iBook everyday in my "corporate America" Job
2) 'Mac' is not a company
. Error messaging was minimal ("sad mac"? please.)
3) the 'sad mac' was to indicate a hardware failure of some type, and it gave a diag code to lookup. Im not sure what kinda of failure code you are looking for from the built in ROM software. Perhaps you would like a blue screen filled with unintelligible register contents?
4) Ejecting a disk, well then I ask should there have been a separate 'eject media' icon?
5) One button mouse. Dont like the mouse go buy a 2 button mouse. they work just fine. However i get the distinct impression you dont use a mac anyway.
6) Auto sizing windows: this behavior is a personal preference, Some windows I want large, some not. Based on your previous comments you seem to be upset that Apple makes some choices for the user that are personal preferences, but when they dont make this one you are upset about that also.
Mac offered compatibility with windows networking very late in the game
7) Im not sure im getting the point of this one. If the complaint is that Apple (see #2) didnt add windows file sharing until osx, this seems to miss the point of this screed about 'Corporate America'. From a corporate network POV, the server is supposed to be set up to talk to the clients, the clients have no onus to be peer to peer compatible with other clients, otherwise you lose the central control that is predominant in the corporate arena. Of course to be fair you would also have to complain that PC work stations haven't added any non MS windows compatibility.
I can only assume by your context that you mean wintel x86 as corporate workstations, so I have to base my comments on that assumption. I suppose its possible you mean some stripped down unix workstation from like 1998.
You claim to 'like' macs, but your things you dont like seems to be picayune at best. For all of these things that you believe that would get in the way of your 'corporate' workflow, it seems as if you have never tried to do such a thing to begin with.
I feel that you are using this 'corporate' thing as a bag you can fill up with a bunch of complaints and use it to bolster your beliefs.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:3, Informative)
No they didn't. You're just showing your ignorance.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs? (Score:5, Informative)
This has been untrue since System 5, circa 1989. Certainly pre Windows 3.0.
Mac designers were so proud of multitasking that windows didn't maximize automatically -- hardly making efficient use of screen real-estate.
This is a bizarre remark... drug induced?
1) Macs had overlapping Windows before they had threading.
2) The first multi-tasking implementation (beyond desk accessories) involved multiple virtual screens (no overlapping applications).
Many applications remember the state you set them in when you last used them and reinstate it when launched. Some don't. The same applies in Windows, with the exception that (a) it's easy to force maximization if you know a bit, and (b) Windows maximizes windows to fill the screen whereas the Mac maximizes windows to show as much as possible, but no more than required. I don't see how the latter is a less efficient use of screen real estate than filling the screen with a largely empty window.
So
Mac never attempted to price their machines competitively for corporate America
I assume by "Mac" the writer means "Apple". In fact, Apple has offered many price-competitive computers, e.g. the Classic, the SE, the IIcx, the IIsi (the Mac mini being the most extreme example). It's not like the IBM XT was priced under the Apple II.
In any study of TCO I've read (e.g. from Gartner) you'll see Macs have a lower TCO than Wintel boxes. I would assume TCO matters to corporate America -- but only when comparing non-Apple options.
Obsolete comment? (Score:3)
That said, the bulk of your comment refers to old Classic Mac OS, not Mac OSX, which is now in its 4th year of existence. The rest is just plain ignorance and proves you know almost nothing about Macs in general, even less about Mac OSX, and have never heard of the $400 Mac mini or the fact that you can plug any 3 button mouse
Re:awww you're just sore at mac.. (Score:2)
Uh... Nice one dude.
Re:awww you're just sore at mac.. (Score:2)
Ouch. Again with the razor wit.
Re:Python with Cocoa (Score:3, Informative)
>I would like to know more about it.
www.python.org
>What is it good for?
It's good for general-purpose programming, particularly if you need the end result to be cross-platform.
It's extensible with all kinds of 3rd party libraries available. It's a much better fit for many types of work than is Perl, and arguments have been made that it is more efficient and easier to learn than Java.
>Any drawbacks?
Like Java, it's a bytecode-interpreted language, so to-the-metal programming isn't really possib
Re:Business Our Way (Score:5, Informative)
They don't, for the most part, stock replacement parts. They don't do anything but the most basic repairs.
I have to chime in here. I have a refurbished dual G5 in which one of the processors stopped showing up. The guy at the Genius bar told me it could be anything from an improperly seated processor to a bad CPU or logic board -- both of which were parts that they had in stock and could fix within a day or two. Luckily, it the processor wasn't firmly "in place" and it just took a bit of reassembly.
They had it diagnosed and back to me in less than 24 hours, no charge. And I don't have Applecare on the machine. My opinion is that Apple hardware is great, but regardless, I've had few occasions to have to get repairs over the years. And when I have, it's been a relatively painless experience. I never had to ship anything in or wait for some obscure supply-chain hopscotch to get a part.
A number of other comments in this post give me pause, but I'm not qualified to respond so I'll just say "hmmm...OK, whatever" to the rest, and admit people's experiences vary.
If it's not backed up it doesn't exist... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need 60G worth of data, you need facilities to back up 60G worth of data. Data that isn't backed up doesn't exist, it's vapor, patterns in the clouds, sandcastles before a storm.
Hie thee down to CompUSA and get a $100 USB or Firewire external drive at the very LEAST. If you're a business, DLT tape drives give you reliable and ROBUST backups.
Sheesh.
Re:If it's not backed up it doesn't exist... (Score:4, Funny)
Most places block those kind of websites at the firewall.
Re:Business Our Way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Business Our Way (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall I'm not impressed with your comment as I think its largely irrelevant/innaccurate. This snippet I take particular issue, when you send them some hardware, they ask you on the phone "is the data backed up or do we need to do that?" They make a note in your case and bam they do that for you(they charge you for that).
My experience with Apple is that with AppleCare support is incredible. Direct sales is useless to me as I don't need some rep to tell me what to order, I order that and it appears at the office in a few days, why do i need to talk to somebody?
You make issue of losing the computer for a few days, but any business will/should have backup workstations/loaners for this purpose. If fact I cannot imagine a business so small, that they could afford a IT staff but not have the money to have a spare iBook chilling around for emergencies.
Oh and FYI, 60gb worth of backup space is what ~$30 now(cheap IDE drive that i pop in format, copy files over and rip out in time to send machine out.. before you come back foaming at the mouth this does not violate warranties so your gonna have to complain from a different angle).
Re:Slashdot users use mostly Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
I use Wintel because my corporate overlords use Wintel and have really annoying applications that are harder to use than a good browser interface that I need to use to get my official email and do my timecard and the like.
These applications provide zero value. Nobody likes them, even the MCSE guys who are total Wintel zombies, but they keep you chained to the Wintel desktop.
But I have enough of a rep and enough goodwill at this place that they let me use my Mac next to my PC, and so I spend most of my time on my Mac. I use Wintel, like I use toilet paper or dishwasher detergent, when I need it. I work on a Mac. But for most people at big businesses, well, that's not an option. Hell, we get slammed enough for using non-approved browsers like Firefox...
Re:Imperative code? What is this? (Score:3, Informative)
While I don't have a formal definition it basically means a programming language where you have a sequence of statements.
Most languages widely used are imperative languages, such as C/C++/C#/Jave/Perl/whathaveyou.
An example of another type of language is functional programming languages such as ML, Miranda and F#.
I believe Lisp is generally considered a functional language, but it also supports sequences of statements so I guess it really is a mix.
I'm a bit rusty on this subject, so if someone wants to
Re:Imperative code? What is this? (Score:4, Informative)
If you've not used a declarative language, try playing around with Prolog. It's not always fast, but sometimes you can do things in two or three lines of Prolog code that would take tens or hundreds of lines of imperative code.