Slashdot Mirror

This bad news in this article along with:

http://www.resexcellence.com/news/?p=160

And all the defects/problems the new Intel Macs have. And Xcode showing no signs of ever being anything but garbage.

And the embarrassingly bad Apple OpenGL drivers.

As a long time Apple developer I find myself with the shocking to myself feeling that Linux is looking more and more attractive every day and Vista actually looking like a attractive OS to develop on.

If there just was a decent music app for my many hundreds of gigs of music I listen to all day while programming on Linux I would be ready to ditch Apple for good.

It seems that Apple has been on nothing but a downtrend every since getting the boot from IBM.

(If you say Amarok I will kick your ass...)

I have heard this "windows is more configurable than OS X" mantra far too many times and I think it is missing any merit.

Try this with a Windows app: Right click on the executable, Show Package Contents, navigate to the interface .nib file, open it in Project Builder, modify it, save it, and relaunch the application with your hacked interface.

If you don't like how OS X looks, there are plenty of ways to change it. But people who don't even give Macs a chance from the get-go don't look very hard.

You miss your Internet Exploiter hacks and think Safari must be accepted as-is? Again, you aren't looking very hard.

At least the OS X network preferences/settings are all in one place, as opposed to Windows.

Even the OS X Terminal is way more powerful than Windows' built-in command line! (MS Command Shell notwithstanding, since it's a beta). The irony must be lost on some.

Windows is not lookin' so much more "configurable" now, is it? ;) I admit it's neat that you can interact with any windows app or dll via COM (as long as it's registered correctly! yay registry! not!)- Applescript serves that purpose on Macs but it's a little different.

http://www.resexcellence.com/news/?p=62

Since this site is down for the count, here are some more Mac related hardware mods:

    AppleFritter

and some software ones too:

    ResExcellence

Enjoy. Hopefully someone will post a mirror of the orginal.

The UI is not the color scheme. The UI is the workflow. If the method of interaction doesn't work for you, fine, but please don't complain about something as trivial as colors and call it the "UI."

Besides, are you sure you tried hard enough?

OS X looks for a creator code first, and then for an extension. That's why some files, which have creator codes, don't open up with the program you set as default.

Each program has a different creator code. This means that you can have two different files of any type, like JPEG pictures, which open with different programs.

Say you had a bunch of JPEGs that you wanted to look at and not edit. Those files could be set to open with Preview, while a different bunch of JPEGs, which you edited a lot, could be opened with Photoshop.

Apple sets things this way because it offers more flexibility than Windows offers. Imagine you were a movie editor, and you had some movies you wanted to edit, and some you just wanted to view. Because of creator codes, you could set some to open with MPlayer, and some to open with Final Cut Pro. It wouldn't be nice to have every movie open in Final Cut Pro by default.

You can change or erase creator codes in Mac OS 9 or in classic using Resedit. You can change or delete creator codes in OS X using several different programs. I use one called xFiles. xFiles can also batch-change file attributes. If there's no creator code, OS X will choose the program based on the extension.

You also might want to take a look at http://www.resexcellence.com/ for a few tips on Mac hacking.

That's one of the problems with Apple -- if a feature you want doesn't exist within the OS, you basically have to wait for Apple to add it (usually at cost).

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Third-party UI hacks have been a part of Mac going back to the beginning. Some of the best were eventually incorporated into the system by Apple, but were available elsewhere first. See ResExcellence for some examples.

Oh, and there's one other problem with Expose (but this probably only affects me): when you're working with 10 or more windows, it tends to make them really small and put them in a line, rather than (logically) tiling them around the screen. Lots of wasted space, and it's difficult to tell what each window exactly is.

If you move your cursor over each "Exposed" window, it will give you its title.

That being said, I'm not a huge fan of the way the KDE panel looks. It still seems to be trying to grab your attention. When I'm looking at the bottom of the screen in KDE, I always find myself looking at it because it looks like a glass bar.

As for icons, I don't like the icons in KDE. They look like someone tried to draw cartoons on glass. I prefer OS X's icons, because they seem the most realistic and least cartoony. XP has somewhat-decent-looking icons, but I don't think they look as nice as the icons in OS X.

haha nice fake on the powerbook fire.. the other photoshop work on the site (gallery here) is pretty good, some funny ones.

But you know you're going to spread FUD with this..

Oh well.

The Milk theme is one of the only ones that don't make my old monitor look fuzzy under OS X. Some other good themes, not in this contest, can be found here. ResExcellence

(1) Office v.X, unlike previous versions of Office for Mac, was written from scratch using Carbon and Mac Toolbox APIs--it's not just a port. As for Mach, you may be unaware that Apple's current Chief Software Technology Officer, Avie Tevanian, was the principal designer of Mach while he was at CMU. His name still appears all over the place in the Mach sources.

(2) Contrary to what you imply, Apple has chosen to release a lot of code under the APSL that they could, technically and legally, have kept closed. Rendezvous is one example. The Darwin Streaming Server is another biggie.

(3) Linux gives me a choice of 10,000 mediocre UIs. Meanwhile, OS X comes out of the box with one fantastic UI, and if I don't like the way it looks, it's skinnable with free third-party tools.

(4) You conceded this point.

Everything I've said here is true to the best of my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

UI in general is based on display PDF, so parts of it could very well be vector based (fonts, of course.) but the icons are not.

All of the lovely chrome is bitmapped, something that shocked lots of folks when it first shipped and continues to puzzle everyone. To this day whenever someone replaces the default GUI elements with the alternate charcoal versions or a third party package it's all hardcoped fixed-size bitmaps.

For a walkthrough of 'em, and how to create your own GUI theme for MacOS X check out ThemePark.

Hope they help:

its a shame you are pretty much stuck with aqua on OSX though, so although you get a beautiful environment, you have to stick it out, unless someone can recommend a tool for theming to me ( I never found one ).

you must not have looked hard enough...

Perhaps you should read the paragraph after the one you quoted...

As Coyle details in an editorial on his site (www.resexcellence.com/hack_html_01/04-23-01.shtml ), this policy changed in April. Shortly after ResExcellence added its first theme for the Mac OS X, Coyle received a letter from Apple lawyers. Ultimately, Apple was placated by a few modifications ResExcellence made that were unrelated to the Mac OS X theme, but others did not get off so easily. In particular, Apple came down hard on MacThemes, providers of the open-source ThemeMachine editing tool used by many of the theme developers.

.:diatonic:.

...time passes...

You're right; there is no verifiable evidence of a DMCA threat against OWC. And most of their trademark cases are not unreasonable. Revised ranking:

• Apple Legal division: Partly Evil. Goes overboard about Themes, and face it, they're corporate lawyers.

Check out the 3rd-party utilities and web sites to get what you'd like:

• ThemePark : Theme design utility
• Duality : A theme changing and checking utility
• Catalyst : A theme creation utility (recommended for use with ThemePark)
• MetamorphX : Another theme switching utility
• ThemePark : Theme design utility
• ResExcellence Themes page : Get your OS X appearance themes here

Guide to Mac CPUsThis is Apple's own site for detailed specs on all their machines ever. I'm starting you off on the page for older machines to remind you that a well-configured 1996 Mac w/ a USB/Firewire card can run OSX just fine, thank you very much.

Mac of All TradesGetcher used macs here! Pretty visuals, delicious prices, detailed info. Selection could be better and there's no old stuff at all but I can deal with that. Have I bought from them yet? Nope. Am I likely to in the future? Yep.

MacResqThe best place I've found overall to pick up gear. Even the guys in that article figured that out.

Focus of Mac Hardware good workaday resource for doing mods. No cool toys. Considerable good data.

Missoula Mac User Group, Yeah, I know that you haven't heard of them; neither has anybody else outside of Montana AFAIK. Best place for overall newbie resources.

Powermax Cheesy setup, improving selection, good prices.

ResExcellence In the old days I would have suggested MacFixit, but these guys have taken their place. If you've been in the Mac world for a while you'll recognize them as the old-time source extraordinaire of ResEdit hacks.

Small Dog Shrinking selection, great quality, excellent service, annoying interface. Bottom line, these are the guys to turn to for premium service, support, and savvy. Been around quite a while and, hey, they enclose coupons for Ben and Jerry's.

applefritter. They've built Macs into everything from 1930's radios to LEGO people to ziplock bags. You can't buy anything there, but still much fun.

Think Secret Nice little rumor site. Some cool moments.

Of course, for those of us in the New York City area, there's always TekServe, an Apple and media gear mecca. You want to know what Lou Reed, Jam Master Jay, or Oliver Pratt are using? Ask them. You want toys? They got 'em. Ten cent cokes, vintage radios, serious testing gear, and a massive knowledge base. Hell, I once even applied for a job there when it would have meant giving up a far-better paying sysadmin gig. If they're good enough for Steve J., then they're worth a look.


Oh, by the way, the last time that I posted this list I included Shreve. What did I say?
ShreveExpensive, distracting, but the best place to get weird low-end stuff like Mac Plus manuals and Daystar cards.
There. You all feeling better now?
Rustin

I found this howto through google. It shows you step by step how to set up OSX to use a different partition for swaping. I've never used it myself so I can't comment either way.

ResExcellence has some skins for MacOS X, and plenty of other customisations too.

ResExcellence has some skins for MacOS X, and plenty of other customisations too.

Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.

Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.

Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.

Mac of All Trades Getcher used macs here! Pretty visuals, delicious prices, detailed info. Selection could be better and there's no old stuff at all but I can deal with that. Have I bought from them yet? Nope. Am I likely to in the future? Yep.

MacResq The best place I've found overall to pick up gear. Even the guys in that article figured that out.

Powermax Cheesy setup, improving selection, good prices.

Shreve Expensive, distracting, but the best place to get weird low-end stuff like Mac Plus manuals and Daystar cards.

Small Dog Shrinking selection, great quality, excellent service, annoying interface. Bottom line, these are the guys to turn to for premium service, support, and savvy. Been around quite a while and, hey, they enclose coupons for Ben and Jerry's.

Guide to Mac CPUsThis is Apple's own site for detailed specs on all their machines ever. I'm starting you off on the page for older machines to remind you that a well-configured 1996 Mac w/ a USB/Firewire card can run OSX just fine, thank you very much.

Focus of Mac Hardware good workaday resource for doing mods. No cool toys. Considerable good data.

Missoula Mac User Group, Yeah, I know that you haven't heard of them; neither has anybody else outside of Montana AFAIK. Best place for overall newbie resources.

ResExcellence In the old days I would have suggested MacFixit, but these guys have taken their place. If you've been in the Mac world for a while you'll recognize them as the old-time source extraordinaire of ResEdit hacks.

Think Secret The only rumor site I like that I forgot to mention yesterday.

Okay, moving right along. CPUs. Those yahoos think that the only option is to start from scratch. Get a clue. The last pre-Jobs big boxes kicked almighty ass. Amelio may not have been a gifted businessman but he was a much better heavy gear guy. As far as I'm concerned your best bet for DIY is to buy an 8600. It'll be $230, tops. You get a great case, big power supply, floppy drive, cables, and so on. Probably also a Zip, for which I will pity you as that model of Zip just LOVED to come down with the Click o' Death. Even if you flat throw out all the electronics you're still way ahead of starting from a place like Tom's.
Next, processor speed. When will those yahoos figure it out? Before you get obsessed with latest and greatest ask yourself, "what exactly will I be DOING with this machine?" If you're running stuff like BBEdit (ah, my one true love!) or Photoshop for still work then any 400MHz box with fast drives and plenty of RAM will be, for all intents and purposes, instantanteous. Buying anything faster just means that you're acting like the small-donged dimwits who buy $20K stereos to get fidelity five times better then they can hear.
Drives. I'm always amazed at how terrified Windoze-damaged (let alone *nix) folks are at the thought of external drives. Get over it, already. On a Mac all that driver clash claptrap is a distant and not very credible folktale. Get a basic little 6 Gig internal and invest your money in external Firewire devices. You think this LAN party stuff is cool? On a Mac pretty much any well configured boot drive will boot any similar recent Mac. Stop carrying your entire box with you; stick to drives. Even better, get two or three smaller ones instead of one big one and, short of FBI seizures and vast fires, you become crash proof. Mac dies? Plug your drive (you did remember to back up your core data, right?) into another Mac and you're up and running again in minutes.
The future. If you're such an almighty techie that you just *need* to build a new cooler world every year or so, then remember, Mach kernel plus gigabit ethernet equals mongo shared resources. Even if you're too lazy to set up a formal Beowolf system, it's pretty damned easy to just keep adding machines and splitting the jobs between them. Instead of buying a whole new box, maybe you should just buy a second one and start spreading load to it.
OSes. Yup. No question, Jaguar is pretty spiffy. But almost every vendor site above (as well as eBay and co.) will sell you older legit disks and serial num.s for about fifty bucks. If you buy from a place like Small Dog you'll even be clearing out some of that famed Apple back inventory.
That's it. You want more? Then go to my site already (though best to wait a few weeks for my next redesign). Want more then that? Then pay me and I'll think about it.
Promising to not ever again use up time posting tutorials on /.,
Rustin

Now that the traditional resource fork has been discouraged by Apple for use under X, I guess this kind of stuff will take its place on sites like this one...

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

There has been a freeware utility, ApplWindows, available for 8 years that allows your application menu to show all the individual windows associated with an application. It is a system mod that works on OS 7 through 9.1 at least. See this link for info. Under OS X, rather than searching through a pile of taskbar buttons called "http://www...", I right click on the Explorer icon in the dock and pick the window I want by it's full name. It works very much like ApplWindows works. The windows are logically tied to the application they belong to, and one click/drag combination gets me instantly to any window I want.

While there are scads of OS X "tips" sites, most of which are newbie unix introductions, I have found the following to be very useful with a wide variety of tips and other neat hacks:

http://www.ResExcellence.com/osx/index.shtml

Some of the more low-level hacks are probably pretty obvious to NeXT vets and Darwin & GNU-Darwin users.

LinuxPPC has the excellent implementation of Applixware and hopefully that will continue to happen, though of course there is some doubt with the recent decision by Applix to focus on server-side instead of the desktop app market. Supposedly StarOffice will be available for LinuxPPC but I don't think that has happened yet.

There was a reasonable comparison between Mac on Linux under LinuxPPC and the Classic environment under OS X which basically said that OS X does a better job intergrating the earlier OS's (just in a window) but they both are very reasonable.

ResExcellence has the scoop.

Paul

I guess you never saw the DrawingPaper theme developed by Apple Japan, or the various DSG themes.

Check these out. ResExcellence

This is DSG: these guys are good
************************************************ ****************