Mac OS X, XML, and Aqua

Gr1nderX writes, "Ars just posted a large Mac OS X DP3 technical article that talks about the structure and functioning of OS X's (UNIX) filesystem, and how that impacts the Aqua GUI. IMHO, the most fascinating part of the article concerns the extensive use of XML that Apple makes in managing application resources, file meta-information, service configuration and startup options, etc. The XML parser that's built into the core OS basically gives you the ability to use either the GUI or a text editor to completely control and configure every aspect of the OS. " Lot of good stuff in this one: if only powerbooks weren't so expensive...

Comments

Re:Hmm...

[stab]

Well, the expat library already exists and seems to be quite defacto under Unix.

At least, PHP and Apache use it, and well. And a couple of other utilities and CPAN modules. I've come across. It's fast, small, and not full of unneccessary crap.

Anyway, utilities like Apache and ProFTPD already have meta XML config scripts, and a fair few perl scripts that make use of XML::* as well.

I don't think I like the idea of having a dynamic XML library, and your entire /etc filesystem depending on it. What do you do when it breaks? It's like screwing up your LD.so.1 ... ow :)

Still, a standard, easy to use DOM for utilities would be nice, perhaps some kind of extension of the GetOpt stuff would work? It's succeeded largly because it's there and easy to use, and an XML standard would have to do the same.

Mac OS X GUI - improvement or handicap?

[tjwhaynes]

When I first heard about the Mac OS X GUI I was both impressed by the visually clean and clear appearance of the interface and the use of transparency to improve the relationship between sub-windows and the 'main' window. Reading through this Ars Technica article though, I begin to wonder whether all these special effects included with Mac OS X are an improvement to the original Mac interface or whether they are crucifying their principles of simplicity of use in order to appear more flashy.

For example, the Dock bar at the bottom of the screen which progressively shrinks as you add more items to it and magnifies the few documents around the mouse when you move to it. This looks like a neat idea at first, especially when you look at the example screenshots given on Apple's site. But distinguishing between even 10 text documents is difficult using this method (the icon reflects the real document) and the example given of 1000+ documents in the bar in Ars is a nightmare!

The use of a button on every title bar to switch between single and multi-window mode is also odd. I guess this is a more interactive way of minimizing windows for the new user, but it's strange to see an option like this as a window button everywhere.

Don't get me wrong - I'm impressed by much of what I see in the Mac OS X GUI. The clear use of colour - i.e. generally neutral colours for windows, with primary colours for important window tool buttons on the active window - along with the Quartz technology and the XML integration are all worthy additions to the interface. But I do worry that some of the features are more a triumph of style over substance when it comes to real usability. As GNOME and KDE move to improve their interfaces, there is much to learn from the way Apple has designed their GUI. As long as nobody forces me to use a one-button mouse ...

Cheers,

Toby Haynes