Slashdot Mirror
MacOSX and X11
kono was among the hoards of folks who noted that Tenon is gonna be releasing a tightly integrated
X11 Server for MacOS X, which should greatly increase the potential for those of us hoping have a desktop that we could conceivably share with our graphic designer MacOS fanatic girlfriends.
to suggest new color for this page.
This is great. I'm not a big mac fan but sometimes I have to work with it. Now at least it's tollerable.
On the plus side, Open Motif is legal to use with MacOS X. Hmm... with Motif and OpenGL, I can see the possibility for quite a few *NIX graphics programs making the Mac jump...
The new X will support OpenGL, a full range of X extensions, use of a three-button mouse, CDE (Common Desktop Environment) fonts, and will be XDM (X Window Display Management) capable. It will also support Web-based display of X client applications via "Broadway," an X Window extension to allow remote X applications to be invoked and displayed with a browser.
Cool, a three button mouse!
Tenon. Not Apple. Tenon. I.e. a third-party company. Ok, I can almost understand not reading the article, but can you at least read the SUMMARY?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Or like putting an old Beetle body on a VW Gulf. Oh, wait... they're doing that.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Sorry, that was careless of me. Still, my question stands. Whether it's Apple or Tenon doing it, I'd like to know why.
I've always thought it was pretty bad luck to mention your girlfriend in a public forum when nobody else had brought up the subject. Did you ask her whether she was cool with a) having her site slashdotted b) the no doubt vast array of charming comments about her which our friends the AC's will generate and c) your randomly revealing personal facts about her?
Without some fast footwork, I'd say that the express train to Dumped City may be nearing Holland Michigan, and someone we know may have at least a provisional booking in the first class carriage.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
we could conceivably share with our graphic designer MacOS fanatic girlfriends.
Behind every Linux Geek, is a smarter Girlfriend that uses MacOS...
See ya at Macworld NYC!!!
Well, ok. Basically, it's so that people can run X apps without having to rewrite them, or waiting for them to be rewritten. It's not going to be something that everybody'll use, but it'll be nice for, say, emacs, and things of that nature. Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Macuser need never know it exists.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I think this will probably fit right up there with PCXware in cost. Looking at their page it seems that they have some rather spendy products for the end user. If they have a variant for the "average" consumer then I may just be interested.
No, to carry on the dumb analogy, it would be like having both a Ferrari and a Yugo engine in a Ferrari. This would make it useful for the times when you have a Yugo-only passenger. Really, though, it sounds like it's going to be well-integrated with the Mac OS X desktop, so the only place this would come in handy is when you have to run one of those X-only applications.
If someone created an open source clone of the Mac OS X desktop Apple will have a hissy fit. If they put in a country the won't hold up their coptright they can not do a thing.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Besides, OS X is meant for the server market, so what the hell do you need a GUI for in the first place? And what server software exists for the little gumdrops that would actually out-perform the tons of stuff already available for BSD?
The interesting thing about MacOS X was that it was the power of Unix "under the hood" with the (supposed) power of the MacOS GUI on top. If you remove the Mac GUI and replace it with X, don't you end up with just plain BSD (with non-standard config files)?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
either you are very ignorant or good at getting people to flame you
i'm developing the next-gen apple GUI,.. there will be a big red button at the top of your monitor, heavily padded... things on the screen will highlight, one at a time, the selection will change every couple seconds,.. when the thing you want is highlighted, you smack your head against the red button.
it'll be a hit.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Are you trying to be funny? The X-Windows System didn't exist in the early 80's. Jobs et al. actually based their GUI on something from Xerox PARC.
No. Why dual-boot if you don't have to? This is not an emulator, it's an X server integrated into the Aqua environment.
>Besides, OS X is meant for the server market, so what the >hell do you need a GUI for in the first place?
No. It is intended for the consumer market. Although certainly it will be used for servers as well.
Okay can you just shut up if you've never tried it? Have you never tried one of those X servers for Microsoft Windows? THEY ARE USEFUL. No one's forcing you to buy this X server, but believe me, sometime, somewhere, somebody (or more accurately, a few hundred or thousand somebodies) will want to run an X application on Mac OS X. Keep in mind that X11 is not so much a windowing system as it is just a remote display protocol. Would you be so upset if someone made a VNC server for Mac OS X? Making an X11 server is really no different.
Interoperability, plain and simple. This isn't like putting a Yugo engine in a Ferrari, this is more along the lines of someone who speaks both English and Spanish. Sure you can get along pretty well if you only know one language, but you can talk to a larger market if you speak two.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
I kinda' doubt it... have you looked at Apple's sales figures recently?
.technomancer
.technomancer
Since it's a BSD-based system, it makes sense that someone out there would provide a way to display X apps, to give more choice to those wanting or needing to run/port them.
Anyhow, it's not going to be a cheap product if Tenon's traditional pricing scheme is followed; I'd expect $500-$600 for a single user. This isn't a consumer product.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Server my six-colored hairy butt! MacOS X Server was intended for the server market and is little more than NeXT software with a different logo. I've messed around with a copy, and it's ok, but no replacement for day to day work.
OS X is intended to be a consumer OS. (with handy server functionality, but that's secondary) For us Mac users, that means a GUI which is at least no worse than what we have now, and finally a stable OS.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Development on the Lisa UI started in 1979; the Macintosh was released in 1984. X was invented in 1985. Get the picture?
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
just kiddin', love y'all :D
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
I'd normally write this off as a troll, but I'm feeling noisy today.
The whole point of *TENON* (not Apple, a 3rd party developer) writing this X server/wm/widget set is that it allows an easy way to display X apps and even have them integrate as smoothly as possible into the OS X look-and-feel. This means rootless display where the X clients coexist with the Quartz (display PDF) desktop and windows.
A similar product was popular under NEXTSTEP (and it was actually called Co-Xist), which allowed rootless display of X clients atop the NeXT display-postscript system.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
practically doesn't mean they did invent the GUI. Beyond that X is not a GUI.
::matt:: Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of tequila.
i educated her, now she uses linux as much as possible, and windows otherwise... too bad she went insane.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
well good thing that its not made by the swiss(jk). seriously, its not like this isn't a 3rd party tool, WTF are you complaining about?
Besides, OS X is meant for the server market, so what the hell do you need a GUI for in the first place?
uhm, i believe they are talking about OSX the CLIENT PLATFORM ok so now we know you don't even read the SUMMARY of the story, and you have NO FSCKING clue about what OSX is.
As a Mac developer, Linux user, and someone who's actually used Mac OS X, I think I can give you a pretty good idea how it will work. There's already a few X11 Servers for Mac OS 8/9. The one I'm most familiar with is MacX (aren't all these X names getting confusing).
MacX will either let you have one big-ass MacOS window that contains your X-based desktop (with whatever window manager you want), or it can put each X window in its own Mac OS window, giving everything a much more Mac-like feel. I imagine Tenon will adopt a similar strategy: all the window widgets will be Aqua-fied, but the contents of the window will be the same as always, since they're controlled mainly by the application. Tenon's X server will probably also support a "big-ass window" mode, and maybe also a full-screen mode.
Just to set the record straight, Carmack hacked X to run on Mac OS X server, and the hack was promptly ported to Darwin, seeing as it lacked a GUI.
My dream system: quad G4s, three monitors.
Monitor 1: Aqua.
Monitor 2: X11
Monitor 3: CLUI
Would you please stop posting as such if you are sooo very ignorant on the subject. I wouldn't mind you posting questions, but when you start making statements like the one above, it's time to shut the hell up. I'm not a mac user, but from what I gather the BSD part of Mac OS X will be completely hidden from the user, but will allow programmers access to the POSIX kernel. Traditional BSD directories will exist like /usr /bin /lib but will be hidden by default. Also there will be a terminal app (maybe) that won't be installed by default, so you don't have to use the BSD part explicitly if you don't want to. Sometimes it's hard to tell an idiot from a troll, which ever one you are, you're good at it.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
MI/X is all you really need... and free (not OSS)!
:-)
www.microimages.com/www/html/freestuf/mix/
so what if it's the Classic API??
of course if anybody can get it to do something other than just sit there, PLEASE let me know!
# debian/rules
Pay attention here. The new X Desktop is pronounced "X" as in "X marks
:-)
the spot." But the X in Mac OS X is pronounced "10." Got that? Okay, X
Desktop will purportedly not only allow remote X applications to be
displayed on the Mac OS X desktop, but will also include complete set of X
tools and libraries to support local execution of X applications and X games
on OS X. Extending Mac OS X with an X Window porting environment
will enable high-resolution 3D-modeling and animation, graphical
visualization and image rendering applications to be built directly on Mac
OS X, says Holmgren.
Try reading that aloud, and getting all the X's right as appropriate
# debian/rules
I, for one, will be extremely disappointed if this becomes a sucessful product.
X has already been ported to MacOS X server, porting it to MacOS X should be trivial. Apple's current distribution of MacOS X includes compilers and other such unix basics. While they might not be part of the default installation, I'm sure plenty of people will be interested in adding them through an additional install.
In other words, compiling unix software under MacOS X should become a relatively simple thing. I want to be designing graphics in photoshop and flash while working on the back end in mysql and php. All on the same machine.
Will Apple put any effort into this? No, but they have given us the BSD layer and they fully intend for software developers to take advantage of this.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
"www.sarcasta.net is running Apache/1.3.4 (Unix) mod_perl/1.17 on Linux"
/.'n a Mac... Ohh well... :(
:)
/.'ed Mac be called anyway? Macinslash? Macindotted? Macinsquash?
bummer! I was looking forward to
I guess I should be happy they are running Apache on a free UNIX! (even if it is an old Apache)
What would a
Ah, but it's a new Beetle body (more plastic)... and it happens to be a Golf, not a Gulf...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
My wife uses a Mac (although now that he's been kicked off the Mac, my 18 month old uses Linux). I'd be interested in seeing stats on what the households of Linux users use. Break it down by status of Linux user (for instance, "man of the house" uses Linux - 80% of "women of the house" use Mac, 95% of "children of the house" use Linux).
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Your household consists of a *man*, some *women* and some children? Only joking.
The main reason that people run X is not because it is great or beautiful or a wonderful piece of engineering, because it is none of those. It is because it is the only real standard for accessing bitmapped displays under UNIX/Linux. Apple has finally been able to break away from X, and I am thankful. You can put down Aqua all you want, and it seems many people get off on this, but all those people really need is (1) a terminal window, (2) maybe a different file browser. Just because you don't like the idea of icons and pretty pictures and such is no reason to argue for ugly Tk applications and slower video performance.
seriously, though. I was really hoping the crunchy BSD centre would lure *nix-ers to the mac's creamy coating UI.
2 1337 4 u!
Okay.
s/Gulf/Golf/
However it's spelled and whatever it's made of, it is still a poor substitute for the Jetta. Let's face it, the new Beetle is a car for people who want to pretend they are still hippies, even though they haven't actually seen a tab of acid since going to a Grateful Dead concert in 1974.
If only VW had put the engine in the back again... Lift the body and put on a Harley fork, and you had one heck of a chopper trike.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
give me a break
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Simple, so that System admins could have a X-Windows-Server to use on their desktop computer. So a Solaris admin could sit at his Mac in his office, and connect to the E-10K in the basement and run the Solaris admin utilities (which are not going to be ported to MacOS X) from there. In other words the same reason why X-11 was orrigianly invented (not Solaris specific).
The porting of the client side is a littel harder to jusify, as most progams would benifit more from being ported to the native Quartz interface, but if you are allready doing most of the work in the server.... And I suppose that it would make (other than swing) UNIX development possible on MacOS X, but this does not seem a big issue to me.
Would it be:
Macslash? Nah, too easy...
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
Troll or grossly in need of information? I'll assume the latter. All the BSD layer will be hidden from the end users. They'll never once have to deal with UNIX if they don't want to. However, it will still be there. As far as they'll know, it will be just another Mac with a Candyland face lift. If you need more information, why don't you actually look at Apple's site. Surely, if you're actually a Mac owner, you've been hearing about this for 2 years now.
Tenon's product may not be a tool for porting X code anyway. It's primary purpose is to allow people to run X applications on another UNIX machine and display them on a Mac, much like do with my Windows machine at work. Apple isn't doing this, Tenon is. If you don't like it, then don't buy it and quit spouting nonsense.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
/. swallowed my [/pedantic] tag again (even after a preview)...
I agree with your other semtiments - after all, I drive a Jetta 8^)
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Tenron claims that their product will also work as a standard X server to run _local_ binaries also. MacX, etc. have never been able to do this, because there was no UNIX underpinnings to run the apps with. Thus standalone running of X apps could (beforehand) never be done.
:)
Basically when this does is give a complete Xwindows compatability to the Mac. Tenron is in an excellet position to do this to. They have produced some apazing UNIX and UNIX ports to Macintosh. MachTen, one of their products, was essentially UNIX inside MacOS. it had everything you would expect from the UNIX environment also.. threads, protected memory usage, etc....from an overlying OS that didn't. Plus MacTen included it's own TCP stack which was used when it was active to bypass MacTCP and early OT which had some problems of it's own. I am still amazed at what it could do without having much of the nessesairy structure needed by UNIX in MacOS. It was still affected when the MacOS crashed, but there isn't much one can do about that other than yelling at Apple
- Sig
I'd be dissapointed if somebody _didn't_ do this. If an X server weren't available, that would keep mac users from taking full advantage of their os's unix-like features -- that is to say, there are really a wealth of X11 apps that the macintosh community would otherwise have to install another o/s to use... Personally, I hope to see a MacOS offering from XFree86 eventually.
;) She's (very decidedly) a unix-user, so this won't do much for allowing us to share a desktop (we normally do anyway). On the up-shot, this will possibly make macintosh a more useable platform for the both of us. That's not to say that we'll start using them extensively at home, though... just that there will no longer be reason not to use them.
Speaking as a unix user (note that there will likely be some bias here) who uses macintoshes on occasion (I write software for macintoshes at work, and my workstation dual-boots mac-os and linux) I think that apple has done the Right Thing (tm) with the move towards NeXT technology.
As a side-note, my girlfrined isn't a macintosh fanatic -- she wouldn't even touch them before I convincedher they weren't all evil.
My personal favorite platform (and the one I use at home) is Silicon Graphics IRIX at this point, and that's not likely to change soon.
Try to be accurate. The New Beetle isn't a substitute for the Jetta. It is a compliment to the Jetta. In other words, the Jetta is still sold, and I've seen plenty of people who aren't New Hippies driving them.
Will we be able to run OSX apps as X clients? Even better would be accessing whatever their calling the Finder via X. X is goofy as hell, but it beats the pants off of most other remote-display technologies.
Carmack ported XFree86 to Darwin, Apple's free distribution of the underlying BSD-based system. This means that you can use XFree86 as a GUI instead of the Aqua environment. The two cannot be run side-by-side, and there is no current way to shut down the Aqua environment in actual Mac OS X developer pre-releases.
So, Carmack didn't actually port it to Mac OS X. Tenon is porting their existing Mac OS-based X server to Carbon so that it will actually run on Mac OS X, not just Darwin.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ok, everybody slow down... I can't believe that this topic has generated this much discussion... X for MacOS X by Tenon is nothing but a port of an already existing Tenon product to MacOS X. Tenon's entire business is providing UNIX tools/shells/environments etc to Mac and now Linux users. For at least 6 years Tenon has had a product that allows you to run a full blown commercial Unix system as a program under Classic Mac OS. Go to their web site and check it out. Its interesting... Especially technically since they did it using the Mach microkernel. (Sure has been popping up a lot recently.) No one needs to point out that the pre-emptive scheduling and memory protection are just mapped onto a classic MacOS application process with all weaknesses inherent thereof. The product, despite the fact that its a user process, gives the user a fully functioning POSIX compliant Unix machine. You can open remote and local X11 apps and run all kinds of shells. Its great, well written and I only ever experienced one crash with it, and that was because the MacOS crashed. Tenon also sold the X11 server part of Power MachTen (the product I have been describing) as a seperate product. It uses the afterstep window manager. But it somes with several others. It lets you run remote X11 apps. Even over ssh! It too is a great product. Its official name is XTen. Seeing as they have a product niche here, they decided to upgrade it to run natively on MacOSX. Please note that their current products run nicely under classic MacOS emulation on MacOSX DP4. Just as they did on a machine running DP4. So this product announcement is not really a big deal. Especially considering the following: There was also an Xserver available for some time from Apple itself called MacX. There is also an XServer available from: ftp://ftp.peak.org/next-ftp/apple/macosx/server/Ap plications/Utilities/X/maX/ that runs on MacOSX Server, and the developer has posted screen shots of it running under DP3. And yes Mr. Carmack has apparently gotten X11 running under Darwin and MacOSX server (but I don't know if he's made the code available) There is even a Java1.2 based Xserver that I have gotten running under DP4 but I have forgotten what the hell its name is or where it can be found. So I fail to see why this has become a political debate. Sure X for MacOSX from Tenon is a commercial product, and if it is to do well, it will be held to higher standards than it numerous free counterparts. One advantage that it has pre-release is that it runs rootless. Which means that you don't have to open X11 apps within a giant Quartx window, it will natively map X11 to quartz. (feel free to mince words with my choice of terminology here, but you get the idea...) In addition I would like to make one observation that has not been made about X11. That X for MacOSX can run local and non-local apps is a non-issue. This is what X11 does. In fact the only X-server I am aware of that DOES NOT run local and non-local apps is XTen by Tenon and that is only because there is no local Unix machine with clients to connect to.
and if you want to waste money buying a Mac just to surf the web, fine go right ahead. that's just dandy. but that's evidence to me you're a little soft upstairs,.. browsing the web is 'better' on a Mac? hrmm,.. ookay, if you say so.
i've done it, and really, it feels no different other than i have to go to another computer if i want to do something fun/interesting.
i have a brain, thanks, no room for another
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
CmdrTaco: contrary to popular belief, it is not only female graphic designers using the MacOS. I am a (male) software developer and Linux geek, and I use the MacOS for my everyday operating system. I use Linux for all my server-related stuff of course, but for a desktop environment, nothing else compares to the MacOS. I've used pretty much every desktop environment there is -- I used to use Linux with AfterStep/KDE/WindowMaker/etc for a long time, but I finally decided I wanted an environment I could actually use easily and productively. I found your comment to be quite ignorant and narrow-minded. I'm sorry to hear that this is the way you think. That aside, I am quite pleased to hear the news about this X server for Mac OS X. There are still times when there's an X program I would like to tunnel through SSH from my Linux server on to my Mac desktop. There actually is an amazing X server for the Mac OS called eXodus (http://www.powerlan-usa.com/exodus/), which I hope that Tenon trys to match in quality and functionality.
own linux machines and being a unix admin, does not prove you to be someone of great intellectual prowess. these are things which 13 and 14 year olds do regularly
i'm afraid there's probably nothing you can do to convince me, and nothing i can do to convince you, which is why i had intended to avoid the subject, but i thought your post was sufficiently interesting to respond.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
that's my intention, you should try it... the moderators don't mind if you're pompous, just don't be rude... so, this is a good way of venting frustration, make other people frustrated at how egotistcal you are/seem.
i can do the 'humble guy' act like Woz if i want to... and yes, i am sorry i am not a believer in Saint Woz,.. i think he's probably a nice guy and he is definitely brilliant, but i don't buy into the humility. it seems forced almost at times.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Too bad there are no Linux grammer checkers: it's "hordes", not "hoards"
that's the attitude
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Oh, so Jetta owners are advised that a new Beetle would really go great with their full-sized sedan? Gotcha.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Actually... If it's a real computer (read: multi-user system) it won't be nearly so much of a problem.
Now, as for loading "extensions" (I prefer to say "driver" if it's applicable, extension sounds hopelessly macintosh-centric...) If you can load and unload them on the fly (as with linux, and other unixes...) it becomes a non-issue, too.
In short, I think that a system based on MacOS X might be easilly shared.
That was the original point of the Mac. It was such a good point that the rest of the industry has spent years catching up. At the expense of power? Well, no. Reliability? Maybe. Upgradability? Again, no. I don't think you've looked at a Mac in quite a few years.
They're not throwing any of that out the window (you sound confused as to whether or not that would be a good thing). BSD is not a Rube Goldberg contraption. And i'd be willing to bet that the BSD based OSX is a lot less Rube Goldberg-ish code-wise than the current MacOS, which is pretty well known for being old kludge (although also well known for some brilliance among it).
Apple is just for the elite gurus now? It's been that way for quite a while (at least financially); but because OSX will be BSD based does not == BSD difficult to use.
Go buy your mom a Dell - it doesn't sound like you'd buy her a Mac anyways as you seem far too stupid to be able to appreciate one anyways, regardless of how easy (or difficult) you believe they are (or will be) to use. You most obviously belong in a Windows world.
just my blog and pix
Even at $500, this will probably sell a LOT of copies.
In the network I run, we are a Windows shop, as we need Office to communicate with the outside world. We are moving our outside hosted websites in house, and therefore are bringing some *nix boxes in (some will be Linux, don't know about all of them yet).
Our graphic developers use Macintoshes.
I'm personally ending up with an assortment of machines, Linux for devel, Windows for Office, I'd love a G4, just need a justification.
Now, with the BSD layer, the Mac Applications (including MS Office), and an X11 Server, I can trash the Windows and Linux boxes, and run a Macintosh.
This gives me lots of power, an easy interface, and lots of flexibilty. This product WILL sell.
Alex
As long as they don't botch up the new interface, it could be a good idea.
Let's just say Linux and others aren't recognized for their GUI.
http://www.logient.com
>own linux machines and being a unix admin, does not prove
>you to be someone of great intellectual prowess. these are
>things which 13 and 14 year olds do regularly
Presumably, this statement applies to you, as well?
in what respect? no it would not prove me to be intelligent, but no i am not 13 or 14 years old either.
i know i'm the king of misunderstood posts, but c'mon, you could have been more clear than that, even if you were trying to be snide and condescending.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I have a car that:
-is paid for
-gets great gas mileage
-has a huge aftermarket, and thus an unlimited supply of cheap parts. Try getting a windshield for $89 installed on that Golf.
-is easy to work on, and thus is kept in perfect mechanical condition.
-slow perhaps, but very fun to drive.
-Did I mention that its paid for? I love this car!(I also own a BMW, and had a Mercedes, but this is now my fav)
Please don't compare Beetles to Yugos. Its not fair.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
No, it compliments the Jetta within the Volkswagen car line. Want a fun, quirky car with room for four? Get a New Beetle. Need a fun car with room for four that has more utility? Get a Jetta.
Oh forget it. We're hopelessly off topic anyway...
At least it's not your palm as your wife/girlfriend!!
(My karma flying past as it leaves at least cools me off a bit.)
looking at the rest of your posts on the thread...
>they're usually just zealots..
pot... kettle... black.
You know the rest.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
I think he'll be safe with Mac OS X. It's a genuine multiuser Unix.
Of course then the problem is... do you trust her with the root password?
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
it's nothing like that. it's simply ONE MORE cool thing my mac's gonna be able to do when they finally release OSX
someone somewhere will crack it and upload it, and from there...
..
Thanks for perpetuating the notion that men and only men do all the heavy lifting in the Internet and women just pretty up the place. Thanks for making it just that much more difficult for women technologists to get through life.
Really, this is the answer for all those people who whine about, "Hey, no fair, I submitted my story 0.03849 seconds before ThisOtherGuy did, and yet they posted his instead! It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!"
;-)
Didn't get your submit posted? No problem. All you have to do is date the owner.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The main reason that people run X is not because it is great or beautiful or a wonderful piece of engineering ... It is because it is the only real standard for accessing bitmapped displays under UNIX/Linux.
And the main reason that people run IP is that it is the only real standard for accessing network resources under Unix.
And the main reason people use HTTP for web browsing is that it is the only real standard for transporting hypertext.
And the main reason people use SMTP, POP, and/or IMAP is -- you guessed it -- they are the standards for accessing email.
You say "standard" like it is a bad thing. Believe it or not, there are those of us who prefer interoperability and stability over flashy looks.
Aqua may be cool and all, but will it run on any computer from an IBM mainframe to a Palm Pilot? No, I didn't think so. But X11 will. This doesn't make Aqua inferior or X11 better, but it is a distinction to be aware of.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Want a fun, quirky car with room for four? Get a New Beetle.
You mean, "Want a fun, quirky car that costs nearly twice as much as the same car without the funky styling? Get a New Beetle."
Don't get my wrong, VM makes fine cars, and the New Beetle does look kind of cool, but it isn't worth the price premium. They cost as much as a small SUV!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Okay, we've already got Mach OSSed. We've got FreeBSD OSSed. Now all we need is some one to make a good Aqua clone (DPDF and all that good stuff, not a theme) and I can ditch this blasted Linux box.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
] I think he'll be safe with Mac OS X. It's a
;)
] genuine multiuser Unix.
] Of course then the problem is... do you trust
] her with the root password?
The question is, if you don't trust her with your root password, what are you going out for in the first place?
Would it be possible to implement XLib itself, or GDK, with calls to MacOS directly? Heck, even GTK+ itself.
A port of this nature would be similar to the GTK+ Win32 port, would it not? Applications would take on a native look and feel, namely, Aqua, instead of using GTK themes over XLib over X over MacOS. You could do the same thing with GTK themes, but it would require a great deal of resources to do it at speed.
Good God, man, what's next??? an X server for Windows 98? Oh wait...
Where to start....
New imac= $1,000
new Dell home system with monitor and external speakers= $900. Go ahead, argue with it.
The iMac has built-in ethernet, built-in FireWire (for video editing), etc, and built-in speakers.
For years now, the stability of Apple computers has given rise to a wonderful run of cigarette breaks for the people who've sat in front of them. Now, Apple's adoption of BSD/NeXT technology is supposed to solve that by finally (finally!!) making some version of MacOS stable.
When was the last time you actually used Mac OS 9? They're fixed a lot of stuff. The OS is quite stable now. It's not Unix, but it's worlds better than the Mac OS architecture of 3 years ago.
not notice that the capability exists to have one of those ultra-powerful G4 machines serve multiple workstations thereby hammering Apple's bottom line.
Ummm... what? Do you understand Apple's business model?
Apple is a company that operates in a few niche markets selling its own hardware to run its own operating system in a hothouse market with no direct competition.
If you consider the consumer (do you realize how well the iMac does?) or entire graphics/publishing industry to be niche. These seem less "niche" to me than development or servers.
he destroyed all the competition from licensees who were building Apples faster and cheaper
And worse. The Motorola machines, for example, were an abomination. People would buy what would claim to be a Mac, discover it had all kinds of hardware and software compatibility issues, and get a bad impression of the Mac as a result. This was damaging the brand name. Apple makes the whole widget. This has always been the lure. This is why things like PowerPC, FireWire, the new filesystem and USB were intergrated so quickly. My partner has a W2k machine with USB ports, and hasn't gotten a single USB device to work perfectly yet.
it's pretty easy to imagine Steve Jobs waking up in a cold sweat from dreams involving people thinking of Apples as application servers with apps running on anything but Apple hardware
I really don't think you understand Apple's markets or customers. Applications like Excel or Word can operate in a vaccum. They are pretty much self-contained. Publishing or multimedia production, however, requires considerably more infrastructure and support apps -- color management, font management, video support, codecs, etc, etc. You can't do all this stuff on the server side.
Additionally, how many consumers will buy a G4 as their application server?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
or does all the extra flash provided by Aqua and such seem rather boring? i dunno, it reminds me of my old BBS days where we'd go through and change every menu into a big, fancy ANSI piccy,..
:)
So let me get this straight, you're comparing ascii art to Aqua?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Apple is more than the Mac. The post office intranet, the world's largest, is hosted on WebObjects. The Army is using Apple technology because they got tired of the easy time crackers had getting into NT networks. RealNetworks has signed a deal to use QuickTime. Sony, they love Firewire. @home, they deliver a lot of QT content. Look at all the cameras now using firewire. PS2,uses Firewire.Look for Quicktime to play a bigger role in Hollywood. With Maya and other big video applications being ported to OSX, who needs SGI? QuickTime is still in its infancy, it will be the killer app. why do you think Gates wanted it killed off? Apple makes some cool Computers and OSX is exciting, but they do much more than sell pretty computers. If they were a one trick pony, I would not have added AAPL to my portfolio. I sure like running YellowDog Linux on this G3. Nice distro guys!
photosMy Photostream
Normally, I'd just ignore a troll like you, but what the hell. I'm bored and haven't flamed anyone in a while.
/. article on what they're trying to replace it with.
True. IP is a terrible protocol. It has a lot of overhead, plus it has a lot of connection startup time.
Too bad IP doesn't have connections. It's a stateless, unreliable, unsequenced datagram protocol. I'll cut you some slack -- maybe you meant TCP? Well, true, it does have some overhead, but that's the price you pay for building a reliable data stream protocol on top of an unreliable, packeted-based protocol. I'd like to see you do a better job.
Who decided to use TCP/IP for internet anyway?
The US Department of Defense.
If you're also wondering why, it's because IP does a damn good job given the constraints it has and had to work with. Again, I'd like to see you do a better job.
HTTP is also pretty limited. Read the
You mean BXXP? Which is basically TCP layered on top of TCP? And you're complaining about the overhead of TCP? Um, hello, McFly? Anyone home?
Let's see... never mind, I couldn't care less what protocol my email system uses.
If you really don't care about all this stuff, why the hell are you posting about it? This is the thing that really gives you away as a troll. Never, ever admit you're not interested in the subject matter, or the whole gig is up.
X11 doesn't have more stability than Aqua.
X11 has been around for how many years? Meanwhile, this is the third or fourth major iteration of the Macintosh graphics interface? Riiight.
However, it is a lot faster and more powerful.
I don't really expect Aqua to be much faster then X11. Perhaps slightly so, simply because it is more limited. But not significantly so.
As far as power goes, you're dead wrong. Extensibility, network transparency, host, machine, and transport independence are just a few of the things X11 has that Mac OS X's graphics system doesn't.
Interoperability seems to be the only thing left, and 99% of Mac users couldn't care less about that.
Absolute balderdash. Ask any Mac user, and the number one thing they hate is the fact that the rest of the world assumes you're running MS Windows on an Intel-based system.
I don't own an IBM mainframe or a Palm Pilot.
No shit? Like that makes a whole hell of a lot of difference to my argument. The point was, X11 will go with you no matter where you go, not that you could run it on the IBM S/390 you have in your bedroom.
And even if they did, the PP doesn't have an X server.
I've seen one for it, so you're wrong yet again.
You have to take this in contex. He is talking about X11 within the context of a desktop OS. In that context, X11 is worse than the Win9x GDI.
Actually, the OP and you are both talking out of your ass, because Aqua is really the UI layer, not the graphics layer like X11 is. It's comparing apples to oranges. The point I was trying to make was that standards are a good thing, which you've missed entirely. Instead, and as usual, you've tried to divert the discussion to a flamewar of Unix vs this mythical "desktop OS" you always bring up.
But, let's indulge you. X11 vs Win9X GDI. At least you got the layers right for that one. The GDI is encumbered with backwards compatability with years worth of things that don't exist anymore. It's tied to Windows. It's tied to the Intel platform. The API changes with each major release of the OS. It's poorly and often incorrectly documented. It's propriatary. It's a pain in the ass to work with. It's limited to a single user on a single machine. In short, it's crap.
be-fan, you know BeOS, and you make some good points about its advantages, but you're out of your league here. Stick to what you know.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Me? no, but other people have, but they're too new to matter. (IPX comes to mind.)
IPX?? Novell's IPX?? The so-called Internetwork Packet Exchange? Oh please.
IPX is crufty, badly designed, overly dependent on broadcast traffic, highly propriatary, hard to route, not subnetable, and basically sucks. And if you think TCP has high overhead, try Novell STREAMS layered on top of SPX layered on top of IPX controlled by broadcast SAP. Even Novell admits IPX is crap, and has moved to pure IP with NetWare V5.
Again: Go back to flaming people who think Linux beats BeOS for multimedia performance. You're out of your league here.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Reading Slashdot lissening to Geeks In Space and reading CmdrTacos website I'd say first and formost Rob Mulda is a prankster.
:)
If she can't take that level of ribbing I doult the relationship would have lasted long anyway.
I suspect she got worse many times over AND she got him quite a few times herself (Hay maybe this color sceam was HER FAULT)
Anyway it's not gona distory the relationship...
How ever it may earn CmdrTaco a pants full of hot gritz...
I don't actually exist.
But the real importance of X11 is in scientific and engineering environments, as well as large server farms. There, people run GUI-based and visualization software on big machines in machine rooms and display and steer it from their client workstations/PCs on their desktop. Despite the various attempts at providing such functionality on top of MacOS and Windows (CarbonCopy, Timbuktu (?), etc.), X11 is still the best for that: it allows application writers to write applications that are client/server aware and work well across lots of platforms. Having a good, commercial X11 server available for MacOS X makes MacOS X a good desktop client platform in such environments.
But because MacOS X (presumably) cannot use the X11 protocol for displaying its native applications and administration tools on remote X11 displays, this still doesn't let MacOS X compete on equal footing with X11-based servers. Making MacOS X a client of an X11 display server in that way could be feasible, though difficult. More likely, we are going to see a passable VNC server adaptation, just like we did with Windows.
Thanks for prepetuating the myth that Macs aren't useful.
He did say she was a graphics designner. That is some heavy lifting and it's being done on a Mac.
(Personally I find graphics designe harder than coding and website maintanence but then I don't run a high load website like Slashdot)
BTW I use Linux and prefer it to all other operating systems... and I do catch it for mentioning that Mac is "The Computer for the rest of us" (Bash Apple for that one kiddys.. they are the ones who gave Mac that image) thow I never said (or even hinted) that Macs arn't powerful.
And on a side note... I'm trying to pry Windows out of my GFs hands... My only hope is an iMac... I tried (and failed) to get her to install Linux
I don't actually exist.
I'd like to have something that works more effectively than Xfree86.
Yes networked X11 is neat but thats from a of Unix mainframes. X11 is not an effective DeskTop GUI.
Aqua is...
And if Apple dosn't want to give out Aqua.. Fine.. then something else...
I guess it dosn't matter as long as it runs well on Unix, Linux and MacOs/X
I don't actually exist.
This is something I just dont get.
You have this big expensive machine to run your simulations, crunch your data, and then you want it to draw pretty little graphics too?
I always thought it would be better to leave creating a nice user interface up to the workstations, and strip the cross-network traffic down to just the facts. Of course, dont tell this to the boss if you're looking to run Quake on the server...
The X windows must die article brought this to mind yet again. The author claimed X11 was ok for slow network links. Nonsense! I firmly hold that people who say things like that have never tried to use an X11 app (the Gimp is great for this demo) over a 28.8Kbps PPP connection.
Where? Where? Gimme!
How about a three button trackpad for a powerbook? Or even a two button trackpad? I've used Linux and NetBSD (with X11) on a Powerbook before, and the most painful part of the whole thing was always trying to work around the one pointer button issue. I know Linux has a keyboard kluge to simulate the basic three pointer buttons, but in day to day use it turned out to be less than... ideal. It made the UI seem more like an Abuser Interface. And NetBSD/macppc doesn't even have that workaround (or anything similar, so far).
T. M. Pederson
"...and so the moral of the story is: Always Make Backups."
T. M. Pederson
"Lies, Damn Lies, and Documentation"
X servers are extremely useful tools. In addition to allowing local execution of X11 programs you can run from any Unix server. For instance, the CAD software my company uses is not avaialable for the Mac, but it is avaialable for Solaris. An X server would allow us to use Mac's as CAD machines, running the software on a Sparc. We do something similar with a Windows X Server right now. Because OS X has a Unix base though, this X server will also run native X apps.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Are you guys smoking something? Cmdr Topic *specifically* mentioned sharing his computer in the article.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
I'm probably a bit late in posting this...oh well
My primary fear in having X server in OS X is programmers will be more inclined to do lazy recompiles (and we all know UNIX programmers are lazy, and don't pretend otherwise) instead of porting to Cocoa or Carbon. Apple is having a hard enough time getting Cocoa and Carbon to behave alike (and so far, they are failing). I have little hope for Swing given that state of affairs. I have no fear with commercial X server solutions, but soon there will be a free one and if you think getting Cocoa to behave like a mac is difficult, getting X apps which follow no UI specification whatsoever to do so will be absolutely impossible.
Even though I do not invite it, I would have preferred a port of GTK or even WINE (which would allow windows programmers to recompile their apps without much change if any) than X server. I would even tolerate TclTk if given a choice between the two. Really, OS X can easily do well without ANY of these apps (oh no! without GTK I can't use X-chat or GIMP! I won't be able to use the worst graphics app on earth! How will I survive without an app which has no color calibration whatsoever!). I'm not a control freak who wants to stamp out freedom (which is against my libertarian philosophy) but rather think there are a lot of programmers who just don't understand the Macintosh software design philosophy. For example mac users and UNIX users often define multitasking differently. Mac users define it as allowing the user to do several things at once more efficiently while UNIX users tend to define it as the CPU doing several things efficiently (which leads to UNIX users calling mac users cop-outs, making excuses for their crummy OS).
The Macintosh design philosophy is based on the realization that the majority of the time wasted using computers has nothing to do with the CPU. It's figuring out how to do things like setup your printer, configure your preferences, learning a new application, finding and organizing your files, mounting your drives, upgrading your hardware, using applications together etc. X server itself is not the problem, but rather the fact X apps are in total chaos (the command line is less chaotic for crissakes...hell even windows freeware apps have more UI conformity, which is really putting X apps down in shame!) and the people who made them don't see a problem. I've heard enough morons talk about how quickly they can reconfigure preferences in vi compared to a graphical preferences panel. How many extra brain cells would it take to realize the major time lost is having to learn akward, esoteric file structures and locations, not to mention equally akward and esoteric text editors. Sure, I can use vi just fine however I value my time too much to memorize the configuration files of literally hundreds of applications when I could pay a little more and have a preferences panel. As a last resort I'll use a plist editor in OS X.
I question if Opera would have been ported to OS X if it already had X server. I doubt it. In fact I doubt the free software movement will ever get any polish, there is no incentive. Compare the heap of hackware we use daily on X server with the slightly more expensive heap of shareware mac users enjoy. They take the time to make their applications conform to the guidelines (informal and formal) and are rewarded for their efforts. There is also more competition where several utilities do similar functions, and the one with less hassle gets more attention and money,
Such a pity the free software community has abandoned GNUstep for flashy, less substantive application frameworks. Don't take it too hard however, it was inevitable given your background in DOS and UNIX. You remind me of stupid government economists (heh, if that term weren't redundant) where they like to measure things like CPU power and plot productivity, quite literally. You like to equate things and tot them up in a quantitative manner like GUI = window manager theme and other stupidity. Am I putting you down? Sorry if the truth hurts but what else can I say when somebody buys a machine that costs 1/2 as much initially but 3 times as much over the full course if it's use in terms of tech support (not including time lost and hairs lost). Also what can I say about people who call an OS free when time is money and so often ends up costing more.
I'm not a mac apologist and hopefully you're not all UNIX apologists so let's try to keep it real. If you're going to run OS X just to run X server along with a few nifty mac apps your productivity isn't going to change one iota. It's like running a mac emulator for crying out loud. If you want a more productive environment you have to swallow your pride and learn from the masters of user interface instead of reinventing the square mis-aligned wheel like KDE and gnome hackers (oh sorry, programmers) have. If we all fall into the X server pit of eternal frustration we'll all have crappy Opera browsers and total chaos.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
which brings us back to an answer for the original question, why is Tenon making this?
More Apps. by doing this, Jobs can now counter the most venerable argument made about the mac by PC users: There's no software.
I'm really happy about this as a mac User because now I'll be able to do all my homework from home. Computer graphics natively on the Mac, and my CS stuff through an Xterm
And whats even scarriers is they are getting faster, word from macworld expo is that the new G4's will be dual processors with gigabit ethernet on the mainboard, damn!
Read my plan to save the Bengals