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.
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...
Or like putting an old Beetle body on a VW Gulf. Oh, wait... they're doing that.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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)
I _love_ Linux for most things, but for graphics, a Mac still can't be beat. Try printing out slide scans using The Gimp and a Epson Photo printer without getting the colors all f'ed up. Accurate color printing under Linux still has a _long_ way to go (coupled with the fact that most Linux/Gimp hackers are primarily interested only in graphics for the web - unless somebody can show me otherwise). For this reason alone I will use my Mac G3. For everything else, there's Linux. :)
Windows? What's that?
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!
Would you have to say "No whammy...no whammy...STOP" when you use it?
-B
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").
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 currently own and use an AMD Athalon 850 system running linux, a PII 350 running linux, a G3 400 running MacOS, a PowerBook G3 233 running MacOS, a G3 450 running Mac OSX Server, an Ultra5 running Solaris8, and I've got an old NeXT Turbo station around somewhere. I'm really quite sick of the whole attitude that no one intelligent uses a mac. Hey, I'm a system administrator and developer for unix systems, yet I have a mac at home and one on my desk too. Grow a brain, different computers have different uses. I'll never give up my mac because it's the most comfortable system for web browsing, email, writing papers, playing around with graphics. Is it perfect? Hell no, but neither is any OS out there. MacOS works, and it does it without a lot of hassle.
Get a clue, I'm not going to use a Mac to virtual host 300 websites, and I'm not going to use a linux box to suft the net at home.
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").
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.
I'll try it out when I get my Mac attached to my home network -- I've always wanted something like this.
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"
Persuade me. Seriously. I produce commercial websites, and need to use tools like Photoshop, Fireworks, BBEdit, etc. which are not (yet) available for an open source OS. I also work with digital photography, involving color matching, like the previous poster. Do you seriously think i'm the only one in my position, and that with enough persuasion i'm going to see that my Mac is worthless? You'd be better off persuading Adobe and Macromedia to port their products to Linux et al.
Please don't take this as an anti-OSS flame; personally I think the world would be much better off if an international coalition adopted an OSS operating system and blessed it as an International Standard Operating System so we could all get on with our lives (though I suppose the web has in a way become that), I just find it a bit disconcerting that people seem to think that all Mac users are semi-luddite morons. Many of us have damn good reasons for using our Macs; if i'm bored enough i'd be glad to enumerate them for you (and they don't date from the 8.3 vs. 32 filename era).
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
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.)
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.
Is't than kind of recursive, X is harder to port because MacOS X lacks X?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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...
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
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.
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.
/. article on what they're trying to replace it with.
:) In desktop space, the comments about Intel, Windows, and multi-user don't matter, because everybody runs winte (which are all single user machines). (Statistically of course.) GDI has some additional things going for it though. Much
>>>>>>>
Sorry, my faux pas, I was referring to TCP/IP, (and I thought the orignal poster was too. You see, you don't see IP mentioned often by itself.)
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.
>>>>>
I couldn't do a better job. But other people have. My point was that even though IP is not the best protocol we still use it.
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?
>>>>>
Again I was just pointing out that HTTP also is a fairly limited standard. I wasn't trying to promot BXXP in any way.
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.
>>>>>>>
Let's see, do YOU care about the protocol your email system uses? TCP pisses me off, but POP3 could be made by MS and still not bug me.
X11 has been around for how many years? Meanwhile, this is the third or fourth major iteration of the Macintosh graphics interface? Riiight.
>>>>>>
How often has X crashed on you? It IS possible to design a stable system the first time around, especially if it is a clean design. Still its a moot point. Aqua isn't out yet, so you can't comment on the stability.
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.
>>>>
Fast? I'd like to see X do those transparency tricks with any modicum of speed. As for power, it depends on your definition. In my eyes, the DPDF and imaging features make for a much more powerful system than simply network transparency. You think anyone uses OpenGL JUST because of the network transparency?
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.
>>>>
I was kidding. I understand your point, but in truth. How many Mac users interact with anything other than Windows PCs? The question is one of the relevance of features. If Aqua had network transparency, it would just go unused. These days, the vast majority of Mac users are home users and graphics artists. The former rarely have *NIX machines, and the latter usually have powerful client machines, rather than a large back-end server.
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're kidding right? My only question is, what the hell? I mean I can understand one for a WinCE HPC, but for the palm pilot?
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.
>>>>>>>>
Personal vandetta maybe? My point is that your argueing symantics. What does Aqua mean? Technically yes, it means just the UI layer of MacOSX. In practice, it means the whole enchillada, DPDF and all. This is a comparison between the entire MacOSX display system and X11. And that is a very valid comparison. And where, praytell, did I bring in a mythical "desktop OS?" (BTW> Did you get the apples vs. oranges pun?)
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
>>>>>>>
Let's indulge you. X11. It's limited by years worth of backwards compatibility. It's limited by things that almost don't exist anymore (like low power clients), it's hard to program for, the API changes with every major release of X
better font handling for one. It's noticably faster (why shouldn't it be, it's in the bloody kernel!) It has and API that is just slightly more complex than X's but has more imaging features. This is the stuff that matters in desktop space. Imaging features and speed. GDI just one-ups X in this respect.
I do know BeOS, but it had nothing to do with this post. BeOS uses neither X nor GDI. However, I've programmed GDI for awhile now, and it surprises me to see that people who promote X, just don't get the fact that the features that make it so great on *NIX (maturity, extensibility, network transparency, flexibility) just don't matter in consumer-space.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Are you guys smoking something? Cmdr Topic *specifically* mentioned sharing his computer in the article.