Slashdot Mirror
Developer Tools For MacOS X
Vizer writes: "Apple is shipping CDs with the development tools for MacOS X to its developers. Not only that, but the tools will be downloadable in mid-October. Details are on the Apple Developer Connection site. This jives well with what we've been told in the past by Apple, about how MacOS X will eventually ship as two CDs, one of which is just the basic user installation and the other CD full of developer tools.
And yes, developing for MacOS X is very familiar to anyone who has done some BSD programming, except that the paths are all different and HFS+ volumes are case-insensitive. Having the terminal window with access to various unix utilities is great, and nearly all of my un-ported apps run in the compatability environment without complaint. No OS crashes, no problems other than finding out where Apple hid all the preferences and utilities.
No, I don't want to go back."
There is also a lot of good and well designed hardware being sold. This is because the market for PC's is HUGE. With multiple companies all competing with each other for a piece of the pie, it is inevitable that not all the products will be of the same quality.
I've worked as a PC technician off and on since the late 80's, so I think I know a thing or two about their hardware. You buy good quality stuff and you're not going to have problems, at least no more than you'll have with a Mac. I don't think I have to tell you that not all the Macs Apple made were of the best quality. Remember the performa line? Remember the powerbook 1400 series? Or the powerbook 5300's that could catch fire when you charged the battery? Apple has also made some very good quality products as well. PC products vary in quality too. Ever hear of PC-Chips? They make the most God awful cheap garbage motherboards ever to curse the world. Ever hear of Tyan or Asus? They make very high quality boards that I'd be proud to put in a system. This is how things usually go when consumers have a choice. The same holds true for other things such as TV's, stereos, shoes, automobiles, sheet rock, mayonaisse, etc etc.
So if you've been bitten by cheapy parts or systems in the past then I do feel sorry for you. But don't please don't jump to the conclusion that you got bit because it was a PC that did the biting.
Also Apple is going to have a harder time hitting that well defined target you speak of as time goes by.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
My feeling about this is that when builing a GUI app using some one elses application framework it's the design of the framework that's important, not the implementation language.
I had a NeXT for a few years, and the application builder was really good - way ahead of its time. There are very few comparable mainstream environments available today (and they didn't exist then) -Borland C++ Builder and Delphi: Delphi is Object Pascal, C++Builder uses the pascal GUI library and makes heavy use of the borland __closure extension. The Smalltalk environment would be another example. None of these use straight, portable(?) C++.
I don't think you can compare the NeXT/Apple application framework to QT, MFC, MOTIF etc (ie current C/C++ frameworks.) because of the dynamic / graphical nature of the NeXT/Apple GUI design environment
Besides, late binding (a significant feature of Objective C) can be good for GUIs.
"Why was he so stupid? When told that his mind could change his response was: How? Why?" - John Cage.
I was just at an Apple recruiting event yesterday, and they obviously had a demo of OS X. The presenter was also a recent graduate from my college (Carnegie Mellon). Of course, he knew that most of the people in the room were used to Linux and command line interfaces.
:)
To prove that OS X was not just a nifty a GUI, but an honest-to-god POSIX-compliant BSD-based distribution, he opened up a terminal window and proceeded to type in the following:
emacs foo.c
Then, in emacs:
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("Hello world!\n");
}
^X^C
Then back in the terminal:
make foo
./foo
I think when he did that, the amount of applause that filled the room was the most applause a terminal window has ever gotten
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
and it aint so bad. If you can get over the silly GUI and colors it's actaully not a bad OS. It shows it's UNIX roots off in path names, and still is easy to use like OS 7-9. Seems very stable, and installed first time no sweat in about 5 minutes. That damn Dock is a PITA though, should autohide like in windows. Funny how the MAC OS is becoming more 'Windows' like, and Windows is becoming more MAC like, but never the twain shall meet!
I still haven't managed to figure out what the differences are between: /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin
/usr/sbin, /usr/local/sbin
/usr because /usr might be on a different partition/disc
/bin,
/sbin,
/bin: stuff essential for system booting (can't be on
/usr/bin: normal binaries
/usr/local/bin: non-distribution binaries (aka non-RPM, non-DEB, etc etc)
/sbin: system binaries (not supposed to be on the average users path), needed for booting
/usr/sbin: system binaries (not supposed to be on the average users path)
/usr/local/sbin: system binaries, not installed via the package manager
--
Ian Peters
I have Mac and PC hardware and I don't want to see a port of OS X to Intel. Whine all you want about "overpriced Mac hardware", it is a well defined target and allows Apple to do a nice job of software/hardware integration. I wouldn't wish PC hardware support on my worst enemy, there is just too much poorly designed and incompatible crap being sold.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
We got a copy of the public beta today and installed it. There's an installation option to choose between HFS+ and a "unix filesystem". (I believe it is UFS.) We tested it, and it is properly case-sensitive. So, for those who care to install MacOS X with a sane filesystem, the option is there.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I am sorry that you got moderated down.
Perhaps a more precise way to phrase your question would be: can anbody present an example of legitimate use of two files in the same directory named identically save for case? I indeed would be extremely interested in such an example, and have never seen one in my life.
There is perhaps nothing more frustrating in using computers than typing "vi makefile" and being presented with a screenfile of tildes instead of the contents of "Makefile". It is unfortunate that the computer is not smart enough to understand what I meant.
Being a VMS user, I like file names which are in all-caps, with one dot, and a version number. The all-caps look makes it look dry and technical (which I much prefer over Unix's cutesy, friendly use of lower case and mixed case)
Windows NT's filesystem with preservation is perhaps the best compromise for most users (and Windows 98's almost-but-not-quite case preservation is not).
Unfortunately, due to the pervasiveness of Unix (e.g. for web servers), most computer users, even extreme newbies, have been conditioned to believe that everything should be case sensitive. There is a myth that it is faster, but it is not: it would be if Unix used a sensible string format, but nul-terminated strings have to go a byte at a time anyways.
With Unicode the mapping of upper to lowercase can be extremely complex, and potentially two file systems or programs would use different algorithims, resulting in very difficult to understand errors and potential security problems.
And there is nothing "user friendly" about case insensitivity. The average user picks a file by clicking on them!
Here's another way to look at things. If you run BSD, but want a better GUI, then you could theoretically buy a Mac and run OSX. All your apps will work, and you'll have the benefits of Apple's much-praised UI. If you have a problem with any of the other aspects of the mac, read this.
I am against OS X on Intel, for all the reasons that other people have specified. Is there an anti-petition anywhere? I want to sign it.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The main reason to use a case sensitive file system is that C is case sensitive, so every thing should be too, god damnit!!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
OS X natively supports running off HFS+ and UFS drives, and reads and writes HFS and FAT(16, possibly 32) drives. HFS+ is case insensitive, but of course case preserving. You deal with case insensitive file systems just like Mac and Windows people have been doing for the last decade and a half. UFS is case sensitive, like most unix style file systems. It's got advantages for servers, but Classic can't run off it. Carbon Apps can, though. So, use it for servers you don't need to run Classic Apps on, and use HFS+ for desktops for compatibility.
the FSF does not take any rights away from me
You do not have the right to any non-GPL derivative, no matter how free and permissive you make it. You can't even create a public domain derivative of GPLd works. If RMS believes that software should not be owned, then why does he restrict me from creating unowned derivitives of the works he himself says he does not own?
As you yourself impied, if I give someone your software in such a way to violate your license, you still have your software.
If, after becoming familiar with what your opponent says...
What intellectual sophistry to assume that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant of the topic! You're completely ignoring Locke, who has much to say on the nature of property. Just as a repeal of government trespass laws would not negate the existance of land property, neither would a repeal of the government copyright laws affect the ownership of software in any way. For a radical look at a world where software is owned in the absence of any government recognition of it, see Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts. This paper also has some very good references coming off of it as well.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What worries me about MacOS X is the whole new Objective C interface. Creating a new API is one thing; creating a new API in a different language is another. Apparently, certain advanced features of the GUI will only be available to you if you use the Objective C interface which is seems to be a way that Jobs can keep his NeXT dream alive.
I'm not a Mac developer, however at work our Mac developers have no interest in porting their application to the new API in Objective C. I can't imagine it would be extremely easy to port and maintain Windows applications, most of which are written in C++ to it either. For developers who are just starting out, writing their software in Objective C makes it very difficult to port to Windows locking them into the OS.
Now Objective C might be the greatest language since latin, but the simple fact of the matter is that in GUI arenas, C++ currently dominates.
Just curious what the opinions of others are out there.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
... and someone who may yet go back, I can speak with a little experience here. Apple has a flaky history when it comes to pleasing its developers. I remember back when all it took was a small annual fee, and you had full access to all alpha/beta releases from their ADC site, plus steep hardware discounts. These days, Apple's implemented a tiered system whereby the more you pay, the more benefits you receive, but the more you pay, the lower the benefit/return ratio is.
When I first got in with ADC, I was a starving college student who could barely pay the interest on his student loans, much less pay for the latest and greatest Apple hardware to test the software I was writing (some pretty sophisticated finance software, back before I started consulting in an unrelated field -- if anyone's interested, give me a holler). Here I was, struggling to develop software that Apple's platform desperately needed, and Apple recognized this and subsidized my hardware through ADC. If they hadn't, I can assure you I would've had to give up the ghost and quit my dream.
But what are young developers today to do? Unless you're Adobe or Intuit, Apple doesn't want to hear from you. If you have several thousands of dollars to throw at an upgraded ADC membership, then you're lucky. We're not all so fortunate.
Cheers,
Froid
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
There is an online petition for Apple to port OSX to x86 here. I think this is something they need to do. Their ability to compete using proprietary hardware which is more expensive than commodity PC's is only going to worsen as time goes by.
They should leverage the PC and gain a portion of its massive market instead of trying to hold on to their own separate market, which is tiny in comparison and progressively getting smaller.
A new OS isn't going to be enough to convince very many to replace their hardware. But offer that new OS for the hardware they already own and you'll have yourself some customers. Customers equal money and market share and Apple needs all it can get of both.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I've never understood why so many UNIXheads think case-sensitivity is a GOOD thing. Yes, I'd like the files to have upper and lower case in them for the sake of appearance, but I'd rather NOT have it case-sensitive for matching, etc.
Does anyone have a GOOD reason to have a case-sensitive file system? If so, please enlighten me...
Everything I hear from people is how much they love OS X. Where is everyone else?
/Applications, /System and /Users. Application configuration files and resources all get bundled into one place for each App.
I installed it on a G3 PowerBook with 128M of RAM. I liked it at first. But the more I used it and the more I got into the details, the less I like it.
GUI:
The thing is not fast by any means.
Just minimizing a window into the Dock would use 75% of my CPU.
They got rid of 'window shading'.
The menus - formerly one of the most consistent aspects of the MacOS - lose much of their consistency.
I think the whole Aqua thing is too 'bubbly and sweet' - of course that's just aesthetic, so I won't hold that against them.
Underneath:
It defaults to running inetd, nfsiod, portmap, and a couple of other things. To exacerbate this problem there is no GUI method of turning off these services, and the only command line method is 'kill'. To get these services to not start at boot required hacking config files (after 30 minutes of searching to find them).
They have discarded way to many Unix conventions for my liking. They have come up with their own method of 'controlling' services. They discarded the standard rc format.
They have added all kinds of odd directories like
I could go on, but I think I made my point. I use Unix and Macs and like them both for different reasonse. OS X is not Mac enough nor Unix enough for me to like it at all.
I just don't think Apple get's it . . . hopefully they'll get a clue.
If anyone has a MacOS (7-X) system up and running already and wants some tools right now, they can follow the instructions from MacAddict on how to copy the Darwin versions of g++ and company over to MacOS. For those interested in other BSD apps on OS X, keep an eye on MacAddict's Ports page.
Recursion (n): See recursion
Apple is not a company I can morally approve of... I cannot use without feeling dirty.
...and goes back to his Debian GNU/Linux machine
what a terribly small world you must live in when your morality depends on giving away 100% of your property. Out here in reality I can give a meal to a homeless person and not be decried evil because I didn't give him my refrigerator, and I can give a hundred buck to the MDA and not be accused of immorality for not handing them my bank account. Does the homeless person feel dirty because I only gave him a sandwich? Does the MDA feel dirty because I haven't quit my job and volunteered full time? Of course not!
Apple giving back to the FreeBSD community isn't good enough for you types. Opening up (also known as freeing) other of their own code isn't good enough. It seems you want all or nothing. Well that's not how the world works. If you don't like it, then don't use it. But don't call them immoral or their users dirty. The real immorality is your self-righteousness. Listen, there is a lot more to morality then your petty licensing issues.
It's not the ownership of their software that concerns you, because every software except public domain is owned. Even the FSF copyrights their own software. It's not that, it's just that you haven't been given the number of permissions to use the code that you would like. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a price that you (and I) don't want to pay. But don't call it a case of morality. That's just bogus.
How did I know that was coming?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned