Slashdot Mirror
MacOSX and XFree86 run side by side
proclus writes "XonX has announced interoperability between Xfree86 and MacOSX. Relatedly, Xfree86 now supports the Darwin platform and XFree86 binaries are available. Many thanks to Torrey Lyons, Gregory Robert Parker, and everyone else involved! Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release? I think I'll have a look at some of those new fast Macs!"
As some others have pointed out, this announcement doesn't bring Aqua and X together, but Tenon has a neat product called Xtools which basically lets you run X programs seamlessly under Aqua. I'm using it now and it is pretty impressive.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
mac os x will only come of age when micro$oft creates a mac os x myths page for it :-)
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
I'm using a mac (imac, os8.1) right now, and while I think teh gui is quite nice, what really impresses me (as compared with my linux box at home, p200 usually running windowmaker or kde2) is how well the filemanager is integrated into the desktop, and how _fast_ it is. None of the filemanagers I've used under linux (and I've been using it for4 years as my only OS... I'm visiting my parents now, hence the mac) even come close to how responsive it feels.
GMC is very slow, nautilus even slower. Konqueror can be decent once it's started and image previews and everything else is off, but it's still far, far slower than the mac filemanager.
[Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
I am exactly one of these people. I develop software that runs on Solaris and I use the Macintosh to run office productivity tools.
Here are 3 applications that require an X Window Server to use, and for which there are no useful alternatives:
1. XEmacs
No, I don't want XEmacs running on my Macintosh
and displaying there too. I want the copy of
XEmacs that runs on my team's shared Solaris
development host to display on my Macintosh.
And no, I don't consider running 'emacs' in a
telnet window to be a useful alternative.
2. Admintool
Yes, I want to administer that Solaris host in
the telco closet from the comfort and relative
safety of my Macintosh. No, I don't
consider telnet to be a useful alternative
here either.
3. Perfmeter
Nothing like having a nice little running
graph of the resource load on your favorite
headless server horses. This is a cheap and
dirty tool and there is no substitute. Gotta
have an X Window server for it to display.
Oh wait, you probably think I'm crazy because I want to use a Macintosh for writing documents and I don't want a whole other stupid computer on my desk just so I can run an X Window server on it.
Surely there's only a handful of people like me. Guess what? The reason not so many people are running X Window servers on their Mac OS 9 boxes and using them to operate software on Unix servers is that you have to get purchase order signed to buy the Tenon X Window server.
Sure, I guess I could toss out the Macintosh and switch entirely over to Windows NT or Windows 2000 where I can easily get an X Window server to run, but then I'd have to give up my Macintosh.
Fortunately, with this XFree86 news I have TWO OPTIONS for getting X Window clients to display on my Macintosh. And that allows me to continue using all the really good Macintosh software without having to buy a whole other computer to run an X Window server.
Why is this such a bad idea?
jhw
This part is easy. With X, you can run apps remotely and display them where you are. So, for me, anything I want to run on a Linux box at work but view at home is such an app. Now, I expect that's not the answer you were expecting, but if X doesn't immediately suggest to you the possibility of remote apps, you're missing the point.
Nope; that part was easy.
Well, I'm married with two kids. My wife vastly prefers the Mac interface, and an iMac was decent enough looking and quiet enough to put out in a public place, saving additional bucks for one of those "hide the ugly PC" computer thingies. Now, I do kick myself for not waiting another 6 months and getting the iMac I got for $500 less, but that's the PC life...
No, that was still pretty easy.
Now the funny part of this is that even though I live in Columbia, Missouri, a metro area with a population of 130,000 or so, I already know a handful of people like this. But so what? Why should I care how many other people use computers like I do? In the bad old days, that might matter because software was expensive and and closed source; not these days. I can have a Mac, a BSD box, a wireless network set-up, a DVD player, and all the comforts of a quiet-to-silent PC for a price I was more than willing to pay.
Nobody can tell me I'm not happy.
Babar
Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release? I think I'll have a look at some of those new fast Macs!
This is NOT Aqua support! This is XFree86 running on Darwin! So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen. Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.
"Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release?"
:)
No. At least, I'd put a large amount of money on it being a *long* time before X is extended to cover Aqua. Look how long it's taken for display ghostscript to catch on (hint: it hasn't)
Maybe when X can do translucancy[1] properly.
[1] Trans-lunacy?
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
This is the exact opposite of what most of us really want!
Let's take slow, over-priced hardware and replace the great GUI it has with a crufty hack that's older than jesus. Yeah, great idea.
News flash: Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.
the chances of apple opening up quartz and aqua to open-source developers are zero to none. they don't give a flying grit's ass if you run anything else, but if they opened those up then you wouldn't have to buy a mac. (i'm sure a port would be started ASAP)
so in other words, yes, we can run xbill, but "HELL NO" to running bubbly UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD. (they won't even let us create look-alike skins!)
http://kered.org
tcd004
True Enlightenment
X-Windows running alongside (and inheriting the window widgets of) Aqua in MacOS X is about the only thing keeping me from using MacOS X on a regular basis. i can't wait to compile and install this new patch to see how close i can get to seamlessly using UNIX and Mac applications side by side.
despite how much i hated Aqua and many of the changes of MacOS X at first, it's definitely grown on me as of late, and my "wishlist" is mostly comprised of nit-picky features (but damn how i wish i could put the 'dock' on the right side of the screen like i did in NeXTStep). once i can run X applications in a satisfactory manner, i will have absolutely no need for my Linux box (except, perhaps, as a toy).
i won't be able to install this for at least a week however, as my Mac is too important for "real" work to start installing new patches to a beta OS. but i'm dying to know: does anybody have a screenshot of this particular implementation running on their OSX box? i'd love to see how well it integrates into Aqua.
..and serious "Kudos" to all the people involved in this project. after my current contract is done, perhaps i'll take some time out to help them with the code.
- j
I think that the big seller with Mac OSX is going to be its 'look and feel' and general good looks. Apple have made all their big breakthroughs in the past on a similar basis, and I don't think things are about to change, really.
I know I'll be getting one when MacOSX comes out! I have a Linux box too, but I love to relax sometimes on a Mac (Its like going to eat out at a nice resteraunt - everythings so easy;) and I really like the graphics software on it, too.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Until Linux reaches the ability to be a powerful desktop system that's easy for almost anyone to use efficiently, Macs may come to fill that void in the business sector. Apple has made a series of incredibly smart moves over recent years (the iMac - a computer for the general masses, the G4 - a slower clock speed, but 128 bit channeling making it capable of handling significantly more non-dependant data than say of 32 bit chip of a clock speed twice as fast), and a few other things to boot. They've adopted less expensive RAM, all the systems within a series use identical parts (a wonderful dream for any IT pro), and, well, they're just getting to be a lot better than they were, though I think I've said that.
This interoperability with X makes it a great value for large corporations with *nix (especially Linux) servers. I think that over the years, Apple will make its Macintosh series have a comeback. GO APPLE!
Oh yeah, to make the subject makes sense, what OS is currently most-used as a workplace desktop? M$ Windoze...what would be displaced? Figure it out...
Note: I have NO affiliation with Apple Computing - I don't even use one of their computers regularly. However, I still believe from what I've seen lately that they do have a good shot a taking back market share...
Like Karma doesn't matter...
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
SIG: HUP