Slashdot Mirror
A Glimpse At Apple's New Core
Coolvibe writes: "Apple has updated their Mac OS X page. There's screenshots of the final version there. I myself am still running the Public Beta and the stuff that's shown there is just a *tad* different than what I am using right now :) For instance, the dock now has a context menu, as shown here." And speaking of Apple's core, Justin0407 directs your attention to this NYTime article on Steve Jobs, in which "Jobs gives us his insight on how he's going to save Apple and try and keep it afloat. Building on other's ideas of a PC or Mac being the 'hub' for all digital appliances, Jobs says Apple will embrace this concept."
This appears to be a phenomenal product. I am seriously considering ditching my windows and linux boxes both and moving to a Mac once this hits the shelves.
Its just seems that OSX is where Gnome and KDE want to get to, but will probably never arrive. While I believe in these open-source efforts, I can't be bothered to wait around for them anymore.
You forgot the required slam about the one-button mouse in the article listing.
How did that old ad from Macintosh go? $>CNGRTLNS.MCX!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I agree. Really, who, except Linux users really care? This may seem like a flamebait but seriously, I'd say 99% of Windows users don't even KNOW what open source is, much less would they care if the source was open or not. I'm a software engineer and I sure as hell have better things to do with my time than look at 50 megs of browser and OS source code after work.
It runs exclusively on Windows and Mac, and the Mac version (and the rare non-x86 Windows versions)
Windows, Mac, HP-UX and Solaris, if memory serves. And even if we forget the UNIX versions, which might have dubious quality, that still covers some 95+% of all computers in the world.. "exclusively" is a little misleading when only a marginal amount of hardcore, impossible to please open source fans are "left out" (that would choose NOT to run the browser anyway, even if it was available for their platform).
are not often compatable with IE specific content because IE specific content usually relies on x86 ActiveX
What?! That's complete rubbish. Hardly any sites use ActiveX. I use IE (except when I'm trying out Mozilla builds) and I have it set to warn me about ActiveX and I don't remember that I would EVER have come across a site that uses ActiveX! If you're going to diss a browser and you are using 3 points to do this, you could at least come up with something remotely based on reality. That was just a plain lie.
It extends the HTML standard encouraging authors to use this to the detriment of compatability with other content.
HTML? Not really, except MARQUEE (sp?) maybe, but then Netscape has BLINK and Lynx lacks support for 90% of HTML so that's not really the big problem you're making it out to be. What is a little more worrying is the document object model and CSS support, which just plain sucks on *EVERY* single browser including Mozilla and even the latest Opera version. Even in CSS, the support IE has is the best, IMHO, but you are right in that a little too much "innovation" has been made in this area. However, given the current state of CSS support and scripting standardization in general, I think it's a little unfair to single Microsoft out. At least they have the best CSS support out there right now. If you're so desperate to boycot a browser, go after Netscape Communicator 4.x and start hacking on Mozilla.
Actually, it seems that there is a Solaris version, and possibly HP-UX as well. Go to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp and view products for Solaris &/or HP-UX. I see version 5 editions of IE & Outlook Express for both operating systems.
So, the question from there is will a binary executable for one of those run on Linux, or is WINE emulation a more productive route to try?
As for the ActiveX stuff, yeah, that's bullshit. But just don't use it & you're mostly okay (as a user, disable it and as a developer, avoid it). IE really is a good browser, especially the 5.0 version on Mac, which renders pages beautifully and seems pretty standards-friendly to me (decent CSS & XML support, etc). Mozilla is a hog, and while I'd love to see it do well, I just can't afford to let it have all my ram & disc space, only to crash all the time & have an ugly interface besides. I'm terribly disappointed in it. IE, I reluctantly have to say, is just plain better, and it's probably more available than you realize.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
the Mac OsX server product has been quietly updated to encompass just these kinds of intranet / extranet LAN/WAN serving.
it'll be the same as the desktop product, except with the apps for more server oriented things included in the box.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Uninstalling IE just became easier :)
(Yes, I use OmniWeb on MacOSX PB for my Webbrowsing)
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Why do people hate Internet Explorer have you used it lately?! It's awesome, it's quick to load, less of a resource hog than some other browsers and dosent choke on pages with complex tables ie that giant jerky re-render when you scroll down. It's just plain better than anything out currently so stop your Mozilla Netscape Nazi-ing and just giving that microsoft won the battle of the browsers.
Apple has always tried to embody quality and their choice to use IE is a good one would you rather see netscape 6? Dont even get me started on Netscape 6, AOL owns netscape? They STILL use IE in AOL not that I use or endorse either but it just goes to show you that netscape hasnt been good since 3.x and the continued development of netscape is like some houseguest that wont go home, it was nice when it showed up but now it's just anoying.
A Mac OS X version of Office doesn't really make versions for other Unices more likely. The version Microsoft will release in Autumn will be OS X native, but via the Carbon API. For those of you who haven't been keeping up, Carbon is a new version of the "Classic" Mac OS API and MS will not have to rewrite Office from scratch in order to make it OS X native.
So the chances of MS releasing Office for Unix remain slim, unless Carbon becomes available on other Unices. I would say that the chances of this are even slimmer.
However, perhaps there is a project I'm not aware of to implement the Carbon API on Unix? It strikes me as a prohibitively complex task.
When Quartz and/or Aqua crashes (*if* they crash, it only happened once to me), you end up in the console. When the kernel panics (only happened once with me), you end up in the kernel debugger. I don't know if that will change in the final version though.
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
What's more, these UI changes are discussed in much greater detail at Wincent.org
This is a hands-on review of the build which was demonstrated at MacWorld. Some of the key points are:
Plus lots of other stuff.
If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm, but since their Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market.
This is a market in which Microsoft and it's primary competitor Symbian are going after, and to many it would appear to be the future of computing.
Had they kept on going the likes of Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia might have well been more interested in Apples product than Psions. Then they would not have to worry about making up silly visions of how they want the market to be, and instead deliver what the market wants.
This is not to say that I think the PC is dead, just that the broad appeal of having easy access to all your necessary information while on the move is a big draw to the general populace. The geeks will still of course prefer their fat pipes, multiple desktops and the raw power that their PCs provide as well as minimal exposure to sunlight. Although most likely they will still not want a Mac. Oh well...bye bye Apple.
You are correct that you may not *need* to partition, but I personally would recommend it, or at least have 2 OS 9 system folders. OS X puts some stuff in your OS 9 system folder which can (in the PB) cause conflicts when running in OS 9.
My personal recommendation is to install OS X on a separate partition, and then install a basic install of the OS 9 system folder on the same partition to be used for the Classic environment. Then you can remove the redundant extensions (Quicktime, Open Transport, etc) and copy over any needed extensions from your main OS 9 system folder.
This has the advantage of keeping your main OS 9 folder untouched by OS X. It also has the advantage of speeding up the boot time and lessening the overhead of the classic environment of OS X because you have removed many extensions that it will try to load but don't work anyway.
This is a little safer than blindly allowing OS X to do what it pleases to your OS 9 system folder.
Anyway, this is how I have been handling classic in the PB. Also, it has allowed me to keep using the classic environment (OS 9.0.4) while upgrading my main system to OS 9.1.
out.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
you need not partition to boot between MacOS 9 and OS X, matter of fact if you want the best performance from running Classic under OS X you best put them both on the same partition (word to your mother) and as i say, you can easily boot between straight-up OS 9 and OS X...
I'm sure its been posted here before, but can someone update me with what unix apps will be able to run on OSX when its done? I think I remember apache and a few other things being available but what about other main stream apps. Is it just a matter of a recompile or is the BSD part too nonstandard to port to.
Most command line apps should recompile either out of the box, or with a little nudging. Apache comes with the OS, and I believe Fred Sanchez is making sure new builds continue to work. MySQL has built some OSX binaries, but most of them appear to be for the older OSX Server 1.x (Mach 2.5-based, no Aqua). Somebody is working on PostgreSQL.
The X11 apps are a different story because you have to get your hands on a X server first. There are several different efforts/approaches to this. The most seamless is a relatively expensive ($300) commercial product from Tenon. It runs X apps alongside native OSX apps. You can exit to raw Darwin and run something like XFree86, but you cannot run any OSX native GUI apps until you launch back into the window server.
Overall, anything that runs on *BSD should be able to make its way to OSX pretty effortlessly. Some of the remaining kinks should be worked out by the time the shrinkwrapped product hits shelves on March 24, and I'm sure things will continue to evolve via Darwin. Work done on Darwin is routinely synced with the OSX tree and vice-versa.
Also note that the revamped version of Mac OS X Server, which will come up several weeks after March 24, will be based on the same core as consumer OSX. It will add server-specific packages and some very cool GUI tools for things like Apache and IP filters. It comes with PHP, Tomcat, and MySQL preinstalled. WebObjects with an unlimited license is also included (previously, a 50 client connection per minute limit), as is a mail server, ftp server, and samba. The last three have UI interfaces for them.
A have a full write-up of this new version of OSXS2 on my site. It's slick.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Woo, now I've started slagging off the content of the posts. I knew I was being too nice all this time.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Consider this, the old NeXT display postscript and NeXT Step code are still proprietary even though neither technology is currently used by Apple.
I'm not sure they could release the source to DPS, even if they wanted to. They had to pay a licensing fee to Adobe for every copy of an OS that shipped with it. NextStep code as a whole, though, is very much in use at Apple. However, some parts of it have been released, such as NetInfo.
Despite the misleading hype, Apple is still closed source. [...] If one has any illusions that Apple is an Open Source company, one need only to speak to the developers of GNU Step who will greet your query with a hearty laugh. Apple open source? No, don't kid yourself.
Who is this attitude going to help?
This is not a black and white issue. It's multilayered and I think it's likely you need more information before you can make a judgement as to the worth of Apple's efforts.
Apple took a big first step with release a fully-functional Unix-based OS in Darwin. True, many of the components (Mach, BSD, etc.) were already available to the public through various other sources and licenses; but this is the foundation for both Apple's consumer and server operating systems. Why is this significant, you ask? It's significant because Apple's engineers are actively developing and improving the core OS on a daily basis. Any time they do this, you benefit. You don't even have to do anything. You just get free code, and Apple writes the check. And furthermore, this code is released under a license that has already had a few revisions, and pretty much everybody seems to be happy with at this point.
Complaining about Apple not releasing the rest of OSX is pointless. Apple, being a publicly-traded, for-profit company, needs to make money. Its positioning as an easy-to-use platform means it cannot possibly justify basing profits entirely on support (not that this business model is flawless in general), and Apple as another x86 box maker just isn't logical. The reason the company could justify the three year development of Mac OS X to its shareholders is that it knew it would gain it back in hardware and software sales. If there was no profit to be made by selling the product, OSX would simply not exist, and the advancement of all operating systems would be affected accordingly. Like it or not, Apple has been and continues to be a is a major influence in evolution of personal computers. As much as slashdotters slam Apple, it's doing pioneering work in Unix usability. This benefits everyone.
Essentially, you're expecting Apple to sit there and spin straw into gold for you. That's not the goal of open source. It's about give and take. Apple is giving you half the kingdom for free, and you just turn around and demand the other half? This attitude only discourages other companies from participating in open source. If you insist on being inflexible and taking an all-or-nothing standpoint on OS source release, then you're going to end up with a whole heap of nothing. You can't just expect Apple to abandon its current revenue streams all at once. That lacks balance and forethought.
The development of every platform cannot be structured identically to Linux. That's just as bad as everything being based on Windows. To avoid inbreeding, you need a variety of concepts, organizations and even business models in order for software to continue to advance. Apple is doing the best thing it can possibly do for the community while still keeping its product line intact.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas