Slashdot Mirror
ArsTechnica Posts Mac OS X 10.2 Review
hype7 writes "ArsTechnica have posted their review on Mac OS X 10.2. John Siracusa has been writing the reviews of Mac OS X since way back with the developer previews, and in my experience they've been the most thorough, thoughtful and unbiased reviews of Mac OS X on the web. Well worth a read." He does do a fine job; so if you needed one last fix of looks at Jaguar, here you go.
first lameoid post on a topic no one will look at
"My, er, relationships were always crashing -- I couldn't maintain a hard-on for more than a couple of minutes before it fizzled out on me."
"Eventually I got fed up with women and decided to get a twink."
"I couldn't understand how the female genitalia works. A penis is just so... intuitive. It works the way I work."
"I've been in a loving relationship with my life partner Lance for six months now. I can't imagine ever switching back."
Gay -- http://www.switch.gaymke.com/
"My name is Rod Hardcastle, and I'm a certified Apple dealer."
..that's what it's been called here on Lowendmac by some bloke.
I went into this expecting this to be the usual review of Jaguar: speed improvements, new programs like iChat, whoopie heard it all before. After reading a large chunk of the article and skimming the rest, I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Frankly, it's a much better introduction and manual for Jaguar than the one Apple puts out. I'll have to go through it all when I have time. Ultimately, he sums up Jaguar well:
But I will stop short of saying that Mac OS X has "matured." There remain too many "unfinished" corners of the OS. All the little details that used to separate Mac OS from more user-hostile OSes have not yet been added to Mac OS X. Even tiny things like the aesthetically unpleasing default placement of progress dialog boxes in the Finder (wedged into the upper-left corner of the screen, with no surrounding space) contribute to the feeling that there is still much work to be done to match the fit and finish of classic Mac OS. The one thing that I would add to that is that Jaguar has matured OS X to a point where the casual Mac user still on OS 9 should switch over.
10.0.x were for the true bleeding edge.
10.1.x were for most Mac users.
10.2 is for every Mac user.
A fairly computer illerate mac user asked me about a week ago if they should get Jaguar (10.2). I replied "With 10.2, there is no reason anyone with a machine that Apple says can run OS X is not running it."
Unless you are running a specialized application that does not run under Classic, there is no reason not to be running OS X if your machine supports it.
The speed, support, and stability are all there to make this a great operating system.
The fact that I was able to throw in an old video card, a spare 100Base-T card and a USB card into my G4 at once and have them all immediately recognized and supported is simply amazing. Apple has done wonderful work with this transition.
And I have a two-button scroll optical mouse natively supported, for everyone who might chime in with that.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
You can see he's UNIX/Mac hybrid user.
He tends to balance things out quite well without getting bogged down in stuff that is too far over people's heads or way below them. He strikes a good mix between the obvious and the not so obvious when it comes to what material to include in the text.
I agree with practically everything he commented on and although I haven't actually got a copy of Jaguar yet on my system, I've heard and read enough to know a great deal about it. This review has helped to outline some of the aspects not included in the mainstream reviews which, on the whole, tender to bend over backwards in Apple's favour.
The Finder and Metadata may sound old hat but they represent serious issues, as do the incorporation of the many missing featuress that are present in OS9.
It's good to see someone speaking out so openly on these subjects
John's review was very thorough, as usual. While the Mac enthusiast is bound to disagree with his overall sentiment, I think the review is a must-read for the deeply entrenched Linux fan.
I do think that he began picking at nits somewhat (who cares if people call it Jag-Wire), and ultimately, he drew all of his 10.2 comparisons on a combination of the earlier incarnations of itself (like 10.1) and some unknown ethereal ideal (like "PerfectOS, version 3").
The charts on window server performance with Quartz Extreme were pretty neat, and while the review does not offer an exhaustive look at Jaguar's new features, the information offered was remarkably detailed and helpful, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions.
I was really hoping to see more comparisons of OS X versus other Linux flavors, or even Windows or Solaris. Instead, the review often sounded almost adversarial and at least reactionary, which I could personally do without. Whether or not he had an axe to grind, John is a very talented writer and computer savant. This lengthy review is worth your time to read.
10.2 is oh so much nicer than previous releases, but I still wish for:
VT102 emulation (FKeys damnit) in terminal. GlTerm works for now. I guess.
At least an *option* for sloppy focus / click to raise - click-to-focus-and-raise just sucks ass.
Where is the 1400x1050 screen resolution? This res works just fine on my 19" Sony under Linux.
Can I please have a *global* icon size setting and a *global* view style - nav down through a folder heiarchy in 10.2 and the view will automagically switch from list view to icon view. Super annoying.
How about a 0-100% transparency setting for the dock.
An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess.
If Apple are serious about wooing *nix users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most of these are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.
(I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Why would we care what a PC-fanboy, mac hating, non-technical website would have to say about an Apple OS?
That they criticize weird things (like the placement of finder windows-- something I've never seen, they've been correctly placed for me.) or complain that its not windows does not surprise me.
This is like telling the world about a KKK review of a michael jackson album. Or letting us know that Microsoft doesn't yet recommend that we switch from windows to OS X.
I'm serious. IF there is a bastion of non-technical technical "opinion" ars technica is it. The only people who think they are an authority are non-technical people who don't know better.
Of course, I'm going to get modded down for "flamebait" by those mac haters who want to see mac bashing go unchecked. But its not flamebait or trolling when its true.
Like the guy wondering why Apple hasn't fixed the problem running 1400x12000 resolution on a 19 inch display-- its not a PROBLEM for Apple to Fix. Its the *correct* way things should work. Ars Technica is a collection of self-styled authorities who lack a basic understanding of computer technology.
Don't put them forth as an "unbiased" authority-- they are neither.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
"With 10.2, there is no reason anyone with a machine that Apple says can run OS X is not running it."
I have a feeling that I've seen it officially
stated somewhere that Blue and White G3's with
DVD drives and hardware decoding don't have DVD
playback under 10.2.
For me, that's a perfectly good reason not to run OS X.
Of all the system architecture pundits I've read, Siracusa is the most literate and intelligent. But he has a certain tendency to get bogged down in minor details and issues. Which keeps him from developing much influence outside the Mac user community. Which is a pity.
I can think of many reasons why "every" Mac user should not upgrade just yet. Maybe after 10.2.1 or 10.2.2.
For starters, there are still some basic things missing, or at very least not "user friendly". I spent a long time trying to figure out how to make Jaguar print to a Windows printer. Apple has been VERY careful about not saying Jaguar can do that, and rather goes with the more general statement of "Windows network compatibility".
It came down to me having to create a symbolic link between a samba utility and a CUPS directory. This is not something I would consider ready for every Mac user.
There's also some issues with applications becoming buggy with the release of Jaguar. Even Virtual PC is problematic since I updated to Jaguar. Is this Apple or Jaguar's fault. Not really, but updating to Jaguar IS the cause of some of my problems and instabilities with applications.
So, I'd say "every Mac user" should wait for 10.2.1 or 10.2.2...or at VERY least, wait for applications that you might use to release their updates for Jaguar compatibility.
And as for my background, I came through the Linux route, have several years experience as a *nix sys admin (small [.com startup] and big [IBM] systems). And now, I'm a senior software engineer.
Just my $0.02.
-Alex
The article comments on how Apple has gone out of its way to break third party menu extras and how apple blocks full functionality of a dock replacement.
.NET so that windows apps could be ported more easily... Apple would provide hardware, a kernal, and a PDF windowing system, but a third party would control the UI...
I don't mean to be an apologist for apple, but I can see a valid reason for doing this. I think apple wants to prevent any third party from replacing the dock (a menu extra could replace the dock). If a third party dock becomes very popular developers may decide to develop for it rather than use apple's dock and apple's APIs. Some sort of super-dock (or super-menu) could hijack OS X software development by offering extra functionality in an API that Apple doesn't have.
Say some developer decided to embrace and extend OS X by replacing the dock with a "task bar" that mimicked the windows look and feel and implemented
I know this is being paranoid... but I think it's reasonable for apple to keep control of the dock and the menu extras until they feel that their software has matured.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Nice review of Rendezvous:
Rendezvous is Apple's brand name for a technology that is hard to explain to the average computer user, and potentially even harder to market. I'm going to come at it from a few different angles. First, here is the (mildly) technical side of the story.
Technology
Rendezvous supports four important services.
1. IP interface auto-configuration.
2. Translation between host names and IP addresses.
3. Service discovery.
4. IP multicast address allocation.
The first two items sound like services you probably already have. Your network interfaces might automatically configure themselves by contacting a DHCP server. Translation between host names and IP addresses is done with the help of one or more DNS servers (possible also configured by your DHCP server). Service discovery sounds like something that's already handled by one of the many directory services that exist today (e.g. Active Directory on Windows.) The last item in the list sounds kind of esoteric. So who really needs these services?
The picture starts to become a bit clearer when the list of services is rewritten in terms of existing technologies in the same areas. How does this slightly revised list strike you?
1. Allocate addresses without a DHCP server.
2. Translate between names and IP addresses without a DNS server.
3. Find services, like printers, without a directory server.
4. Allocate IP Multicast addresses without a MADCAP server.
Suddenly we've gone from a list of seemingly uninteresting services to a set of capabilities that sound like magic! The last one still sounds a bit uninteresting, but it's actually a strong hint about how the whole system works.
Put simply, Rendezvous enables a local network of devices to configure themselves without the aid of any centralized servers. The key word here is "local", because Rendezvous only applies to a limited network domain. Rendezvous is not designed to scale to support the entire Internet. It is meant for small to medium sized networks.
All the magic happens through cooperation. Participating devices talk amongst themselves to sort out who has what address and what hostname, etc. This communication is done through the use of multicast IP addresses.
In order to bootstrap, all participating devices initially communicate using a "well-known" (i.e. pre-defined) multicast address. The first step is for each device to assign a unique IP address to all of its network interfaces. These so-called "self-assigned" addresses are taken from a special address block reserved for this purpose: 169.254/16.
(This address range may look familiar to those of you who have seen a machine fail to get an address from a DHCP server and then fall back by assigning itself (thus "self-assigned") an address in this range.)
Before continuing, it's important to note that these self-assigned addresses may be (and probably will be) assigned in addition to a device's "normal" Internet IP address. Remember that a single network interface can support multiple IP addresses.
Of course, the trick to self-assigned IP addresses is ensuring that no two hosts assign themselves the same one. To resolve these conflicts, Rendezvous-enabled hosts are able to "ask" simple questions (again, using well-known multicast IP addresses) such as "does anyone else have this address?" Address conflict resolution is actually done dynamically on an ongoing basis, rather than only once when a device is initially configured. This is possible because all Rendezvous services share the same dynamic configuration policy.
Take service number two, for example: translation between host names and IP addresses. Since IP addresses may change at any time due to the ongoing dynamic address conflict resolution, so too must hostname assignment and lookups be done dynamically on an ongoing basis. Again, well-known multicast IP addresses are used to ask questions such as "is anyone else using this hostname?" and "what IP address currently corresponds to the hostname 'foo'?"
Remember that there is no central server, so the answers to these types of questions come from the only authoritative source: the other hosts themselves. Each host is responsible for responding to questions about itself--questions that only it can answer with certainty.
Note that these Rendezvous hostnames only have meaning within the current network and exist in addition to any "normal" Internet hostnames that may be associated with the device.
Given this ad-hoc network of devices, the third item, "service discovery", is straightforward. Devices ask the network at large, "is anyone providing the service 'foo'?" Any device on the network that is providing the requested service will respond, saying "I am providing that service."
Finally we get to the last item in the list: IP multicast address allocation. This service is used to dynamically allocate application-specific multicast IP addresses. Rather than using "well known" multicast addresses (which every device is listening on) for all communications, devices can request the use of a private multicast address for a given network scope. As you'd expect by now, all participating devices cooperate to share the finite pool of multicast addresses pulled from the address block reserved for this purpose.
In truth, these services have all been provided by earlier technologies like AppleTalk, NetBIOS, and IPX. The first thing that makes Rendezvous different is that it is an open standard. Rendezvous is merely Apple's name for its implementation of the technologies proposed by the Zero Configuration Networking (Zeroconf) workgroup of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Apple does not "own" the technology any more than it owns IP networking or any other Internet standard.
The second thing that makes Rendezvous different is that it is built using existing IP networking technology. It communicates using standard IP networking. It uses standard DNS request packets for name resolution. Device and multicast addresses are allocated from address blocks explicitly reserved for this purpose. There is nothing proprietary or vendor-specific about it, and it is designed to work on existing IP networks without requiring any changes to them and without causing interference of any kind.
Network administrators reading all of this may have reservations as they envision network broadcast storms and other unfriendly behaviors that were exhibited by earlier proprietary protocols. The Zeroconf specification was written with this in mind, however, and there are restrictions on such behavior. It remains to be seen exactly how much less "chatty" the first implementations of Zeroconf really are, but the use of existing packet formats and addressing techniques will certainly give it a big head start on proprietary protocols that need to have each of their proprietary packets "wrapped" in standard IP packets before transmission.
History
A look at the history of Rendezvous is also instructive. As mentioned earlier, Rendezvous is Apple's brand name for its implementation of the Zeroconf standard. Zeroconf, in turn, traces its roots back to a discussion on a Macintosh network programmers' mailing list in 1997. The idea was to give IP networks the same ease of use enjoyed by AppleTalk networks.
Since 1997, Apple itself has made a transition from AppleTalk to IP networking, and in the process it has lost some of its historic ease of use. So it is not surprising that a standard designed to make IP networking more friendly was originated and eventually ended up in use at Apple.
With each foray into the world of standards, Apple is improving both its behavior and its success rate. The Bad Old Apple suffered from a severe case of Not Invented Here syndrome, insisting on inventing its own proprietary standards for just about everything. This often allowed Apple to leapfrong existing technologies, especially in the area most important to Apple: ease of use. AppleTalk is a great example of this. It provided a very friendly networking experience to the masses long before ease of use was even a consideration for most other networking standards.
The disadvantage of proprietary standards is that it's very difficult to get them adopted by the rest of the industry. No one wants to tie part of their business to a technology owned and controlled by a competitor. A standard that does not get adopted by the rest of the industry suffers in several ways. First, the entire cost of development must continue to be shouldered by a single company, rather than shared across the entire industry. Second, a smaller market means lower volumes, higher prices, and fewer choices. Finally, inevitably, industry-wide open standards eventually catch up with the proprietary technology, rendering it an island of interoperability.
AppleTalk suffered all of these fates. Apple's choice to move away from AppleTalk and towards IP networking was unavoidable, largely due to the explosion of the Internet. But this change met with some resistance because IP networking had not yet caught up to AppleTalk in terms of ease of use. Rendezvous finally closes the gap, providing the few remaining AppleTalk-like services that IP networking lacked.
More importantly, Apple has accomplished this not by defining a new, proprietary Apple-only extension to IP networking, but by working "within the system" to help define an open standard that is compatible with existing networks.
It's certainly a lot easier (and quicker) to unilaterally create a new proprietary standard. This interview with Stuart Cheshire, the chairman of the Zeroconf working group and an Apple employee, gives some insight into the difficulties of convincing the IETF that "ease of use" was even an important quality for IP networking to have. Here's what he had to say on the topic:
The IETF is generally populated by people who care very little for ease-of-use [...] Even today, it remains a something of a minority view in the IETF. Most IETF people work for router vendors, ISPs, backbone providers, telephone companies, etc., and their focus is wide-area networking. If you work for a company that makes routers, you've not going to be very excited about technology that lets computers communicate directly, without needing a router. If you work for a company that sells a DHCP server, you've not going to be very excited about technology that lets computers communicate without needing a DHCP server. If you work for a company that sells DNS servers, you've not going to be very excited about technology that lets computers communicate without needing a DNS server. I'm sure you get the point.
But ease of use is incredibly important to the end user, and will only become more important as more potentially networkable products are introduced. So, finally, let's look at Rendezvous from the perspective of the consumer.
So, when they actually go about reviewing Macintosh products; OS, Apps, Hardware, or otherwise; you can't really take them with much more than a grain of salt. Shortcomings will be exaggerated, and advantages will be understated. It's a guarantee, based on their proudly admitted bias.
It all goes right along with their being wintel drones. Remember a while back when they put a considerable amount of verbage into "debunking" the advantages of RISC, in their efforts to be intel's "CISC rul3z" fan boys?
The new dual optical drive towers are shipping with build 6C125 rather than the 6C115 that shiped in the jaguar retial boxes. Could anybody explain the difference?
I've been wondering why I've been waiting six weeks for a fairly straightforward XServe custom configuration to ship. As the ITWorld article pointed out, the demand has been higher than Apple anticipated due to new commercial sales.
As an educational user used to fast turnaround on orders, there's some compensation in noting the extra wait reflects Apple picking up new business with enterprise server resellers.
Awright!
On MacSlash, until Siracusa sees the light shining out of my ass on the evils of HFS+ metadata, he's just one more Mac bigot.
The way Classic MacOS worked with regard to file types was unforgivable. That he wants them to go back to it is ludicrous. I don't care about file type being encoded in the filename; it's better than letting a publisher tell you with what program you will read their documents.
--Matthew
Exhibit A
This screen is not specific to the installer. All Macs running Jaguar will show this image when starting up. Also, note the total lack of color...you know, just in case Mac OS X ever needs to boot on a device without a color screen... (cue X-Files music ;-)
Exhibit B
As fun as Ink is to play with, its presence in Jaguar is a bit puzzling. Its recognition ability isn't really all that bad--my handwriting is mostly to blame for the comical results above. But a keyboard is a much more efficient (and accurate) input method. The only logical conclusion is that Ink is the first step towards hardware that can run Mac OS X but lacks a keyboard. Although waiting for an Apple tablet or PDA is like waiting for Godot, what other possible conclusion can be drawn? Does Apple really think that pen-based text input will ever be used when a keyboard is available. Like I said, puzzling...
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
PC stands for personal computer. The Macintosh is a personal computer.
Don't agree? Then what is the architecture of the CPU in all modern Macs? The PowerPC.
Yes, Ars are a PC resource. However, Ars never claimed to be only an x86 PC resource.
(And before you bring up some "IBM compatible" crap, remember that AIM designed the PowerPC, and what the I stands for...)
Like the Address Book, iChat is another brushed metal application. Unlike Address Book, it is not clear why it's brushed metal. As far as I can tell, it isn't an "interface for a digital peripheral", or an "interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals", nor does it "strive to re-create a familiar physical device." It's just...metal.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Before continuing, it's important to note that these self-assigned addresses may be (and probably will be) assigned in addition to a device's "normal" Internet IP address. Remember that a single network interface can support multiple IP addresses.
Either I misunderstand what he means, or he is just plain wrong. He is talking about Rendezvous, which will assign automatically an IP address to an interface - this IP will be a non-routable IP, for a LAN, so that the device can function with other devices on the LAN. It is entirely pointless to assign a non-routable IP to an interface which has a real (Internet) IP. Yes, a single network interface can support multiple addresses (aliases), but these are usually (and supposed to be) on the same network, in the same netmask.
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a
This article, though very thorough from a geek's p.o.v., almost completely ignores the graphic design/creative market. What about printer support/scanner support/Quark support/XTension support/Acrobat Distiller support/speed improvements for design apps? That's the stuff that's going to sell 10.2 to the already-Mac-user crowd. I need that to convince my boss that it's not just a great OS for home, but also work. I need justification for an OS 9 creative office to upgrade to the goodness that is OS X.
Multiple paragraphs on the Terminal app (though useful) don't help sell it to the installed Mac user base that MS complains hasn't Switched. A little more info for the right demographics would be great.
He ingored the information about how more than one API was broken in 10.2, and thus resulting in things like CD support for Windows being broken as well.
My point is that 10.2 has some rather tender flesh on it's bones, and until 10.2.1 etc. come out, there are many areas that shouldn't be reviewed just yet.
His article is flowery and premature...wait a while and this will be obvious. OS X 10.2 is a teenager with acne. Let it's balls drop before you write about it's ability to get off the porch and run with the BDs.
Not when you consider that John overlooked some state of this release. He could have waited for the first update and done the world a bigger favor.
... let's get down to the nitty gritty. Jaguar marks
the first public release of these APIs, and there are several fairly
big known problems and issues already that we want you to be aware of.
The largest number of issues are in the filesystem generation code.
Read this from the disc recording developer list...
==============
First things first
Known issues in 6C115:
(1) [Content] ISO-9660/Joliet broken - there are problems in the ISO/Joliet structures written to disc which make files deeper than the root directory unreadable on Windows 2000 and XP. (Specifically, the parent directory pointers in the path table are incorrect.) Some ISO-9660/Joliet implementations can read these discs successfully, but you should not rely upon them to work everywhere.
(2) [Content] Virtual filesystem hierarchies broken - the APIs to create and burn virtual hierarchies (DRFile.h, DRFolder.h, DRContentFile.h, and DRContentFolder.h) do not work. You will get an error when burning, and in some cases may crash due to a bad pointer reference inside the filesystem generator.
(3) [Content] HFS+ CDs report a (harmless) "bitmap needs minor repair" when run through Disk First Aid.
(4) [CoreEngine, DiscRecUI] Certain notifications having to do with the drive tray state may not be sent. When a disc is ejected via the keyboard eject button, or when the tray is opened via the front panel eject button on the drive, you are supposed to get a device status changed notification, but won't. This is visible in the DiscRecording UI components as well; we're waiting on a bugfix and an additional feature from IOKit before this will work.
(5) [Content] Virtual links (symlinks, aliases) are mostly untested and may not work correctly. (6) [Content] UDF is not yet available in the first release.
(7) [DiscRecUI] Carbon/C APIs to the UI components are not yet available in the first release.
That's all I have on my notepad at the moment. The good news is, the first three have been fixed already and scheduled for release with the first Jaguar update. I don't have timeframes available for when, other than "soon". The remainder are being worked on but I don't have timeframes available for those either.
This page is the best, it mentions the coolest screensaver I've ever seen: Marine Aquarium. And it describes other fun things you can do leverage the power of Quartz Extreme. I'd love to have a QE compatible video card to enable this screensaver as my desktop using that nice little comannd line: /System/Library/Frameworks/ScreenSaver.framework/R esources/ScreenSaverEngine.app/Contents/MacOS/Scre enSaverEngine -background
This is a very nice piece of software, thanks for the link.
:-)
Space always seemed to be the kind of app that leaves things completely messed up once it crashes. That feeling does not come back with Virtual Desktop.
Neat.
The author complains about how pointless the feature of Tablet Gestures are and "why would you use this if you had a keyboard infront of you?"
This guy obviously hasn't seen Minority Report with the hand-gesture interface - can't he see that this is where apple wants to go!!? Now THAT would be sweet!
Does this make my brain look big?
defaults write com.apple.Terminal TerminalOpaqueness 0.0
When you open a new terminal it will be 100% transparent. any value between 0.0 and 1.0 (0% to 100%) will change the opaqueness.
Hey! Do you think you could tell me what you had to do with Samba and CUPS? I just finished compiling/beating Samba 2.2.5 (because the provided 2.2.Suck wouldn't read my 2.2.5 smb.conf) and I had to turn off CUPS support in order to get it to compile.
Apple iPhone Rumors Resurface
I was foolish enough to attempt it without Quartz Extreme running "Flurry"... Let's just say I got to know the SPoD (Spinning Pizza of Death) more intimately than I had ever anticipated...
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Filename extensions where invented back in command line days. They made a certain amount of sense when you didn't have a lot of different file types, or a robust file system for keeping track of them. Now you have dozens and dozens of file types.
File extensions are just not adequate to record this level of information. Too many have multiple meanings. (My favorite example is .WMZ, which means "Compressed Skin" to a certain media player and "Compressed graphic metafile" to a certain office suite -- both from the same company!) And how are users supposed to deal with them? If you have to specify an extension every time you copy or rename a file, Captain Murphy will make sure you get it wrong at the worst possible time. (Even worse for non-techies, who often don't know/forget that extensions are important, or can't remember all the ones they need to know.) If you leave it up the system, you're at the mercy of applications that play with extension associations without telling you and that impose "descriptions" that are more advertisements than useful classifications.
If there are problems with the way Classic does metadata, that's an implementation issue, not a flaw in the concept. Anyway, is file-type fascism on the Mac any worse that extension stealing on Windows?
If I have an issue with Siracusa about metadata, it's that his arguments on the subject tend to wander into obscure abstractions and complicated psychophilosophical rants. Computer science has some arcane roots, but computer people are a pragmatic bunch -- you can only convince them with specifics.
I have to comment on your use of the word "bigot". My American Heritage Dictionary defines "bigot" as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Dismissing other people's opinions by with simplistic stereotypes and scatological insults would seem to fit that definition.
And here's why .xxx extension based crap? I wants my types and creators in the damn files. Put the info in the headers fer god's sake and ax the foocking extensions
1) bass ackwards command keys. Command N should be NEW FILE. Not new window. I live by my shortcuts and that's just stupid.
2) Where the HELL did file selection ala keyboard go in open and save dialogs? You can't type the name of your file and select your file. ARRRRGGH! Die Steve Die!
3) Where is the Type and Creator info? Why in the name of all that is holy and good did Apple drop that for the
4) LET ME RENAME MY SYSTEM FOLDER WHEN I WANT TO.
5) There is NO graphical indicators to indicate when you should single click or double click on an item. I find this very disconcerting. Save me Tog! Save me!
Oh, I'll spare everyone at this point lest I rant.
Oops.
It seems that details that matter to the Few, the proud, the hardcore Mac faithful aren't there. I can get the pinwheel of death to show in a g4 667 or a g3 400 just by doing basic stuff.
The fine tuning that made 9 WORK for me that I live on is not there. For me, Unix is user hostile and it may be the underpinnings of a stable foundation for the OS but I want to be even more isolated from it.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Known issues in 6C115:
(1) [Content] ISO-9660/Joliet broken
Say, a question for you. Why is there zero discussion of Mt Rainier support on the DiscRecording list? I understand that fixing 9660 is more important, but Rainier should at least be in development by now.
Even if that's not what you meant to say, somebody had to shoot down your linkage of metadata technology with Mac true-believers. Look, every theory has its kneejerk, dittohead followers. Has nothing to do with whether the theory is right or wrong.
You said "Until Siracusa [figures out how dumb his opinions are] he's just one more Mac bigot". Only with a rude, contemptuous metaphor to express the concept in square brackets. Does anyone else here not see this as dismissal? Don't all raise your hands at once!First you identify Siracusa with his less intelligent followers, then you say, "it's not him, it's his followers." I think we need another Venn diagram.
As for your trauma in being forced to converse with uncritical Siracusa true-believers -- well, that doesn't mean you're not a bigot. You're still rudely dismissing Siracusa, you're just using the actions of other people to justify doing so. In other words you're a self-justifying bigot. Most bigots are.
OK, now that's actually a technical argument. And it's even a valid point. I have to confess ignorance of exactly how extensions work in OS X. I gather there are extension-handling feature that are better than those in Windows. But as long as a user can mung the data type of a file just by changing its name, I don't see how you can complete (or even mostly) avoid the problems I describe.I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
over 10 years old, and where is berlin/fresco/directfb/picogui etc etc adnauseum....
...you should unclench, fanboy. Oh yeah, apple has had MANY more firsts than linux ever will (and if it's been opensource all along, why is it always behind in desktop tech?) Again I say, great server (so is OSX too), but your claim of better FASTER (due to the age of linux now) just does'nt seem accurate...it's been actively developed for so long, yet still all the zealots claim "...when xxxx feature is in the next kernel ... or ...wait for xxxxx to get out of beta at sourceforge blah blah..." how great linux WILL be, but isn't YET !!
both are great
Sorry, it's contrary to Apple's own pundits on UI design: if you want to edit document x, manipulating x is the correct way for the interface to let you do it. Opening random application y is not the correct way, whether y is the application you want to edit x in or an application to let you control which application x is edited in.
Uh, you mean like whenever you double click on a document? Duh!
I guess the only topic you really care about who, "Who's the biggest jerk." You'll excuse me if I go look for a more interesting topic...
That was being a jerk?
I'd hate to see what sort of words you reserve for punks that can't understand a technical discussion and instead go in for incessant personal attacks.
Oh yeah, you call those people fm6.
--Matthew
And I'll spare you the account of my tears of joy when USB printer sharing both a) worked again and b) was way more pleasant than under MacOS 9. Wow. You really have to see this to believe it.
Babar