Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Fink's Project Leader
Gentu writes "There is a interesting interview over at OSNews with Fink's project leader, Max Horn. They discuss Fink's relationship with Apple, integration of their Unix/Linux ports to Mac OS X via Debian's packaging solution, ease of use on installation of the .deb packages, AltiVec optimizations and more."
Fink is working very closely together with the Opendarwin project. However each project hasi its inherent problems and advantages and many Mac os X user need or want open source software support. The Fink Project provides this kind of support. I would appreciate it, if you put more effort into gathering information before you go about shouting and yelling. If you still feel that we should put different kind of efforts into other projects or share more of our own work then you are free to dicsuss this with all of us on our fink-devel mailing list. You are very welcome to join.
And just so you can rest assured. I do not only have Macs at home, apart from Risc machines and some rather espteric hardware, i am also urring PC's with a vast variety of Operating systems.
And why on earth do you say that the Fink-developers wouldn't like Apple? Think about it - by making all those applications available to the Mac OS X users they're actually helping Apple. What about Apple's X11 port? Users running X11 on Mac OS X heavily rely on Fink for their software.
Why should the Fink-developers run PCs instead of Macs? Why should they abandon the opportunity to run their favourite X11 applications on top of a killer OS? (and not only X11 apps but all the other great software the Fink-developers have made available)
You don't make sense.
No... Apple is a problem. They can't seem to get that NIH attitude out of their heads even when they go open source. Fink and GNU/Darwin are clean up efforts in reponse to Apple's failure to:
1. Offer a true package manager like the one on NeXT that they are using, sans all of its useful features.
2. X11 from day one. This may be the one thing that would have made MacOS X 1.0 useable AND would have convinced more traditional workstation users that Apple is serious about open environments. The official X11 for OS X package remains in beta to this day.
3. Fully embrace a mainstream open source OS. Using FreeBSD at arms-length with a kernel of questionable performance and need does NOT make for a main-stream OS. I don't care how black-turtle-kneck-sweater cool the MACH kernel is - I don't want to use it if I'm paying a performance penalty or can't build it as easily as a FreeBSD kernel.
I am aware that their fully-adopting Linux or FreeBSD, in their rapidly-evolving, somewhat moving-target states would be a major LEAP OF FAITH but haven't they already made such a leap by going semi-open source? If they aren't ready with a mechanism for weekly or daily patches, they must not realize what they have signed up for and are NOT leveraging as many deveoplers as possible. I see this as a clear reminder of their Not Invented Here attidude. What, Not Debugged Here?
Mind you these are the words of a guy who has waited for MacOS X from the moment he discovered NeXTStep. OS X is good but could be so much better. NetBSD's compat_darwin gives us hope that a real BSD drop-in for OS X could happen but again, this sure looks like a lot of time spent CLEANING UP Apple's kinda-open-source mess.
MD
Instead of trying to create software that piggybacks on GNU/OS X why aren't they working on GNU/Darwin?
You're missing the whole purpose of Fink. It's a porting project. Of course there's coding work involved, but the idea is to get software that runs on other unices to work on OS X / Apple Darwin.
"First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
Fink is the unix tool on OSX. Whenever you need a linux/unix library or a software that isn't available on X, you install it with dselect without any problems most of the time. You can still download the source and try to compile it but hey, fink does that.
Yum, a troll.
"They can't seem to get that NIH attitude out of their heads even when they go open source."
You mean like USB, Ultra ATA, and Gigabit Ethernet? Yeah! Apple needs to be more standards compliant damn it and support... oh, they *do* support them and have for quite some time.
Or do you mean things like gcc3.1, gprof, XFree86, libtool, automake, KHTML, &c?
"Fink and GNU/Darwin are clean up efforts in reponse to Apple's failure to:"
You do realize that it isn't Apple's responsability to do everything for you?
Boo hoo! it didn't ship with TeTeX, how am I ever supposed to do my document typesetting! They must not be serious about the Unix community or they would include such essentials that of course 90+% of their userbase--both users and developers--is going to use.
" X11 from day one. "
I don't suppose that you have heard of the XonX project?
"useable AND would have convinced more traditional workstation users that Apple is serious about open environments."
This statement does not grok. Most "tradiational workstation users" don't give a damn whether Apple is "serious about open environments."
"The official X11 for OS X package remains in beta to this day."
Considering it was released in January and we are on Beta 3 right now, which is more than useable. It took Mozilla how long to get through its own Beta stage?
"Fully embrace a mainstream open source OS. "
'They have done so much that no-one else in the field ever has... but damn them! They aren't doing enough!'
Am I getting the gist of your argument?
You do realize that, for the vast majority of us, we try to use what works best for us and do not choose our platform soley on the basis of religious zeal.
" I don't care how black-turtle-kneck-sweater cool the MACH kernel is"
The variant of mach they are using is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike mach. It has been so heavily revised it isn't even funny.
"If they aren't ready with a mechanism for weekly or daily patches,"
You mean like CVS?
Incidentally, so Apple left something for groups to do--such as produce fink--what is your point?
Also, am I the only one who doesn't install the newest library just because its available? Seriously, you do realize I have software that I need to have work?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
"Instead of trying to create software that piggybacks on GNU/OS X why aren't they working on GNU/Darwin?"
Maybe because there isn't such a thing as GNU/OS X?
Less flippantly (but only slightly): Maybe because the purpose of fink is to improve the ease of UNIX integration with Apple's MacOS X?
"It seems to me that they don't like apple very much for some reason."
You must not have read the same article I did.
The one that said:
<<Overall, the mood at Apple seems to be friendly towards Fink, they refer to us in various places of their homepage, for example.>>
" Political reasons maybe?"
No, it would be for "political reasons" if they suddenly started working working exclusively on the GNU-Darwin project.
"Maybe they should have bought PCs instead of a MAC and run linux."
You do realize that it isn't an acronym? Mac, short for Macintosh.
You also realize that most of us use OSX because we happen to like OSX and because it works for us? *Not* for solely political reasons?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Seriously though - Fink allows me to do this.
"They can't seem to get that NIH attitude out of their heads even when they go open source."
>Or do you mean things like gcc3.1, gprof, XFree86, libtool, automake, KHTML, &c?
Do a search for the bugs Apple has introduced to IPSec and GCC. Where on the Jaguar disc can I find XFee86?
"Fink and GNU/Darwin are clean up efforts in reponse to Apple's failure to:"
>You do realize that it isn't Apple's responsability to do everything for you?
You don't find that Apple is again returning to an era of having a full-featured OS (in the BSD sense of the term) and a broad application suite? I can safely say they ARE trying to do everything for me and let's try an analogy:
Why can't Apple's out-of-the-box Unix be as compelling to RedHat users as say, their Final Cut Pro is to Avid users?
I don't want to get into "my Apple loyalty is bigger than yours" but it is my 13-year admiration of their complete product line that makes me so critical of their half (3/4?)-hearted OSS unix implementation.
I am baffled by your defense of MacOS X 1.0 not shipping with a working package manager and X11 implenation out of the box by saying it has them years later thanks to a number of third party projects. Most people simply say "it's aimed at consumers yadda yadda."
If I am such a trolling idiot, explain how I perform the equivalent of 'rpm -e apache' on a freshly-installed Mac OS X box? Where's the built-package manager? NeXT had it?
Look at the Darwin discs you download. The installer relies on packages, but then doesn't and the whole idea is swept under the table.
Kudos to Fink and and GNU/Darwin to finding workarounds to this situation. I simply don't understand why it is a problem in the first place. Going from RedHat's out-of-the box *nix environment to Apple's was a step back for me, clearly it was not for you.
" X11 from day one. "
>I don't suppose that you have heard of the XonX project?
That was on Mac OS X 1.0 install disc 3?
"useable AND would have convinced more traditional workstation users that Apple is serious about open environments."
This statement does not grok. Most "tradiational workstation users" don't give a damn whether Apple is "serious about open environments."
These guys seem to: www.macdevcenter.com Do you put O'Reilly and Associates in the same Trolling Idiot category as you put me?
"The official X11 for OS X package remains in beta to this day."
>Considering it was released in January and we are on Beta 3 right now, which is more than useable. It took Mozilla how long to get through its own Beta stage?
Perhaps I've failed to make my point that in my humble opinion, Mac OS X 1.0 should have shipped with an X11 implementation right out of the box given that is shipping with say... developer tools.
We seem to disagree on this point.
"Fully embrace a mainstream open source OS. "
>'They have done so much that no-one else in the field ever has... but damn them! They aren't doing enough!'
At what point did I say they need a single additional piece of code other than those they are working, short of working package manager, which they had in NeXT? I will dig up the links to the IPSec and GCC bugs if you like. If you think shipping broken code is the same as 1.0 release, I am find disagreeing on that too.
>Am I getting the gist of your argument?
>You do realize that, for the vast majority of us, we try to use what works best for us and do not choose our platform soley on the basis of religious zeal.
??? I've gone from Troll to religious zealot? I just want a working package manager and X11 out of the box! This requires sacrificing a chicken?
" I don't care how black-turtle-kneck-sweater cool the MACH kernel is"
>The variant of mach they are using is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike mach. It has been so heavily revised it isn't even funny.
So they've establishe
Wow! I will take the time to address this out of the sheer enjoyment, AC. Keep square in your mind that I am both an over dozen-year supporter of Apple (hence my concerns) AND I voted for Gore.
... He heard about it, thought it was a good idea, supported it, and hey look! You fucking use it, and I bet 90% or more of the people you know use it or have used it at one time."
YES, it is a dated joke but "raping a dead horse?" This will require a recount from the judges.
Here goes:
"Gore never said he invented the Internet.
In support of your vulgar but correct argument, he helped make it free of taxation and other government restraints to its growth. Go GORE! Indeed, the results have been extremely positive and billions use it every day. Only recently have laws been introduced to stifle its use in the thinly-veiled name of fascism. Going out on a limb here... You are probably upset by what you are seeing on your television set and opted to take that aggression out on my friendly jab at the man who one the popular vote in the last (dare I say LAST) election.
"So what you really mean to say is. You look forward to an announcement that Apple is going to increase and/or continue its support of OSS, because it thinks its a great idea. Now which one of those do you think is more likely?"
Uh, you're giving me a choice between "increase" and "continue?" I supposedly I'd like "increase" but "continue" will do.
"Yeah, that's what I thought."
Which did I choose?
"It's not what you know, it's who you know. This is something everyone over the age of 20 should understand. Knowing people = connection = good thing."
So Al will increase Apple's commitment to OSS? I'm all for that.
"Al Gore was the VP of the United States of America. Although our current leader is no genius, I'd argue that Gore is an intelligent guy."
I agree completely and voted for him accordingly. I told my friends, "I want the guy who knows what an IP address." Yes, silly but true and hopefully is a lesson to you that my jab at his gaff is NOT a position statement in any way shape or form, given MY SUPPORT OF HIM.
""
Al, is that you?
Michael.
"Do a search for the bugs Apple has introduced to IPSec and GCC."
No need, I am dealing with a bug in Apple's gcc3.1 as we speak.
In response I use Apple's gcc for things where the bugs do not exist and gcc3.3 (compiled from cvs) for times when they do. A good craftsman never blames his tools, but always tries to make sure that his tools are up to his own specification.
Apple did introduce a few bugs, they also removed a few. It's the way it goes.
"Where on the Jaguar disc can I find XFee86?""
What you are doing here is called "not reading what I wrote".
"I can safely say they ARE trying to do everything for me and let's try an analogy:"
Not at all. Not all of their machines ship with AppleWorks, for instance (mine didn't), QuickBooks is not in-house by any means, and they are (or at least were) offering a steeply discounted version of Microsoft Office.
They are not trying to do a lot of things for me. I have to purchase Keynote separately, download TeTeX on my own, &c. Considering how small of a percentage of users ever write anything in LaTeX or see LaTeX code...
"Why can't Apple's out-of-the-box Unix be as compelling to RedHat users as say, their Final Cut Pro is to Avid users?"
This would be called a "false analogy".
"I don't want to get into 'my Apple loyalty is bigger than yours' but it is my 13-year admiration of their complete product line"
I've been using macs since 1984 and have owned or had as family computers over 10 macs (Original, Plus, SE, LC, Centris 650, 7100, G3MT, iMac, iBook, and a 12" PowerBook). I used to subscribe to the MacMarines mailing list and was (and still am) a Mac Evangelist.
I also have done a lot of work with Linux and ran my systems in dual boot (with LinuxPPC or MkLinux, depending on the system) until the release of MacOS X 10.1.
Yes, I also ran MacOS X 10.0 and even the MacOS X 10.0 Public Beta.
"ot shipping with a working package manager "
Is it annoying? Sure. Can it be worked around? Easily and through commonly available (and easily installable) means. Therefore I do not complain.
"explain how I perform the equivalent of 'rpm -e apache' on a freshly-installed Mac OS X box?"
1) Apache comes preinstalled.
2) Try fink.sourceforge.net
3) Once again, this is called "not reading what I wrote"
"Kudos to Fink and and GNU/Darwin to finding workarounds to this situation."
I don't consider it "a workaround," I consider it "adding useful functionality to a system."
There is a *big* difference between those two.
". I simply don't understand why it is a problem in the first place."
Neither do I (though I have a few guesses involving Apple's tech support getting swamped with phone calls from people trying to install Unix software and thinking that Apple supported it since they were using an Apple utility), however, considering we are on 10.2, and are about to go to 10.3, Apple mentions Fink on their website, and now Apple has a publically available X11 implementation, why are you still up in arms?
"That was on Mac OS X 1.0 install disc 3?"
Once again, "not reading what I wrote."
I don't care whether it was on the 10.0 install disc. I doubt I could *find* my copy of the 10.0 install disc if I went looking for it.
Also, when it is readily available via the internet or through CDs, why is it a problem if it doesn't ship with it? Oh boo hoo, it takes that much longer to get working?
"These guys seem to: www.macdevcenter.com Do you put O'Reilly and Associates in the same Trolling Idiot category as you put me?"
I'm going to venture a guess that they would be chugging along just fine if XonX were the only implementation of XFree86 involved on the Mac and we all were using OrobusOSX.
They are also not "traditional workstation users" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what you claimed. Nor do they seem to be whining, like what yo
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
You said:
"Congratulations, you just demonstrated a complete and total lack of knowledge of how the proprietary software cycle works."
Indeed, I naively assumed that Apple's Open Source OS initiative would deliver a few system administration tools (such as a full-featured package manager) that I had taken for granted under RedHat Linux. Ha ha on me. Moving on, thank you Fink for filling the gap. I admire your endurance as an Apple apologetic. I lost that zeal years ago.
Peace.
It's true that Mac OS X is probably the only modern Unix variant that doesn't ship with X11 by default (yet), but has it ever occurred to you that the reason for that may be that Mac OS X already has a different window manager on board (while for the others it's either XWindows or nothing) which is much more important to most Mac users? I really don't understand why you are so obsessed with X11 not being included by default.
Those "mainstream open source OS"'s lacked several key features Apple needed in its OS at the time Mac OS X development started and they are only now catching up. Which features? For example proper smp support (multi-processor Macs finally had to be able to their fullest potential), proper real-time support (Final Cut Pro anyone?) and low latency support (low-level audio, user interface).I really don't understand why you think Apple should do everything based on open source. What is the problem with using existing stuff of which you think it's done well, and do other things (of which you think you can do them better) yourself? What is the problem with first focussing on your largest user base (Mac users) and only when you're confident you're on the right track there, starting to spend resources on other target groups?
I'm not trying to be elitist here, I'm just trying to point out that Apple is a company with a small market share and thus it can't take very large gambles (it doesn't control the market). You call opening the Darwin source (and several other packages) a leap of faith, but there's no large risk involved there. At worst, it has cost them a bit extra in terms of bandwidth and HD space. On the other hand, it gave/gives them extra publicity, it makes it much easier for driver developers and they get some free bug fixing in the process. On top of that, the open source world also benefits from it, so it's a win-win (or WIN-win for Apple according to a lot of people, but even then everyone still gains) situation.
Donate free food here
-1 Lame
"You are now already complaining that Apple ships some buggy stuff. Do you think the situation would improve if they started shipping a lot more programs?"
.1's-late release of these cannot be considered a loss of features/functionality? I just want, if anything to 'rpm -e' the default apache and have the option of replacing it with one in a standard package that conforms to Apple's package guidlines, which exist, really. If somehow you think that it is perfectly logical not to be able to remove/uninstall a package you've added, try searching for "how do I remove a package in OS X." You will find that people disagree with you. YES, I know, removing the default apache could break something and compromise Apple's ease-of-use. That same logic dictates that they shouldn't have included the command line.
I perceived a desire (personal and in others) for (1) a native package manager in OS X (just as existed long ago in NeXTStep) and (2) and X11 package... just as existed for NeXTStep long ago (granted, not out of the box).
How do you guys keep interpreting this as a request for "a lot more programs?" Am I going out on a limb to suggest that the loss or three
Help me here, please: It is illogical to think that having a default apache and a Fink-installed apache is redundant? Obviously I am missing something.
"Red Hat also didn't create/port all that software themselves, nor are all the maintainers Red Hat employees. Linux is simply a more established/older Unix variant, so more software has already been ported to it and thoroughly tested."
Mac OS X's Darwin is based on NeXTStep. NeXTStep shipped in 1988. How is Linux older? Going out on a limb... maybe in OSS years if you compare the man hours spend inside Apple on Darwin to those outside working on Linux but calendar years are calendar years.
"What do developer tools have to do with X11? You can perfectly create programs that have nothing to do with X11. In fact, a non-X11 program is likely to be of much greater value (in the sense of usability and attractiveness) to the Mac community than an X11 program."
I am getting a very mixed message from you, Apple and the gentleman who reamed me earlier that Mac OS X IS, and ISN'T a recognized out-of-the-box *nix flavor. The topic at hand (Fink) seems to go, "it is, but it ins't, but it really is if you add Fink." So it isn't? You should port to Aqua and Carbon, not compile the code you have, and perhaps used on Ultrix, NeXT, Linux and now Mac OS X?
"It's true that Mac OS X is probably the only modern Unix variant that doesn't ship with X11 by default (yet), but has it ever occurred to you that the reason for that may be that Mac OS X already has a different window manager on board (while for the others it's either XWindows or nothing) which is much more important to most Mac users? I really don't understand why you are so obsessed with X11 not being included by default."
Clearly we are not talking about the needs of "most mac users." That's an easy out and we're talking about Apple's addressing the needs of *nix users. I guess here's my hangup: I'm not sure if the unix admin in me should consider Mac OS X a slow-to-catch-up joke of a Unix or the Mac guy in me should weep in gratitude at Apple's boots for throwing me scraps of *nix features that are taken for granted on other *nix systems. Perhaps the end-all-be-all flame-war topic is in order: Is Mac OS X really *nix?
"It's BSD, making it more UNIX than Linux" "It has no X11, what do you mean it's *nix?" And on and on. (Two of your own points, one turned around given the history.)
"Those "mainstream open source OS"'s lacked several key features Apple needed in its OS at the time Mac OS X development started and they are only now catching up."
Started when Steve left Apple to form NeXT? Granted, there was no NeXT SMP. Out of curiosity, has anyone benchmarked the GNU/Darwin kernel vs. GNU/Linux?
"I really don't understand why you think Apple should do everything base
Sir, I salute your trolling abilities!
Here's my own opinion on what distingusihed gnu darwin from fink. While Gnu/darwin portrays it self as a GNU extension for OSX it really wants to mostly replace the core functions of the command line interface. FOr example, when you install it it overwrites make, tar and other key programs with its own versions. These can be fixed by fiddling with links and such but its a nightmare when all of a sudden your make files (like all of fink) break.
in contrast fink, in the apple manner, installs it self in its own files system where it can easilty be separate from the apple core system. It uses the apple tools and when it cant installs its own in its own filesystem not in /bin. Its easy to unistall or re-install. it may get broken by a apple upgrade but it wont break the OS. Gnu/darwin can break the OS since it write to /bin and /etc.
Finally installing gnu/darwin was like drinking from a spittoon, to install just a tiny bit you had to take a big slug of things you did not expect to get sprayed all over your /bin directory. Fink comes in fairly small chunks.
my own feeling from reading he gnu/darwin web pages is that it was a stalking horse to completely replace the OS.
the problem I had was that at first most of the major scientific apps were ported to gnudarwin and not to fink. indeed this is still true. But each month I see more of these apps joining fink.
basically gnu darwin exemplifies everything I hate about linux and its too complicated way of installing and managing packages. Fink is a nice clean break and done right.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I got that impression from the following part of your original mail:
I thought that you meant that because Final Cut Pro offers pretty much everything a video editor would want, Mac OS X should do the same for all users (including unix geeks), just like Red Hat. Seems I interpreted this wrong.
Anyway, I do agree a nice package manager for would be great. And Apple is also interested in that, which is why they sponsor(ed?) the OpenPackages initiative. Unfortunately, it's completely stalled it seems. I personally don't know what they don't/didn't like about existing package management systems such as RPM and the Debian package system. A bit more background information for JKH can be found here though (login/pass = archives/archives).
It makes sure that system upgrades don't muck around with your customized apache. I think that's redundancy in a good way. I think it is of vital importance that the components in the default locations are what Apple assumes they are. If they're not, it would bring an enormous amount of extra testing work for them. E.g., one of the iTunes updates (not the one that erased your HD in some cases) failed for several people because they had upgraded the system's perl. The one included by default may be outdated, but Apple only tested its installer script with that one and it did work with it. It didn't work anymore with a newer version though.
As such, I don't agree with your assertion that since they include a command line, they should immediately support replacing all system packages as well, since "Apple's ease-of-use" is compromised anyway. This has nothing to with the command line, since the above can be performed from the GUI equally well by obtaining a precompiled package from somewhere.
If you count that way, then you can also say that Linux is based on Minux, which shipped in January 1987. However, Linux is not Minix just like Mac OS X is not NeXTStep. And Linux is definitely more established and more widely used than NextSTep ever was, regardless of the technical and other merits the latter may hold over the former.
I'm not sure why saying that you don't need X to create a good Mac OS X application (or why saying that creating a program that leverages Mac OS X-specific technologies allows you to create a better application than when you don't) would contradict the fact that Mac OS X is a unix variant. Even today, XWindows applications don't offer the same ease-of-use as native app
Donate free food here