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."
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.
"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 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
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.