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."
"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
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.