OS X Hacks

honestpuck writes "'Mac OS X Hacks' is a good grab bag of tips and techniques for getting the most from your Mac. While the tips are not as universally appealing (even among Mac owners) as those in 'Google Hacks' most people will find some value in the selection; experienced users may find it a little thin." Read on for the rest of honestpuck's review. OS X Hacks author Rael Dornfest & Kevin Hemenway pages 380 publisher O'Reilly rating 7 - Good reviewer Tony Williams ISBN 0596004605 summary Good grab bag of tips and techniques for getting the most from your Mac

The book is split into 9 chapters; 'Files', 'Startup", 'Multimedia and the iApps', 'The User Interface', 'Unix and the Terminal', 'Networking', 'Email', 'The Web' and 'Databases'.

For my money the last chapter is a complete waste of space since it only covers installing MySQL and PostgresSQL, and if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them. A number of the other tips would come close to that level, I feel their only use may be to encourage people who would otherwise stay away to make some use of the terminal and similar tools.

Over a dozen people have contributed 'hacks' to the book, among them some major geeks such as James Duncan Davidson (Tomcat author) and Jon Udell (well respected O'Reilly blogger.) This accounts for the wide number of areas covered by the hacks.

When I first started reviewing the book I would have complained about a large number of the tips being too application specific, too general or too low in skill level. Since then I've had a friend who wanted to edit a movie and we both found the chapter on iApps useful, one with a brand new Bluetooth phone who liked the couple of tips on Bluetooth and another who found the cross platform Windows-Mac stuff useful. so I have to say that while some of the tips might seem useless now you may come to appreciate them later.

Overall the book is well written, well laid out and well cross-referenced and covers a wide range of information. My one major beef is still that there are too many 'tips' that are well covered by other material. Since you shouldn't really get this book until you are at least Mac proficient and probably own a basic Mac book or two then perhaps a tenth of the hundred tips will be covered in most Mac books and perhaps another five to ten you will have discovered on your own.

While O'Reilly doesn't offer a sample chapter of this book online they do have a page at Hacks that lists all the hacks and allows you to read eight of them. There is also a page in the catalog with the Table of Contents, Index and Errata.

Reading over my notes I feel split between raving about how good the book is - well written with a bunch of useful tips and tricks for any Mac user - and complaining about the useless nature of some of the tips. After taking another look at 'Google Hacks' and my review I realised where the conflict lies -- in my level of experience on the Mac. If you already feel comfortable with getting your hands dirty on your Mac then this book may well not satisfy you. If, on the other hand, you still have some trepidation about hacking at your OS X Macintosh then you'll probably love this book.

You can purchase OS X Hacks from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

The reviewer writes "if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them."

And people wonder why geeks don't have more non-geek friends.

--

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I have non-geek friends! Not all geeks are arrogant. I have never told *anyone* to RTFM. Except for this one guy in IRC but he called me a "penguin-fucking linux hippie" when he couldn't configure his network card so I feel it was justified.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[OmniVector]

that's not elitism, it's true. if you can't figure out how to install a program as complex as mysql, which isn't that hard to install in osx, there's a good chance you can't use it.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[realdpk]

Right, because all software out there requires an intimate knowledge of MySQL in order to run them. Er, no. Most if not all of the MySQL-based software I've seen automatically sets up the tables and handles all the queries in the backend. Very easy on the user.

Now if you're a sys-admin, and you're running a series of boxes, then I'd probably agree that you should implicitly know or be able to figure out how to install MySQL, amongst other things. But for average joe "I have a website" user, such knowledge is not really necessary.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[transient]

I vehemently oppose elitist geek attitudes (despite having a streak of it myself), but I have to agree with the reviewer on this point. MySQL and PostgreSQL aren't toys -- they take a certain level of expertise to use effectively. If you can't install them, it's not that you shouldn't use them, but you probably wont be able to. It's about capability, not status.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[(54)T-Dub]

And how is this brilliant user going to write code that utilizes said database?

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[gwernol]

that's not elitism, it's true. if you can't figure out how to install a program as complex as mysql, which isn't that hard to install in osx, there's a good chance you can't use it.

The reviewer said " if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them" (emphasis added). That surely is elitism of the worst sort. You can be very smart and still not have the knowledge and experience necessary to use MySQL. The word "smart" is horribly elitist in this context. If he had chosen to say "arent' yet knowledgeable enought to..." then it woldn't be an issue.

If I were a non-geek reading that review I would be offended. Hell as a geek who happens not to have learnt that much about administering databases I'm offended.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[DAQ42]

Heh-heh. And they also wonder why the majority of people out there just don't 'get it'. I've always said the computer industry should really follow Apple's lead and make the computer more of an appliance for the dolts and a super machine for the experts. Amazingly Apple has managed to do this with Mac OS X. A 5 year old can use the GUI, and the crudgy old smelly *nix hacker can go hog wild on the command line. Now that's something I'm waiting for Windows to copy...

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[azav]

In my experience, ya need "getting up to speed" guides, not faqs

Everytime I dive into a new Director xtra (like valentina) I find that the author's mind has a whole lot more experience with it than I. And what is needed are training wheels before I can pedal on my own.

Just because you may not currently by smart enough to use it doesn't mean that you can learn how if given the right guide and direction.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

He said noting about a "brilliant" user. He said an average user who wants to do things *other than* masturbate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"configure" his software packages. Things such as [one quick example] using the web page editor in mozilla.

Also, afaik, knowlege of how to install unix packages is not a pre-requisite to most college level SQL courses. So to answer your "how...write code" question: they will probably draw from the knowlege that they learned in their SQL courses to access whatever database they're working with, thank you very much.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Timesprout]

They wont. They will just use MS tools instead which privides them with an easy install and easy to use query builder tools

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[jat850]

I'm just not sure that I agree with you here. A good DBA may not need to know very much in terms of system administration, but can probably walk all over a good sysadmin in terms of database design and management. A sysadmin will probably not be as familiar with MySQL as a good DBA will.

It seems to me as though what you're saying is sysadmins, because they can install these programs, exhibit a "certain level of expertise" that a person unfamiliar to a UNIX command line might not. A good DBA can always fall back on his/her SQL standards-compliant syntax and feel right at home, regardless of whether or not he or she can set up MSSQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, DB2, or whatever.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[newsdee]

how is this brilliant user going to write code that utilizes said database?

He(she) won't. Sometimes you need to install a database to run something else, which, if scripted properly, doesn't need much hassle. I should not need to tamper with script files when the only thing I want to do is install a printer driver (unfortunately I had to, and under OS X!).

A good "ergonomic" program should not require documentation, except a reference for the advanced technical savvy user. Every computer user is not a programmer... so if there was more "exploratory" software, computers would be easier to use and more people would be on them.

But a good interface designer is very expensive, because he/she does not output code you can recompile and copy, but rather an "experience" (I'm not talking just making a skin here, but rather designing how all interactions works) that you can patent. Of course, that doesn't prevent MS from copying you... (see Apple, or Xerox).

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[realdpk]

The person won't be writing code for it. The user will be installing software that uses MySQL. There's a lot of MySQL based software out there that doesn't require knowledge about SQL, My or otherwise. I thought that was clear from my original post, I apologize if it was not.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Otter]

Try it again, with different emphasis:

[I]t only covers installing MySQL and PostgresSQL, and if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them.

I read it as "If you need to be told how to install them, you need to be told how to use them. How is simply giving installation instructions helpful?" I agree that phrasing it terms of "smart enough" is obnoxious, though.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that users should be able to run the same stuff that "admins" can these days. If a person wants to put up a web page, they should just be able to do it without needing to know how to open ports, use firewalls, secure a server or evern write any HTML or server side scripts. They should just be able to double click on the "Make a Webpage.exe" wizard and it should take care of all of that for them. The exe should ask them if they want to upload their page to their ISP (and it should contain a database of all ISP's FTP servers) or if they plan to "be a server" and host their own web site. If they choose the ladder, then the wizard should install and configure a web server and hack into their firewall to tell it to popen port 80. Then it should ask them what they want it to look like and let them drag and drop content from other sites in IE to their site and place it exactly where they want it. They shouldn't even have to type the content. Maybe a little speech recognition would allow them to just say stuff and it would turn that into their text content for the page. This is how computers should be easy to use. Why should the user have to learn all kinds of stupid computer stuff to use A computer? They should just be able to sit down and do work!

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[pmz]

The reviewer said "if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them" (emphasis added). That surely is elitism of the worst sort.

In some cases, the word "smart" is actually very appropriate given the drooling bib-wizards that often end up in IT. I agree, though, that it is overly general, in the context of a Mac OS book.

However, how many projects fail, because someone drags some boxes around in a GUI and, then, calls themself a database architects? Being able to competently design, implement, and maintain a database is absolutely non-trivial, and only genuine experts should do it when a business is on the line. If a person relly could not figure out MySQL on their own, I certainly wouldn't hire them.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Gossy]

And how is this brilliant user going to write code that utilizes said database?

How exactly do you propose said newbie would learn to write code to run in said database if they cannot test or experiment with the program?

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[reallocate]

Of course it's elitism. "Smart" equates to "intelligence", not education, background, training, interest and aptitude. This is just unwarranted geek ego tripping.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[gidds]

If I were a non-geek reading that review I would be offended

If you were a non-geek, then you wouldn't be installing a database! And yes, that's exactly the point.

I'm all for making things as simple to install, understand, and use as possible; I hate some of the elitism that you get in tech circles, especially where Open Source is concerned. But you have to bear in mind your audience. Databases can't be compared to consumer apps like browsers and music players, or even to window managers and simple command-line tools. They're complex beasties, and few folks need 'em; if you can't set one up from the docs, then what's the chance you're going to be able to use it once it's set up anyway?

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a non-geek, then you wouldn't be installing a database!

That's not true at all. There are lots of programs that (wisely or unwisely) use MySQL as their data storage back-end. Not just content engines, but even little stuff like catalog management programs. There is zero reason why the user of a program like that should even have to know that he's got a database on his computer, much less how to install and configure it.

In other words, databases ain't just for nerds any more, dude.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a non-geek reading that review I would be offended. Hell as a geek who happens not to have learnt that much about administering databases I'm offended.

if you get that easily offended by a book review, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet. it can be a very offensive place. if you don't want to be emotionally scarred, i'd stick to mainstream media if i were you.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[gidds]

Ah, maybe I'm a little out of date, then...

[fx: wanders off muttering about writing database code before you were born, etc.]

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

"write code"? Whoa your such a brilliant developer. We're only talking about SQL.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[transient]

Actually on second thought, I agree with you. Our Oracle DBA can run circles around the rest of us in SQL but ask him to set up a share, or do any halfway complicated grepping, and he'll just stare blankly. In any event I think the appropriate installation process for Pg on a Mac is a regular package (which, not coincidentally, is how I installed it on my PowerBook).

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[drunk_as_in_beer]

Though I agree with you, I think the whole argument is something like this (though this is a Debian example):

1) Provided you are experienced using Debian, if you can't figure out that you need to type "apt-get install mysql-server" to install MySQL, you probably won't get very far in actually using it.

2) Using the word "smart" in the context that the reviewer did is pure elitism, plain and simple.

Although I see both these points, I think the reviewer could've been more tactful and instead said "If you know enough to want to use MySQL and PostgreSQL, you probably don't need instructions on how to simply install them (and probably would want information on using them as well)."

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're stupid.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[(54)T-Dub]

A newbie programmer is not usually a newbie computer user.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that you don't need to be an experienced sysadmin to install MySQL on OS X (I've done this a couple of times, so I know exactly how easy it is), all you need is some basic intelligence and literacy skills. If you don't have these qualifications, you should stay away from MySQL and use SQL Server instead.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[callipygian-showsyst]

that's not elitism, it's true. if you can't figure out how to install a program as complex as mysql, which isn't that hard to install in osx, there's a good chance you can't use it.

The reviewer said " if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them" (emphasis added). That surely is elitism of the worst sort. You can be very smart and still not have the knowledge and experience necessary to use MySQL. The word "smart" is horribly elitist in this context. If he had chosen to say "arent' yet knowledgeable enought to..." then it woldn't be an issue.

If I were a non-geek reading that review I would be offended. Hell as a geek who happens not to have learnt that much about administering databases I'm offended.

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! How come no one is paying attention to what I wrote!!! I made a few really good points here! Computers should be easy enough for anyone to do anything without needing a computer science degree, plain and simple! If the home user wants to run a file server, they should just be able to click on one button that says, "Allow access to everything on my system to anyone else". But the OS should be smart enough to be able to figure out that "anyone" means nothing beyond a router or gateway. Or if they want to set up a web site for all their MP3s to be shared, they should just be able to drag a Windows shortcut to their website in IE and have it automatically publish that folder. Besides, if the OS is secure enough, they won't have to waste time securing the OS! Come one people! Use your imaginations!!!

Do they have...

[kanna]

Do they have a hack for splitting the mouse to two buttons?

Re:Do they have...

[wyatt12]

buy a 2 button mouse silly.

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just open Terminal.app and type sudo justbuyadamnusbtwobuttonmouse -dumbass.

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's called 'Spend 20 USD down at Fry's and buy a two-button mouse".
Back, Troll, BACK!

Mac OS X supports something like 31 mouse buttons, but the Mac is designed to work well for beginners. Studies have shown that new computer users deal better with a single mouse button and experienced users can find their way to the store to buy any ol' USB mouse they want, with as many buttons as they like.

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea,

Its called buying a nice USB optical mouse in what ever config you want.

Kage_

Re:Do they have...

[Sunda666]

well this is partly true. if I want to use the built-in trackpad of ibooks and powerbooks i'm stuck with only 1 button, and it sucks.
if i can plug in my M$ trackball optical everything works wonders, tough. but is kinda hard on small places or airplanes, for example.
OTOH, my compcrap intel laptop has a nice synaptics trackpad, with scroll buttons and shit that is awesome.

cheers

Re:Do they have...

[ender-]

Despite the posts rudely screaming to "get a two button mouse" I have to agree that I would love this hack.

I've been pondering getting one of the Apple laptops, but that one button touchpad drives me nuts [when using my friend's laptop].
Now it's all well and good to buy a 2+ button mouse for your desktop, but when I've the the laptop sitting on my LAP, it's difficult to use a separate mouse and just adds one more thing to have to pack up and lose between uses.

Out of curiousity, anyone use the 1 button thing with Linux on the Apple laptops? How do you emulate 3 buttons with 1 button device???

Ender

Re:Do they have...

[pmbuko]

"Out of curiousity, anyone use the 1 button thing with Linux on the Apple laptops? How do you emulate 3 buttons with 1 button device???"

With key modifiers, silly. alt-click, ctrl-click

Re:Do they have...

[mbbac]

Control-click on Mac OS X performs a contextual-click (usually right-click).

Re:Do they have...

[Build6]

How do you emulate 3 buttons with 1 button device

Indirectly answering the question:

Whether or not you consider the choice by Apple to continue using single-button mice is reasonable, for those who consider it wrong, note that "too few buttons on the mouse" is not a complaint that can only be aimed at the MacOS.

From the perspective of a traditional UNIX workstation user, Windows has too few buttons - they (e.g. Sun Microsystems Sparc-based machines) ship with 3-button mice. It is true you can get 3- (or however-many) button mice for x86 machines, but then (a) that's a "nonstandard" variation already since the "standard"/baseline for Windows is 2, and (b) you can do so for the Mac too.

This is why if you look at (and those who program GUI apps should know this already) the mouse event/action classes in Java, there are more than 2 defined mouse "button-actions", that if the physical hardware does not exist (i.e. only two-button mice are on the machine) the same effect is achieved with modifier keys (Opt/Alt-click, Ctrl-click, or whatnot).

Re:Do they have...

[fafaforza]

You can easily get used to the single button track pad. It's no big deal. Press Ctrl and click to right-click. And unless you are playing some game that needs a lot of right clicking, it isn't really an issue. It is even easy to press the combination with one hand (there is no pun here! honest!).

Re:Do they have...

[TheOneEyedMan]

Most new computers I see come with a scroll wheel which one could easily treat as a third button

Re:Do they have...

[Quazion]

You can always configure options/ctrl/apple key to use in combination with the mouse buttons as difrent mouse buttons.

But i was used to 3 buttons for years using, IRIX and linux, but now i got an iBook i figured its pretty smart to have but one button, you have to think less and trust me you dont need more buttons. right click menu's are a bogus and confusing interface method, you have a menu in the top your app for it and cause the menu is in the top of the screen nearly all mac apps have shortcuts keys for everything, meaning you will learn to use them, because you dont want to move the mouse up to the top everytime you want todo a action, which makes working faster in the end :)

Re:Do they have...

[j-jahnke]

Exactly which RFC defines the number of mouse buttons standard?

Jer,

Re:Do they have...

[drunk_as_in_beer]

Yes, just open Terminal.app and type sudo justbuyadamnusbtwobuttonmouse -dumbass.

Doesn't work for laptop users who don't want an extra mouse does it?

Re:Do they have...

[TummyX]

Windows based computers have been shipping with three mouse buttons for ages. In fact, they've been shipping with 5 mouse buttons because the mouse wheel has three directions (forward, back, down).

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have one hand on the trackpad you probably have the other hand on the keyboard, which means you can hit the control key with your other hand. I do it every day on my powerbook, even though I prefer two-button mice in general. It's not a big deal unless you just want to gripe for the sake of griping.

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. My TiBook seems to have 79 buttons.

Re:Do they have...

[piper5ul]

Not sure if you really dont know how to get the context menu.. if you do, great, read no further.

if you dont, you can do 'ctrl + click' combo to get the 'right click' menu.

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this funny? People have been repeating this same lame joke for about ten years now. It wasn't funny then and it isn't funny now; mostly because all it does is show the ignorance of the person repeating it.

Re:Do they have...

[raga]

How do you emulate 3 buttons with 1 button device?

A well designed interface for a 1-button mouse can be a joy to work with. Take a simple example in Safari. Position your pointer on (say) a URL and:

Click: link opens in current window.

Apple-Click: link opens in new window.

Option-Click: link downloads to you disk.

Ctrl-Click: drop-down menu appears. (Equivalent to the Windows right-click experience.)

My last 2 "mice" have been 4-button Kensington trackballs. Both did each of the above with just 1-click (do I have to pay Amazon for saying that??). I tend to use them only when working with graphic programs. AFAIC, nothing beats a trackball for fast and accurate positioning of the pointer anywhere on the screen. Comaparitively, a traditional mouse is *highly* inefficient. YMMV.

However, when writing/surfing/ etc. on a TiBook, I'd much rather use the builtin (touchpad) button+ modifier keys. This may be because both my hands are always draped over the keyboard, and I am quite confortable using more than just a few of the 10 digits at the end of my hands.

Further, other action keys (e.g., again, in a Safari window, try hitting the space-bar, or shift+space-bar, or tab, or shift+tab ...etc.) reduce the need of the screen pointer (especially for navigation).

cheers- raga

Re:Do they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, studies have shown that newly examined drivers deal better making only one kind of turn. It is therefore GM's intention to market the new iCar, which only makes right turns. Experienced drivers may visit the car dealer to pick up a car capable of also making left turns.

Re:Do they have...

[Build6]

Ah, it's not RFC-dictated. MS publishes their hardware certification standards (Windows logo certification) and their minimum is 2, though having more clearly doesn't mean they'll come knocking on your door demanding the "Designed For Windows9x/2k/XP" sticker back off your PC.

Any Windows hardware developers who know the details of the certification process who'd like to explain further? (Or tell me that I'm wrong).

In other words, RTFM, newbie.

[You Are A Dumbass]

For my money the last chapter is a complete waste of space since it only covers installing MySQL and PostgresSQL, and if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them.

Maybe someone would buy the book because he can't figure out the docs? What an ass, to cop an attitude on the authors since some of their audience aren't already MySQL experts.

Does anybody know...

[Sevn]

If there is a book on the same level as
"The Complete FreeBSD" but for OSX instead.
Having a book like this to read would go a long
way towards helping me decide if it's worth paying
the hardware tax associated with running it OSX.

Re:Does anybody know...

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a funny ass sig

Re:Does anybody know...

[yorkrj]

You must to purchase the G4. The G4 is your zen friend. Darwin came to me in a dream and he said "Pools of Aqua and wide Open Source await you. Run with the Jaguar."

It all depends on what you want out of your *nix. OS X is a stable, secure, highly usable port of Free BSD. Great for novices and hackers alike. If you want an OS that has all of the GNU you may be used to if you run Linux and the like, then steer clear because the mamoth porting job is not complete (for instance, there are some CPAN modules that I wanted to use the other day but aren't ported.) Download Darwin(x86 port ...only lacks the GUI) if you want to poke around in the underpinnings of OS X before you buy. As a media junkie (video artist) and hacker (the benevolent type) I'm pretty happy with my OS X.

Re:Does anybody know...

[mbbac]

Buy a Mac (I used an iBook to tip my toe in Apple's waters) and if you don't like it, sell it on eBay. You'll probably get 95% of your money back out of it. Consider the sunk 5% a rental fee.

Re:Does anybody know...

[oort cloud daikini]

Nothing quite at the level as complete FreeBSD but two guys last name of Ray wrote the closest OSX book and it is published by SAMS. These are UNIX guys who spend a LOT of time on using OSX as a UNIX system - and presenting the aqua GUI to UNIX geeks.

Surprisingly, Todd Stauffer has written the other book that I can recommend the second best.

Finally, I havn't bought the Hacks book but I thumbed it heavily at B&N two weeks ago. The reviewer is right on the point that it has disparate hacks that don't all seem useful until all the sudden you are thinking about changing cell phone companies and would like to actually try making Blue Tooth work... or FTP transfers without downloading a client. I plan to buy the book although I felt like half of it was useless to me. I am so mercurial in my geekiness I recognized that there is no telling which useless datum this week will be gold (if nothing more than as a launch into some new investigation of the OS) a month from now.

Bookless OS X Hacks

[teamhasnoi]

http://www.macosxhints.com/ rocks for searching, and if you're unclear on the concept, you can post a query and get an answer from someone in the know. Ad free, and on a decently fast server too. Highly recommended if you want to save a tree.

Re:Bookless OS X Hacks

[SandSpider]

Or if you don't want to save a tree, you might check out his book. It's chock full of the same Mac OS X Hints dot com hintiness, with a bunch of extra information attached to all the hints. And yeah, I'm using my associates version of the link.

=Brian

Re:Bookless OS X Hacks

[svenjob]

This book is going to teach me how to abUSE my new custom Mac compatible PC.

Re:Bookless OS X Hacks

[pldms]

http://www.macosxhints.com/ rocks for searching, and if you're unclear on the concept, you can post a query and get an answer from someone in the know. Ad free, and on a decently fast server too. Highly recommended if you want to save a tree.

And if you want to kill a tree they even made a Mac OS X Hints Book. O'Reilly seem to be cornering this corner of the market...

Hacks?

[HvacControls]

I hate how "Hack" has become such a buzz word. In the past just the mention of the word hack could strike fear into the hearts of average computer users. Now its just a way to describe settings that can't be found in the manual.

Re:Hacks?

[sevensharpnine]

Agreed. The media has run wild with the term and PR departments are putting the final nail in the coffin. "Hacker" is also now a term of endearment for computer users. "Power users" are those who use windows explorer and know what a boot disk is. "Hackers"--the true experts of computing--are now people that use such non-standard programs as regedit and emacs. I'm thinking of writing a book called eXtreme Hacking. I don't know what I'll put in it yet, maybe windows keyboard shortcuts and a guide for configuring IE. I'm sure it will sell to the l33t wannabe crowd.

Re:Hacks?

[fishexe]

Now its just a way to describe settings that can't be found in the manual.

That's more or less always been the case...granted to a far lesser extent...but what gets me is the number of "hacks" on this book's list that can be found in the manual. Or that are fairly obvious to anyone who's used a similar feature before. (i.e. everything they talked about in hack #1, obvious to anyone who's ever used a system with multiple user accounts before)
I'm not saying that people for whom these things are obvious don't deserve a book about them. But a book on hacks should address hacks. Those of us who want seriously, actually advanced tips deserve a book as well.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[xchino]

Considering OSX is one of the unices, it is quite befitting that it is posted on slashdot.

not for all mac users

[w3weasel]

This book looks nice, but it seems like there are just a load of references to third party apps and what they do rather than actual 'hacks'.
Seems like "Intro to OS X and Assorted Utilities" might be a more accurate name for it.

Re:not for all mac users

[Anonymous Coward]

For the most part, I agree with this. There are a few things in there that answer specific questions I have, but a lot of it is "Isn't This App Nifty" stuff. Some are things I've already had to learn the hard way, but it still doesn't include stuff I'd like to know more about (netinfo, hdiutil.)

The chapter on Terminal is certainly not aimed at this crowd. Hell, I don't even use Terminal now that Apple has released their own nicely packaged X11.

If I had money to blow, I would probably buy it. With my current unemployed and broke state, not likely. Of course, Apple sent me a copy anyway -- I picked up my mail this week and found an unexpected package. I guess it went to all paid ADC members.

Re:mac problem

[2nd Post!]

I'm surprised you got OS X working on an 8600. Don't you need a CPU upgrade for that? Or will OS X work on 603/604 CPUs?

Raelians

[KrispyKringle]

Would the co-author Rael Dornfest be the same Rael of the Raelians? You'd be amazed what an experience like being abducted by aliens and having your way with their beautiful female robots will do for your OSX skills.

Re:mac problem

[w3weasel]

Please stop trolling with the same post.
You have posted this 'reply' verbatim in more than one article.
The Mac you are using is obsolete, the OS on it is obsolete, and the PCs you are comparing it to is obsolete
Have you been posting this reply since 1999 or what?

See also MacOSXHints.com

[kriegsman]

I've seen this book a couple of times, but I have not bought it because Web sites like Mac OS X Hints seem to cover much of the same material.

The book looks pretty good for people beginning to explore what they can do with their Mac beyond iTunes, iPhoto, Mail and Safari. However, "experts" will probably be more satisfied with on-line sites like Mac OS X Hints, which have other benefits over the book as well: they have search engines, offer discussion forums, and are lighter to carry in your knapsack than a book -- even a paperback.

-Mark

Re:mac problem

[SavoWood]

I saw this same post a few months ago. It might have even been just a paste of the previous time. When I first read this, I thought it was a Slashdot problem, but I'm not so sure.

Please quit posting this troll.

Re:mac problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get OS X to install on some of the older machines, but you have to use some hacks to get it to install. From what I have heard X is somewhat usable, but i doubt it would be fast enough for every day use. Its just barly tolerable on my G3/333...

Kage

Free Books!

[Anonymous Coward]

Safe for work

Re:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

you and the colon cleansing troll should get together and start a movement.

badumbum tss!

1994?

[DreadSpoon]

Hell, I still run into this constantly today.

My favorite is the idiot yelling about how much he hates newbies and corporate support in Linux, on a mailing list operated by Intel for Intel supplied Linux software. The "smart" people are such morons, sometimes. ;-)

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[bsartist]

I realize you're probably trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just in case. If we were talking about older MacOS, you'd be right - it was about as interesting to your average geek as Windows 3.

But the latest version, Mac OS X, isn't your grandfather's Mac. It still runs all the old Mac apps, but under the hood it's UNIX. The fact that it's the only UNIX in town that can run Photoshop, MS Office, etc. is driving "real" technical people towards it - in droves.

Re:mac problem

[MouseR]

At the office, we have OS X 10.1.4 running on a 7300/200, albeit, quite slow. We use that setup as benchmark for sluggish machines out there. If something is unbearable on that machine, chances are it's unbearable on some other machines out there.

I wish I could get OS X working on my 8600/AV/200 at home though. It just refuses to work.

it's not a hardware tax

[b17bmbr]

yes, there is a ~$200 price difference for a similar dell. but the differences from quality hardware to softeare is more than worth it. everything really just works. i have an ibook, and wouldn't trade it for anything. i plug in my dv camera, zip drive, anything. plus, i can keep it on my lap for hours and not have roasted chestnuts.

it's not like you can hose the hard drive of a dell and install os x like you can with linux. macs cost more, but it's not apples to apples. if price is that big a deal, get a dell, hose the drive and take one for the team, courtesy of billy g.

Re:it's not a hardware tax

[TC (WC)]

it's not like you can hose the hard drive of a dell and install os x like you can with linux. macs cost more, but it's not apples to apples.

No, it's Apples to Dells!

[RIMSHOT!]

Re:it's not a hardware tax

[drunk_as_in_beer]

if price is that big a deal, get a dell, hose the drive and take one for the team, courtesy of billy g.

nay.. don't get a Dell.. Buy a motherboard which is a few generations behind (say a Asus a7v266) and a cheap AMD Duron ($30). DDR ram is cheap, get 512 MB for $50. Then assemble a system from all the x86 hardware you got sitting in your closet, you may not have to buy the mobo/processor/memory even, depending on what you got in there.

Some of us are so entrenched in x86 hardware, that it will always be cheaper to upgrade and assemble. And x86 parts are cheap. Hell, my primary machine is on a refurb board, that's how cheap I am. I guess if you're talking about laptops, you can scrap my arguments, though.

Having said all that, I would love to own a Powerbook. Maybe in a few years when I got some cash saved up...

Zap it, it's automatic!

[Anonymous Coward]

The color disappears but the fun stays in!

Zap-it! By Wham-o!

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

BAH!

Amen to that - MOD THIS FELLA UP

[WankersRevenge]

You deserve a gold star for your insightful comment.

Lame review.

[mfh]

This review is lame. Here's why.

"if you can't figure out how to install [MySQL/PostgresSQL] then you aren't smart enough to use them"

On the contrary, many web developers and web application programmers that are not familiar with installation of DB systems (on UNIX-ish systems or otherwise) are probably "smart enough" to use them. What makes them so incompetent in the first place? Cause they're Mac users? Thinly veiled elitism is so easy to identify.

while some of the tips might seem useless now you may come to appreciate them later."

Uhm, no shit? I need only to look at my personal library of O'Reilly books and/or API manuals to know that 99% of the information contained therein is absolutely fucking useless to me *right now*, but I'm certainly going to need them. That's why I bought the books, instead of going to the library to take notes.

"My one major beef is still that there are too many 'tips' that are well covered by other material."

Why should the author of the book expect the purchasers of his work to own the complete works of his (many) competitors? Can't the book stand on its own merit? Where is your analysis of this possibility?

The gripes presented have absolutely no credibility, and this whole "review" seems to be based on the premise of stating the painfully obvious.

Note: I'm an OS X user.

Re:Lame review.

[drunkenbatman]

On the contrary, many web developers and web application programmers that are not familiar with installation of DB systems (on UNIX-ish systems or otherwise) are probably "smart enough" to use them. What makes them so incompetent in the first place? Cause they're Mac users? Thinly veiled elitism is so easy to identify.

I've often wondered how many Linuxen really want *nixes on the desktop for everyone, just due to the fact that it kinda destroys "street cred" in the same way that the cult following of bands suddenly dry up when the band hit the radio and everyone else seems to like them. I surely know mac users who would find something else to use if everyone used mac's...

There's street cred (or geek cred) in spending the hours going through documentation to get your *nix to install on your box- to get the newest drivers hacked on and working while the luddite IT intern is trying so hard to get their display driver to go higher than 8-bit.

There just ain't street cred when a 5 year old is able to start up a web server... mysql is already almost at the point and click stage to instal on OSX, what if Apple ships mysql with the system (or postgresql as mysql seems to get bashed for the oddest things now that it's very popular) and includes some sort of easy to write to API for developers and a filemaker-like interface upon it for everyone else? Should they be using it then...?

What happens if in 12 years Linux is really viable on the desktop, perhaps even becoming easier to install and use than Windows? Where what will the geek cred concious user use? Everything is just getting too damn easy. People should have to work to use the computer- it's a sign of respect, right?

drunkenbatman

Re:Lame review.

[Anonymous Coward]

This review of the review is completely lame. Here's why... The author is 100% correct about the MySQL comment. If you cannot do the installation on a Mac, then you have NO business trying to use the software in the first place. This is not elitism. This is a comment on the ease of installation on a Macintosh. You seem to have missed the point. Since you missed the point, your blathering appears to be the problem here.

Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this book describe how to make my Dual G4/1 GHz running Jaguar outperform my 500 MHz Pentium III for Tasks like using Netscape, copying files, playing mp3s, and etc.

Mac may be good for photoshop filters, but until it doesn't take 16 seconds to view a web page (www.apple.com/safari) then this thing is junk.

Put it this way, WinXP and Linux on an old Pentium III both outperform my mac for what I do with it. Until the entire OS is a Photoshop filter mac will be a dog.

Perhaps with these tweaks I will be able to feel like the Mac actually has 15 gigaflops, because right now it feels like using a 200 MHz pentium.

Re:Trolling

[XnetZERO]

Netscape? Who seriously uses that crap!? Netscape and Internet Explorer are the definition of slow. Safari and Camino for all their beta glory are mean, lean, surfing machines. Safari loads complex pages in a snap, so I don't know why you're bagging on it. Perhaps its your connection that's slow. At least you admit you're a troll.

Re:Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the safari page on apple.com - they claim 16 second page loads. That sucks. IE can waste Safari any day with lesser hardware.

Re:Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for clearly labelling your post. That's very handy. Now go crawl back under your bridge like a good little troll. Maybe later we'll bring you a baby to eat.

However, before you go, I have a suggestion. Next time, before you troll, READ. The page you referred to lists 16 seconds as the time to run the MacBench HTML rendering benchmark. That's not the time required to view a web page. There's so much wrong with Macs, it's a shame you couldn't find something real to troll about.

Silly troll.

Re:Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

SO the fact that IE took 50.6 seconds seems to have been lost on you.

Or are you too stupid to understand a simple graph?

Re:Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK, this one can barely read much less think...

No

[DreadSpoon]

That's what hack _always_ meant. A hacker has always been another word for coder. The media started using "hacker" where they should have been using "cracker" or "computer vandal" or similar (mostly because, I'm guessing, in the beginning you had to be a hacker to break into a system) and now the negative version of the term has stuck.

I'm a hacker, proud of it, and may you people who keep thinking that means I break into computers all get beaten with wet noodles. ;-)

Re:No

[UserGoogol]

Language evolves, and I'm fine with that, but the evolution of hack is a bit shady, as it harms "real" hackers.

After all, sure, the word gay has evolved to mean of low quality in many circles, but using the word that way is unfair to homosexuals.

Of course, one could argue that there's more to being a hacker than just knowing some stuff which isn't well documented.

Re:No

[overunderunderdone]

That's what hack _always_ meant. A hacker has always been another word for coder

Well I'm not sure of the etymology of "hacker" but going pretty far back it also meant "practical joker with a technical bent" as in the "hacks" at MIT most of which have nothing to do with computers (I seem to recall that a group responsible for many of them was called the The Technology Hackers Association).

Going back further most sources I have seen think it's current techy usage comes from a "hack" as in "a hack journalist or author" someone that produces hackneyed (bad) writing. I can see how that would quickly translate among coders to mean a quick fix that gets the job done & might by quite clever but is not correct or right. i.e. "Well, it works now but it's just a hack, I'll go back later & fix it" from there it's a quick jump to BOTH of its current usages. A hack meaning a clever and efficient piece of coding and a "hack" as in a quick and dirty "fix" to the "problem" of not having access to a machine the "hacker" would like to have access to.

Also to be fair I think in the media and popular usage I think people don't think of "hacker" as merely someone that breaks into computers but as people with a great deal of technical skill that can make computers do what the hacker wants - especially things the computer isn't supposed to do. That would include (but isn't limited to) gaining access that they aren't supposed to have. That isn't so far from the canonical definition of hacker that you would find in the jargon file.

Fortunately the English language is perfectly capable of handling words with several meanings from "bad writing" to "good coding" to "cracking into computers"

Support for UDF?

[oravecz]

I'm still waiting for the OS X Hack that will allow me to read and write to a UDF-formatted CD-R. You know, the kind that Direct CD and Windows XP create that allows you to treat a CD-R/CD-RW as a big floppy disc.

Despite OS X having a mount_udf command, it seems that it doesn't support these types of discs yet.

Re:Support for UDF?

[tenton]

Are you sure XP supports this? The last time I used XP's built in burning program, it was just like using Apple's DiscBurner. Basically, you copy the files you want to a cache (on your hard drive), but it looks like you're copying it to the CD (you go through a CD icon). When you're ready to burn, you select the burn option and then it records from the hard drive cache to the CD. Granted, it's been at least 4 months since I've used XP's burning program (I prefer Nero myself).

I have had trouble mounting CD-R discs made by DirectCD (or Drag to CD as it's called in Roxio 6) that weren't closed in OS X, but not with UDF formatted CD-RW discs (or UDF formatted DVD-RAM and -RW discs for that matter).

Re:Support for UDF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X supports reading UDF and it supports burning a UDF disc. What it does not support is packet writing on CD-RW, and I'd like to have that too, but not having packet writing does not mean that you don't have UDF support at all.

Hack: buy a different mouse.

[Nijika]

And I took my own Karma bonus away, kthx. ;)

Re:Hack: buy a different mouse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you so special that you realized posting such a lame-o comment to a troll isn't worthy of a karma bonus modifier.

I'm amazed.

Another review

[emmastory]

I posted a review of this book today as well, available here . I came to similar conclusions - a lot of it is great, although some of it will be old news to experienced users.

Why isnt this showing up in the apple section

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isnt this story showing up in the apple section of slashdot. Its fine that its on the front page, but it should be in the apple section as well. Also, that IBM power PC story should also show up in the apple section

Re:Why isnt this showing up in the apple section

[Trurl's Machine]

Why isnt this story showing up in the apple section of slashdot. Its fine that its on the front page, but it should be in the apple section as well

It could be a deliberate measure against this moron who posts "dear Father O'Day" and "I was copying a large file on my 9600" trollposts. Seems that this guy is unable to recognize an Apple-related topic if it does not have APPLE label (in large print for those kinda weak on reading).

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[pmz]

MS Office

Given that MS Office and Internet Explorer obviously run in UNIX, now, why doesn't Microsoft widen their potential customer base by porting to Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.? Oh, their Mac support is just a token to keep the DOJ off of their backs? So, that lock-in revenue from the Windows OS really is the motivating factor? Oh, I see.

If You Don't Know How to Butcher a Cow...

[reallocate]

...you're too dumb to eat at McDonald's.

Makes as much sense as this review.

Along those lines, why do so many book reviews here read like a vegetarian reviewing a a steak house?

Pure Elitism

[VividU]

I know musicians who can compose film scores on the computer but don't know a thing about setting up a midi/sequencer system themselves.

I know accountants who are stone cold Excel experts but barely know how to turn on their computer.

This is elitism pure and simple.

Re:Pure Elitism

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Just because someone doesn't know how to set something up doesn't mean they shoudn't use it. Most people don't know how to build or "configure" cars, but they use them every day. When they run into problems they go to a service station to take care of the car.

Re:The single BEST Mac OS X Hack...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well i was not SMART enough to understand that. But a simple google told me...ummmm don't. Am i dumb?

Re:The single BEST Mac OS X Hack...

[Trurl's Machine]

Nothing will happen on a vanilla MacOS X - sudo will just ask for an admin's password.

Re:The single BEST Mac OS X Hack...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Jon Udell

[PineHall]

Jon Udell (well respected O'Reilly blogger.)

Jon Udell is lead analyst of the InfoWorld Test Center. He is a blogger, and he is the reason I used to subscribe to Byte Magazine. He does write articles for O'Reilly from time to time, but he works for InfoWorld now. His weblog is here at InfoWorld.

Re:mac problem -XPostFacto is what you need.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link to the software patch that allows older Macs to run OS X: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/7594

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. I don't know what your problem is, exactly--spitting hatred of Microsoft, stunning ignorance of OS X, gross misunderstanding of the American justice system, or what--but let me enlighten you.

Think of Mac OS X as "UNIX plus." It's got all the standard UNIX API's, including X Windows which is pretty much a UNIX standard facility these days. But it's also got the Carbon operating environment, which is more or less the Macintosh Toolbox, and it's also got the Cocoa operating environment, which is more or less NeXTstep. It's also got additional environments that may or may not be available on a given UNIX-based OS, like OpenGL and Java and so forth.

So a program that runs under OS X won't automatically run under another UNIX-based OS like "Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc." None of those other operating environments have the Carbon or Cocoa environments. So if a program is written for Carbon or Cocoa or a combination of the two, it (1) won't run on another UNIX-based OS, and (2) cannot be ported to another UNIX-based OS.

Finally, no, Microsoft's support for Office for OS X is not "just a token to keep the DOJ off of their backs." Why would the Department of Justice care whether Microsoft sells applications for OS X or any other OS? If Microsoft wanted to drop OS X support tomorrow and sell Office only for Windows, that would absolutely be their right.

Or.....

[caffeinex36]

BSD for dummies ;)

-Rob

Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

This "review" sucked. That is all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Google Hacks

[kupo zero]

I looked this book over it bit, and frankly, it seems pretty lame. Basicallly, it is just various ways to incorporate a google search and results in your page, something which can be done without having to buy a book.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

No.. no troll. Just my honest, non fanboy opinion. Sure, I realize it's got a tweaked netBSD kernel, or whatever, so it's like Unix circa 1995, but come on, it's locked to the old obsolete Mac hardware, hardly anything that gets technical people excited. Plus it's got that butt ugly proprietary front end latched to it and it.

No, I seriously doubt that real technical people are "flocking to it in droves." I mean, puleeeeez.

Remote screenshots!

[Arcturax]

Did anyone read the remote screenshot hack (scroll to bottom)?

If you allow say a friend to log in remotely, they could technically snap a shot of your screen while you were on your machine.

At the least only those who can log in can do this but still, ouch!

Of course it may not work at all, I've tried it on my machine, and it produced a blank white tile.

Anyone else got this to work?

Re:Remote screenshots!

[pHDNgell]

I've done it a lot on other UNIX systems, but I typically just use the magic keystrokes on macs.

Re:Remote screenshots!

[Anonymous Coward]

screencapture creates a pdf file, so make sure you end the output file name with .pdf

Why is Jobs suddenly everybody's savior?

[crovira]

Check out CNN for drivel about how Jobs should save Tivo because Apple figured out what the record companies couldn't: How to make a buck on-line!

Lets be honest. Apple is for content creators, Tivo is for media consumers. Yeah there is some commonality but...

Re:Why is Jobs suddenly everybody's savior?

[markomarko]

Generally I don't look at CNN. It's almost all drivel.

But your assertion that Apple is for content creators and not for media consumption is crap. Have you heard of Apple's iTunes Music Store? Did you know that mac users download movies off of p2p too? Have you heard of that new media dissemination technology called "the internet"? Guess what--Mac's can access "the internet" just as well as PC's using a special "browser" technology. My god, I'm choking on my own sarcasm...save me!

remapping "mouse buttons" under Linux

[raulmazda]

In Linux, you can map an arbitrary keycode to look like a mouse button. On my ibook, I have the funky enter key to the right of the space bar look like a middle click, and F11 is right click (I rarely right click, but X11 cut and paste is all about middle click).

I rarely use OS X natively, so I don't know how to "fix" this "problem" in it.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[pmz]

Uh. I don't know what your problem is, exactly...

Well, I saw an opportunitity to troll and took the low road. Regardless, the fact that Office can be ported to a vastly different operating system shows that it, internally, has a layered architecture. Alternatively, Microsoft uses its vast resources to recreate much of Office for the sake of Mac OS X.

Why would the Department of Justice care whether Microsoft sells applications for OS X or any other OS? If Microsoft wanted to drop OS X support tomorrow and sell Office only for Windows, that would absolutely be their right.

Microsoft was shown to have used their monopoly position on the desktop to nearly destroy Netscape with Internet Explorer, while further reinforcing their hold on the desktop market. A similar effect has happend with Word versus other word processors, again reinforcing Microsoft's hold on the desktop. By dropping support for Mac OS X, Microsoft would essentially be telling the world (who is already addicted to MS Office) that their only choice is to buy Windows. Apple would quickly go bankrupt or nearly so. I think the DOJ would probably be very interested in a Windows-only stance regarding Office.

By making Office for a wider variety of operating systems, Microsoft can demonstrate good will, where they are interested in profiting off of Office indpendently of Windows. This would show they are moving beyond their clear position of conflict of interest regarding Windows, which is very significant in reducing their status as an illegal monopoly.

In what other industry would any company be allowed to continue with greater than 90% market share in multiple markets, anyway? Operating systems, office suites, and web browsers are distinct markets within the overal market for software.

Phaeton Sez

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't taking a remote screenshot of someone else's desktop denote a potential security gotcha?

Dabbling with a feature like this without the necessary UNIX Security Knowledge would freak me out.

I'm not trolling, i'm not flamebaiting. This is a sincere observation.

Re:Phaeton Sez

[baur]

From playing with it just now, it requires root (or sudo) to do it. While still a little sneaky, seems to go along with how things "should" be - root can do anything. :)

Re:Phaeton Sez

[radio4fan]

Wouldn't taking a remote screenshot of someone else's desktop denote a potential security gotcha?

Erm... Yep. Nope, you don't need to be root. screencapture's permissions by default are -r-xr-xr-x.

OSX is full of this kind of laxity. Try 'nidump passwd /' as any old luser. It gives you a /etc/passwd filewith the encrypted passwords included. Run it through John the Ripper, you've got the root password.

Re:mac problem

[w3weasel]

What does M.A.C. stand for? and what is it?

Re:The single BEST Mac OS X Hack...

[alchemist68]

See, I'm NOT that evil:

This post serves the purpose that not everything one reads on the internet is helpful. Obviously, those in the know, know that this will delete EVERYTHING on the hard drive of that computer. Hence, DON'T DO IT! It was a common *NIX prank that someone would name a folder in the user's home folder "*". If the user typed rm -rf /*, the command would start deleting everything instead of the folder named "*". This has come up before in a few Mac OS X forums around the net, and beginning Mac OS X users should be aware of this.

mac issues

[drunk_as_in_beer]

I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 16 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 4 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:mac issues

[drunk_as_in_beer]

yes, this was a copy of the infamous troll that is always posted in Mac threads. However, I have changed parts of it. Can anyone find out what parts I have changed?

Re:mac issues

[Anonymous Coward]

no idea why this is happening for you. i use two 400 mhz PIIIs at work, and a 400 mhz OSX Mac at home, and the Mac positively flies -- at least, as compared to the two PCs (one W2K, other XP).

wait, it could be your work machine's RAM. I've got 256 megs at home. RAM seems to have a BIG impact on OSX performance.

Re:mac issues

[cybin]

what does "faster chip architecture" mean ? did you know you can't compare MHz between different CPUs as any reasonable measure of speed?

the computer you are using was introduced in 1997. that system isn't even a G3.... i can't say how that compares to a 486/66, but i can say that the other day i copied about 20 gigs from one drive to another across IDE busses and it was done in 15 minutes. that's fast enough for me. sounds like you're running OS 8, too.

Re:mac issues

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a 17 meg file.

MOOGLY GOOGLY

[Anonymous Coward]

FIRST MOOGLY GOOGLY!

mportant Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account. Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

FRTM

[bob dobalina]

For my money the last chapter is a complete waste of space since it only covers installing MySQL and PostgresSQL, and if you can't figure out how to install them from the documentation then you aren't smart enough to use them.

This is a little off-topic, but I raise this issue because I spent a week troubleshooting a MySQL install thanks to some cryptic error messages that were not reported anywhere in the MySQL documentation (which in itself is fairly light on the peculiarities of an OS X install). Nor could I find anything online by searching on the error phrase; the closest I got was some bizarre "SQL gazette" where someone mentioned a similar problem but they didn't even answer his question. Now, I don't consider myself "dumb", but does the fact that an esoteric error message halted my self-made progress make me "not smart enough to use" MySQL? Frankly, it's a lot easier USING SQL than it is installing it; so much so that any HTML or javascript monkey can do it.

There's this almost fanatical belief among a lot of slashdotters that follows this basic logic: "if you can't make it work with the documentation provided, well, you're dumb. Now begone from my sight! I have Matrix trailers to download and mp3's to convert to ogg."

And then they wonder why average computer users aren't interested in learning more about linux or running it in their businesses.

THE DOCUMENTATION ISN'T SCRIPTURE. Sometimes it's incomplete. Sometimes it's bad. And sometimes it's thorough and clearspoken, but things happen that the manual just doesn't cover. Saying people are dumb because they run into problems in HOWTO-reading is like saying people with learning disabilities are too stupid make decisions for themselves. It's elitist to suggest that anyone who can't follow any set of instructions ever written is a moron. end rant.

mod that one up for interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Good insight into geekism! Will Linux still be the geek standard when (and if) it becomes more mainstream than Windows?

That didn't make sense.

[fishexe]

I'm not saying that people for whom these things aren't obvious don't deserve a book about them.

My bad. I guess I should type slower.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless, the fact that Office can be ported to a vastly different operating system shows that it, internally, has a layered architecture.

Office for Windows (what are they up to now, Office XP?) and Office v. X for Mac OS X share no code in common at all, except for a little bit of OLE stuff that's damn near obsolete, the VBA runtime, and the file format I/O stuff.

Alternatively, Microsoft uses its vast resources to recreate much of Office for the sake of Mac OS X.

Actually, they do it for the sake of the almighty dollar. They sell Office v. X, and make a tidy profit from it, too.

A similar effect has happend with Word versus other word processors, again reinforcing Microsoft's hold on the desktop.

Um... no. Word is a purely natural monopoly. It's the dominant word processor because it's the best. There are specific areas in which Word is a distant second-place finisher; consider the legal market, for example. WordPerfect still owns law firms.

Apple would quickly go bankrupt or nearly so.

Heh. Yeah, because Office v. X would cease to exist. Sure, dude.

By making Office for a wider variety of operating systems, Microsoft can demonstrate good will

They can also lose an assload of money. Take a hundred computers at random from anywhere in the world. Ninety-four of 'em run Windows. Six of them run Mac OS or Mac OS X. NONE of them run anything else. You have to delve into fractions of a percent before you find a personal computer that doesn't run Windows or Mac OS/Mac OS X. Microsoft has ZERO motivation for getting into any new PC platforms.

This would show they are moving beyond their clear position of conflict of interest regarding Windows, which is very significant in reducing their status as an illegal monopoly.

Microsoft does not have an illegal monopoly. In fact, there's no such thing as an illegal monopoly. The abuse of monopoly power can sometimes be illegal, per the various antitrust and anti-collusion statutes, but that's all.

In what other industry would any company be allowed to continue with greater than 90% market share in multiple markets, anyway?

All of 'em. We don't just step up whenever a company gets too successful and say, "Naughty business. You have too much market share. Go stand in the corner." That's just not how it works.

You are an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any experience working with people in the real world, and not some geek wet dream where you rule the entire technoscape?

Re:Reminds me of Linux circa 1994..not

[xxblackice]

i think he's talking about mac os x installs. there are 2 kinds:

1. drag and drop.

2. double click install.

in both cases, ap ends up where you want it...not too tough...if you cant figure that shit out you should go back to the legal pad...its not elitism at all :/

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[andrewski]

Neither one is accurate. Office 'X' is just a Carbon app - the lowliest slime on the Mac platform except for possibly RealBASIC apps. The fact that it is a Carbon app almost certainly dates it to an older Mac OS as its original platform - no sane person would use the garbage that is Carbon unless cercumstances made it otherwise impossible (ie porting an app made for OS 7.5.x / 8.x).

Google Hacks

[Fraew]

not at all associated with GoogleHax.com ...

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about "old obsolete hardware"?
My new machine showed up two weeks ago -
? Power Mac G4 Dual 1.42GHz w/2MB L3 per proc.
? 2GB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 4 DIMM
? 2x120GB Ultra ATA drive
? Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
? NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium w/128MB DDR
? AirPort Extreme Card & AirPort Extreme Base Station (with modem and antenna port)
? Mac OSX 10.2 (patched to 10.2.6)

Plus several options are available that I didn't slap on the bill There is nothing obsolete about the hardware, and new CPU chips are likely this summer.
So lets see, the best of the best current hardware, plus the most finely tuned consumer operating system on the market, plus the Best software titles in the industry (iLife, Final Cut Pro, among many other apple only titles).

mySQL is often just for use by other software

[hayne]

I've seen questions (e.g. on http://forums.macosxhints.com) many times from people who are installing mySQL merely because it is used by some other software that they want to use. They have no intention of defining their own tables, composing their own SQL queries, etc. They just need mySQL to be there for the other software to use.

There is an analogous situation with the C compiler. On Mac OS X, the C compiler is installed as part of the Developer Tools and that is easy enough- but suppose it was harder to do. Then you might be thinking that anyone who has trouble with installation isn't likely to need a C compiler. But again, I see lots of people asking questions about compiling this or that package who haven't the first clue what a C compiler is - they just want to get the FooSnarz program (available as source) running on OS X.

Not really hacks

[klui]

Is it just me or do many of these appear to be tips rather than hacks? A tip is some obscure way how to do stuff. A hack is modifying binary files to do something. For instance, I consider this, and this to be tips, with the latter bordering on a hack; but this is a hack in my book. Of course, this is an "easier" hack than some, like taking out copy protection and the like. But we then border on a crack.

Re:mac problem

[klui]

You'd need XPostFacto to get pre-beige G3 PCI Power Macintoshes to run Mac OS X. Your older Macintosh requires a G3 or better to run Mac OS X 10.2.

it was a good book

[edstromp]

I got it on a weekend vacation a couple weeks ago, and have to say that it was one of the more entertaining books I've read from orielly. It covers a lot of different topics, and while some of the "hacks are pointless or stupid (how to remove the brushed metal look from your apps comes to mind), many are very helpful. Being a newbie Linux/RedHat user, and a long time Mac user, more often than not, what I am looking for is simple instructions telling me how to set up XYZ for my specific platform. Sure Postgres or MySql or sendmail documentation will walk you through the basics of installing, but Mac OS X Hacks walks you through the steps that are relevant to you.

Overall: It is a great book to use as a springboard for getting into more complex features and capabilites of OS X.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Anonymous Coward]

no sane person would use the garbage that is Carbon unless cercumstances made it otherwise impossible

More than half of Cocoa is implemented through Carbon calls.

(Cue shocking music.)

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Copid]

Hopefully, given some time, they'll figure out how to get around problems they caused themselves with the old Mac OS. Resource forks, anybody? "Let's give developers direct access to funky filesystem attributes so we can NEVER use a different filesystem in the future" doesn't make for an easy transition to a UNIX like environment. The run of the mill UNIX apps have a tendency to chew up and spit out Mac files that utilize resource forks. Sure, there's a hacked version of rsync available, but Christ, didn't somebody think of this? A tarball untarred elsewhere loses vital file attributes and toasts applications? Brilliant.

These hacks won't let me change the UI, though

[Moses Lawn]

Here's the OSX hack I want. Can I please get rid of the cutesy interface? If I could just

• Get rid of the fanfold-paper background
• Have square window corners
• Lose those buttons. It looks like blue goo is going to squirt all over my screen when I click on one.

I'd go out and buy one in a hot minute (just as soon as I got a job). That's the only thing keeping me from having a Mac as my main machine (that and the lack of a job). For years, I've envied the way stuff on the Mac just works, but I could never bring myself to actually use one unless I had to (although I tried a number of times). I could never deal with the, um, idiosyncracies of the thing, like the way the keyboard was never really supported, and how Home and End always did the absolute wrong thing. So, I was undersandably excited when I heard about the new interface, it coming from the Next and all.

Imagine my dismay when I saw the first pictures of OSX. Ouch. If I just could have OSX with the OS9 interface, that would be great. The dock is really nice, though.

I understand Steve Jobs' reasons for not wanting to let people change the way it looks (less tech support, a desire to keep a specific Macintosh brand image, personal pride), but I don't agree with them. Just say that you won't support anything that's not factory stock, and let me do what I want with my computer.

Been done.

[Tokerat]

With style, too.

Have a blast.

Re:mac problem

[MacFreek]

M.A.C. = Media Access Control, a sublayer of the Datalink layer (layer 2) in the OSI protocol stack. It's main purpose is to take care that on a shared network, like ethernet, not two hosts start talking at the same time.

Apperently, the author is babbeling that anyone on an ethernet (M.A.C. Users) use old hardward (perhaps he would like everyone to use a 10Gb/s optical line?)

Other than that, I have no clue where he's talking about. Obviously it's off-topic since it is not Macintosh related :-)

I gurantee the best hint in the book would be....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you enable user logging, ie where you have to type the name of the user to login, then log into the machine using >console with no password, you can run in console mode with out starting Quartz, this means you can devote more resources to running Xwindows (+kde if you can handle a windows inspired Gui after Aqua, I mean icons on the left *shudder*) and more-or-saves you from having to run a linux partition (since its 90% the same anyway) unless your into kernal hacking or just got to have to have a /proc directory. See MacOSXhints.com on how to disable this feature.

BTW... it will probally be more worth your money just buying one of the many Linux/Unix howto hack books out there(not internet hacking exposed fool) ie any o'rielly book, Since they are guranteed to be more in tune to the UNIX side of things. and OSX is just a FreeBSD rip, when all is said and done.

If you what to know how MacOSX works (and don't what stupid chapters on how the dock), get MacOSX unleashed, and a copy of Resourcer - basically its all in XML + the development tools and everything you could possibly need should be on a CD given to you when you brought the computer, btw if you, are completly without morals, and what to start cracking could you please start with a crack to logic 6 to my knowledge that programs been out almost a year already and still hasn't been cracked, the mac scene seriously needs to catch up with their windows counterparts in this respect. (that last statement should generate more then enough controversy).

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[andrewski]

Yeah, the Quicktime half.

Re:Sweet Jeesus

[Kadin2048]

It would be a lot harder than you think. OS X is a lot more than FreeBSD with a cute GUI ... just because a program will run under OS X doesn't mean it's easily portable to any UNIX variant. OS X's system architecture is quite complicated.

OS X has Darwin (FreeBSD with Mach kernel) at its core, but above that are layers and layers of Mac-specific stuff (Cocoa, Carbon). The net effect is that although OS X can run a lot of BSD software with relative ease, going the other way would be a big problem--the UNIX system wouldn't have any of the APIs that a complicated app like MS Office uses. (And the API layers in between the software and Darwin are the parts which are not open-source.)

I don't disagree with your overall point--I think that a large part of MS's support for the Mac is just to keep some competition around, but saying that MS Office or MSIE could be ported to UNIX/Linux/BSD easily is untrue.