Slashdot Mirror
An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?"
XCube writes: "'What is Mac OS X?' is a fascinating article over at KernelThread.com. According to Amit Singh it's a hacker-over-friendly answer to that question and a low-level taste of Apple's OS. The extensive article covers many details on Mac OS X: history, Mac firmware & boot loader, system architecture, kernel, startup, file systems, app environments, programming facilities, available software, and more. A great read if you are interested in Mac OS X, though some stuff is too technical methinks. On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in Mac OS X! The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."
Welcome to slashdot.
I'm sorry but - there's no reason to run OS X - FreeBSD 4.x already offers everything it has for free, and FreeBSD -current far surpasses it.
One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.
On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in OS X!
But if I wasn't interested, then why would I be reading it?
Carbon. This is a set of procedural C-based APIs for Mac OS X that are based on the old Mac OS 9 API (actually dating back as far back as Mac OS 8.1)
To nitpick: actually, a lot of the Carbon APIs go as far back as System 1.0 -- most of QuickDraw for example.
Well that would explain why such a small population uses Mac. If the best you can come up with is an application that maybe 1% of the computer using world actually uses or cares about then that is pretty sad.
Are they going to release OS-X under a free license ? If not, it's not very intersting since you cannot hope to hack the code and redistribute it..
Zealot or troll. You decide.
Darwin has been released under the GPL. It's only the higher layers (like Aqua) that are closed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know what you mean...
:P~~~~
Yesterday I was having a great time editing my masterpiece "When Trolls attack" on Final Cut Pro, especially after I finally was done tweaking the shots in Photoshop and After Effects.
Later I enjoyed solving another level of Halo while listening to my iTunes collection.
Thank God for FreeBSD 4! I didn't have to pay for none of this stiffling proprietary OS X crap!
Joe Anoymous.
What are these good or wack comments about? Are they good or are they wack?
It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...
"What is Mac OS X?"
Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
No wonder Apple ony has like 3% of the market.
Yay! The troll shows his colors! Perhaps the idiot mods in some of your karma whoring posts will finally wake up. The funny thing is that you start these huge threads and never bother responding because you know that you are a troll.
stable
easy to use
gorgeous
well rounded
interesting Kind of sounds like the perfect boyfriend/girlfriend. But remember, we're talking about software here... :P
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
If you've been under a rock and haven't read much about OS X, still view Linux as a strong desktop OS, but hate having to fight to get the latest software, hardware, or other common computer accessories working without a call to your other Linux buddies, you should get a kick out of this article.
While the author disavows the article to a degree, it may be of great use to Linux and other UNIX users who haven't a clue of the true nature of OS X beneath its GUI interface. From the kernel, to a typical Mac's boot firmware, to its BSD origins, this is probably one of the better free web-accessible summaries that Linux geeks could appreciate.
OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.
Will OS X work for you best? YMMV.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.
I agree that Gimp 1.x has a GUI designed by a masochist. Check out version 2 though -- much better IMHO.
Nevertheless, more commercial apps and a gorgeous desktop that is truly ready for grandma and grandpa, with BSD, X11, and GCC for junior. Other than being completely "free as in freedom," and games, what else could you want?
Free Software Camp: But Photoshop isn't Free. so "bzzt" to you too.
Open Source Camp: Gimp might not cut it right now, but it is an evolving peice of software. These features Photoshop has that Gimp does not have just hasn't given anyone a sufficient itch yet.
I hate X-Windows, crappy widgets and horrible fonts. As much as people criticize OS-X for being an "expensive" FreeBSD the display engine is light years ahead, its better than anything currently being used on Linux or FreeBSD.
Even NeXtstep and OPENSTEP's use of Display Postscript was excellent on low powered Intel based hardware.
How much "hacking the code" have you done on Linux? Be honest. Have you ever needed to significantly modify your operating system's source code? Do you even know how?
Are you just bitching because it isn't Free for the sake of bitching?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
i must admit that i admire apple's os x platform. for example one *can* use the command line as much as one likes but one doesnt't *have* to. i can't say that i love editing my xf86config for example. tho os x is far from perfect (it *is* after all proprietary) but it seems like an evolution of linux in ways of usability. i think however that the major OSS desktop environments aren't that far away from obtaining equally powerfull yet userfriendly operation (having only working knowledge of the gentoo distro) it's been a while since i used os x (10.1 in fact) and i must admit i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!) sometimes i've wished linux was a bit more 'it just works' although i know huge progess is being made in that field every day (ie getting alsa to work has been a major pita for me) i for one just think os x gives the user still a much smoother computer experience than linux can at the moment. i consider it to be a best of both worlds - operation system. only, personally, i think os x could do with decent skinning features as simple far from everybody likes apple's aqua interface. way to go apple
Unix with no X would have been my reply. X sucks!
It's good to explain more of the underpinnings OS X. You see, NeXTSTEP was almost the perfect operating system and development environment.
:-)
The NS environment (living on in Aqua today) is just so cool. Well-designed interfaces abound. Design patterns everywhere, created when the term "Design Pattern" had barely been explored in the computer world. For instance: most objects use delegation to extend their behavior. Not subclassing! Just compare building a GUI in Swing to Cocoa, it's like salt and sugar.
Objective-C is a wonderful semi-dynamic language, much nicer than C++.
Programming the mac is a true joy, even if all this dynamic dispatch is a little slow and hardly anybody uses macs.
Not all computer users are very computer literate so what makes you think that everyone out there knows what FreeBSD 4.x is and or how to use or get it. People like things easy and if you buy a newmac then it most likely will come with OS X and so why bother getting FreeBSD 4.x.
Sincerely MonkeysKickAss
MonkeysKickAss
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.
cheah ok.. if you're into print maybe it doesnt count. i say those CMYK ninnies just need some RGC colored ink, is all. whiners.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
phhhhsttttttt.....
oh shit i spit my coffee on my monitor
that _was_ pretty funny.
Gimp 2.X ?? where ?? all i see on the gimp websites are references to 1.x.
An attractive, usable, and stable GUI counts for something. FreeBSD (which I run and love) can't provide that.
Also, the iLife suite is fuckin awesome. Nothing on windows or *nix comes even close to it as far as quality and integration are concerned.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I've been considering getting XP, do those patches for the activation work?
I loved some of the concepts behind linux, but I think Linux's greatest advantage is also it's greatest weakness. The fact that there is no central governing body for most projects means that you get lots of fragmentation (X11: freedesktop.org, fresco, XFree; Distros: Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) which makes it very difficult to stick to one standard. Thankfully, over time some projects fork (gcc) and wind up becoming the project that takes over. It's this fragmentation that helps linux adapt so rapidly. However because of all this, developers can't code for one toolkit api, one kernel api, etc. Mac OS X, to linux users, is like linux controlled by ONE group who says yes or no to all issues so that the complex fragmented software base can concentrate on one goal: a good consistent end user experience. I honestly would say Mac OS X couldn't exist without Linux or BSD because it wouldn't be where it was today without the OSS community. People complain that OS X is too proprietary, but i believe it is the perfect mix. On one hand you have OSS software. On the other hand you have commercial software. It's truely the best of both worlds! Isn't this what many linux users want? Linux grandma can use? Companies to write native software? Games? Gaim and KMail side by side with safari and photoshop? You don't have to wait if that's what you want. Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform. Am i saying Gnome and KDE should die off and we should all just use mac os x? of course not. But i am saying if you want a usable unix desktop now, not later, you don't have to look much further.
- tristan
Oh?
From the developer of FilGimp: "Film GIMP developer Caroline Dahllof, a programmer at Rhythm & Hues, "Photoshop handles more layers with big images better". Matte painting artists at Rhythm & Hues create large backgrounds with perhaps forty layers and use a lot of specialized plugins. Working on single large images is quite different from the typical Film GIMP tasks of retouching film frames to remove dust or wire rigs. To get rid of Photoshop completely would require investing a lot of developer resources."
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Bzzzt! Nice, but I have work to do RIGHT NOW.
--- Ban humanity.
Folks it just seems to me that Mac OS X relies heavily on Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator, Go live, et al) and Microsoft (Office, Outlook, Messenger, Media player, el al). Then pretty much everything is either proprietary apple software or free GNU tools. To me it just doesn't justify the profound cost of owning an Apple.
+++ David Watts 5495 0.0 0.5 1888 884
I think what he is saying is:
I want someone else to be able to hack my operating system's source code. I don't want that someone to be limited to an employee for one particular company.
In the article, it explains why Macs aren't overpriced. No wait a minute, that is the only 'misconception' not debunked.
OSX is probably more friendly then linux but it will never be as flexible. OSX only has to deal with a extremely small amount of targeted hardware. Hell anyone can build a good system around a specific hardware specification. If linux only had to deal with a specific drive, a specific processor, a specific cdrom things would be extremely easy now wouldn't it.
Got Code?
Maybe if they offered some sort of lite x86 version
e s/darwin-701.iso.gz 7 01.iso.gz
You can get Darwin (the OS X kernel) for x86 at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
This is a single Installer CD that will boot and install Darwin on Macintosh computers supported by Mac OS X 10.3, as well as certain x86-based personal computers. The version of Darwin installed by this CD corresponds to the open source core of Mac OS X 10.3 and is available at the following URLs:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/imag
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/7.0.1/darwin-
MD5 (darwin-701.iso.gz) = 57e9cb37e9595436596b2fa5975d5569
Well, then I'm thinking your best bet is to go out and find yourself a used blue and white G3 (can be had very reasonably priced on ebay IF you take your time and don't rush it) and follow that with a CPU upgrade. They're coming down to a fairly comfortable price for those machines. Get that B&W going about 500Mhz and add Panther. Don't worry about the price of Panther (I figure if you're going to pirate XP then why pay for Panther?) and you got your firsthand look at OSX.
I pretty much did it that way and then decided I loved this shit enough to give them $3K to see it run on their new machines. I'm not the least bit disappointed either.
Everybody's different but as far as I'm concerned to hell with Windows and screw waiting on Linux to get it's collective desktop shit together. OSX beats both.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
bzzzt! I just felt like saying bzzzt.
This is one of the very best "OS Review" articles I've ever come across - especially the way that it brings in all aspects of history, influences, etc to address ignorance & common misconceptions.
Good Job!
-tor
Bzzzt! Nice, but I have work to do RIGHT NOW.
So why are you reading and posting to
Why not just build the GNU tools, Apache, and postfix on an OS X machine?
And if you think it's just the UI that makes GIMP less powerful, you've clearly never seen a pro work on PhotoShop.
I did the next best thing I could do when I got my Mac. fdisk that dang OS X and installed Yellow Dog.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Orc: What news from the eye me lord, what does it command?
Steveron: Build me a G5 worthy of Mordor...
Weeks later, looking over the 1100 G5's heading toward VA Tech...
Steveron: There will be no dawn...of Windows
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
- see subject -
Yeah, it's too bad that Apple forces you to use its LCD monitors and wireless hardware.
Oh wait, they don't.
Go away, troll.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
blah blah blah. i don't have the freedom. to do what? recompile for the sake for recompiling? to pretend as if you can make it better by tinkering.
are you against it because it is not gpl too? why? does it matter, maybe just cause linux has to do with gpl you pissed off?
ah titty tityy bang bang...
Because I was just at the website and the store says 799$ for the emac right now. Shipping included.
Airport may be expensive, but you don't have to get it. In my laptop it was cheaper than the PC equivalent.
The initial cost of 800 does cost more than a PC, but they also don't become obsolete AS quickly so it's a neat trade off.
OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.
Maybe you should try Linux again, has it been 3 years? I've had very few problems with the latest hardware and software. Now I do have an ibook laying around, its a nice machine and fink+osx is powerful, but I have yet to see a good reason to switch to OSX from Linux. Yes the gui is prettier and there are more solid desktop apps but strangly enough, I actually prefer XFCE 4 to more fully featured desktop enviroments.
Misses the ``sturm und drang'' over Adobe's promising a free, then low-cost, then no-way-what's-your-market-cap license for Display PostScript (originally co-developed by NeXT and Apple), as well as the free ``Yellow Box'' run-time which went away at that time, as well as the moving target of the up-dated APIs when Apple ceased to think of Mac OS X as an OpenStep implementation.
.pdf out of pretty much any app. If one needs access to other features, well, there's always pdfTeX....(which provides access to things which the Adobe Acrobat GUI _doesn't_)
:(
Apple's support for PDF/X gainsays the claim the pdf support isn't a replacement for Adobe Acrobat to a certain extant. By tweaking a few settings one can get a press-ready
And the author misses Gerben Wierda's spiffy iInstaller.app which is a neat way to install iInstaller packages (which includes TeX, xfig, imagemagick, Ghostscript &c.). This was developed to work around (then limitations) of Apple's Installer.app and to make updating packages more efficient---way cool stuff.
osx.hyperjeff.net is a way-cool app tracker....
Also misses Macromedia FreeHand MX and the irony of NeXTstep's premier drawing / page-layout application having come to Mac OS X as a Carbon app
But a nice, informative article naetheless.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
FeeBSD.
MacOS? Halo? Hah!
curse your black hearts, Bungie!
Apple have come up with some innovative products, but their market share remains tiny. Sadly, though, many buyers have been mislead by the marketing and eye-candy, and desperately try to justify their overpriced purchases to themselves on forums around the Net. Let's see what they really mean...
"MacOS X is everything Linux wants to be."
"Despite the fact that Linux is just code and can't WANT to be anything, I truly believe that it'd love to be a single-vendor, single-platform, sluggish half-proprietary OS with dwindling market share. Linux would love to throw away its impressively growing corporate takeup for that."
"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
"It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."
"Aqua makes me so much more productive!"
"My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done. It feels like KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, and I can't change to a light and fast WM, but those drop-shadows must make me work so quickly!"
"OSX shows that Apple is committed to open source."
"OpenDarwin.org and its community of about 27 is surely not just a token gesture by Apple. Pretty much nobody uses pure Darwin, and all the crucial components of the system are closed and require me to spend money just to get major OS updates, but they're really helping the community somehow."
"You get what you pay for with Apple hardware."
"My iBook was made by in Taiwan by AlphaTop and has design and build quality flaws (needing foam sheets jammed in to stop the common problem of the keyboard scratching the screen). But it's silvery and cost far more than an x86 laptop of better spec, so it must be much higher quality!"
"...blah blah MHz myth blah..."
"Although there's truth in PPC being more elegant than x86, it's crushing that the top-of-the-range 1.5 GHz chip is slaughtered by the equivalent 3 GHz Pentium 4. However, Steve Jobs showed some vague Photoshop filter benchmarks at the last MacWorld, so being a leprotard, I'm convinced."
You're american, I would think freedom would be wiped off your mind by now. Get back in line drone :)
Sorry, you're an ass.. why can't you build your horrid GNU tools on it ?
The largest flaw of the article involves the availability of games for Mac OS X. The writer admittedly didn't know of many, so I'll list a few, past, present, and near future. Games that cannot play with their PC or Linux counterparts in a multiplayer mode will be marked with the number sign (#)
-Return to Castle Wolfenstein (original; the Enemy Territory MP expansion is not yet available) (Multiplayer DOTH ROCK.)
- Diablo 2 (including all expansions)
- WarCraft 3 (including all expansions)
- Neverwinter Nights (original; expansions not yet available, but can be hacked to work)
- Baldurs Gate II
- Icewind Dale
- Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
- Star Wars: Jedi Academy
- Lara Croft: Angel of Darkness
- No One Lives Forever 1 and 2
- Halo
- Soldier of Fortune 2
- Dungeon Siege (#) (Legends of Arranna expansion not yet available. This game is made in part by Microsoft and uses proprietary software to make MP work for PCs)
- SimCity 4
- The Sims (including all expansions, excluding Online)
- Splinter Cell (coming soon)
- Command & Conquer: Generals
- Star Wars: Battlegrounds
- Call of Duty (coming soon)
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Spearhead expansion (new editions not yet available)
- Unreal
- Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
- Quake 3 (duh--its the engine for most of the games listed)
About the only big game that never hit the Macintosh in recent years was Half-Life. I built a PC just to try that baby out, and I wasn't disappointed.
Usually, you have to wait 2-6 months for a successful PC game to be ported by companies such as Aspyr, but the wait is usually worth it because the game has been patched and runs much smoother than when it was first introduced on the PC.
I jokingly consider PC players as my beta testers, since a PC game that sucks ("Bloodrayne" notwithstanding--that turd got through the quality control somehow) is never ported to Mac OS X.
So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.
Some companies, like Blizzard, ship boxes that contain both the Mac and PC versions of the game, such as WarCraft 3.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
*looks around with bewildered expression*
I... I think I just wandered into a mac commercial! The room! It's all white! Too bright! My eyes! They burn!!!! Jeff Goldblum?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
*Thunk*
i think the REAL issue is that Apple users are much more likely to have actual sex, while all the *nix trolls get is goat.se(x)...
You might also want to steal comments from someone who doesn't have 1765 comments, and does have a life...
Yadda yadda anti-slash yadda yadda mod down.
How the hell is this "insightful??" Macs can use any LCD or CRT monitor and standard 802.11b/g equipment.
Actually you can use any 802.11b or g wireless router with a Mac (so it's not just available for PCs as you probably already know). The Airport base station has a slightly different set of features that I don't need so I just use a cheap-o wireless router. However, to be fair, there are probably some users who can make use of the Airport features. You're not just buying a more expensive version of the exact same thing when you buy an Airport base station.
Fink. If you cannot figure that out, you probably should not be using OS X.
./configure; make install
If you like source code, a very good development environment is included with every copy of Panther. This allows you to build lots of tools from source, and more every day have OS X dependencies in their source distributions.
"Various oddnesses in setup" - Are you saying that Linux and Windows have a "normalized" setup?
"old Apache" - Fink, or, ftp; gunzip -c | tar xf - ;
"I'm am American--I'm quite attached to freedom."
You might want to try getting better attached to your brian stem before using OS X.
my setup of pirated Windows XP and Linux seems to work quite well.
...So what you're saying is that you want to run OSX for free on your existing hardware? If you can't be bothered to pay for XP, why should Apple bother with the time and money to release an x86 version of OSX which you will just pirate too? I wish Ferrari would give me one of their cars for free but I'm not expecting that to happen.
How stable is version 2? (given that it's still only a developer release). Does it have preview on Unsharp Mask yet? Whoever didn't put preview on USM was simply a masochist.
No, Adobe dropped Premiere for OS X because Apple released Final Cut and it's way better than Adobe's product.
Someone from Adobe was quoted saying something to the effect of "We're not going to try and compete with Apple. Their customers will want to use their product no matter how good ours is."
Common sense is not so common.
1.3 is the dev version of 2.0
Zug Zug, Whachuwamekill?
I use both a Linksys AP and an airport and I tell you, the airport is much much better.. it has a better range and my ibook talks directly to it. I use a regular monitor, a tv and the build in display on my ibook (a Compaq 19" monitor if you want to know) the "price myth" is one that all PC users use to justify not switching. -joe
So don't buy an LCD or basestation from Apple. PowerMacs also have DVI, so you can use it with most modern LCD screens from other manufacturers. Apple doesn't like to use technical jargon, so it gives user-friendly names when possible (Airport=802.11b, Airport Extreme=802.11g, Firewire=IEEE 1394). You don't have to use an Airport Basestation. Until I sold it to a friend, I used a Linksys wireless router for connecting my Mac and PC to the Internet. Now I have a ABSE, but I bought that for the USB print server more than anything else.
Note that you said "high initial cost." This is correct. The price is high at the beginning, but you get that extra cost back in spades over time. I've had a Powerbook for about 3 years now and the money spent is well worth the lack of frustration that I have when using it.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
"Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery."
--Charles Caleb Colton, Lacon, volume I, no. 183
Do I really need to explain that we Linux users aren't running Green CRT's and looking at "crappy widgets and horrible fonts" all day. This isn't 1993. Get a clue Troll.
Come on Mods, think a bit.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
ps. there's nothing 'profound' about a price tag--get a new thesaurus...
It is easyer to install debian.
So Apple only sells LCD monitors, and fancy looking wireless routers which are pricey. Big deal! Macs will work with any wireless router, and any VGA or DVI monitor, IDE hard drives (now some S-ATA), USB mice, etc. etc. They are selling high-end branded hardware. You pay for the name / bragging rights. All kinds of "high end" companies do this.
Look at BMW. They also have a strong brand as being high end. Try buying "official" BMW floormats. What's that you say? $150 for a pair of floormats? You can just as easily buy non-BMW matts at a local hardware store for about $10. They will certainly keep the dirt of the floor just as well.
Anyhow, perhaps I've borrowed too much from the car analogy, but you get the point. Apple is marketing themselves as a high end computer dealer. I won't even get into all the great included software that comes with their machines. Oh, and by the way, you can get an all-in-one eMac for about $999. Doesn't sound too outrageously priced to me.
People want to check out the GUI aspects of OSX, Darwin has none of this. I can't come up with a good analogy, so this will have to do.
"I would like to check out the new features in Word"
"Check out notepad, it is free with Windows."
You don't have to use Apple's LCD monitors. I'm using a very old 20" Radius on my G5 out of the box (ships with a DVI to VGA adapter too).
You can use other 802.11 devices with different feature sets that will be cheaper.
Macs aren't that expensive, they simply don't sell "low end" computers. We've beaten this horse to it's quarks several times here on
But, the software is the #1 mac purchasing carrot, if you will.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
It's the fact that airport (which is a fancy name for 802.11b/g) is much more expensive than what is available for PCs.
It is also a different product.
Airport can route a modem connection rather than just a ethernet like every other product.
So with Airport you can share a dial-up connection wirelessly.
Extra functionality , and from what I've seen, the only wireless router that can do this.
really, i prefer my applications to be fully-abled;>
The G5 is currently the only Mac shipping without a monitor, and the video cards they ship with have both DVI and ADC outputs. The G5 comes with a DVI to VGA adapter in the box, so while Apple doesn't sell anything less than a $700 LCD they do not limit you to anything. My 4-year old Mitsubishi CRT works just fine until I can find the extra cash laying around to upgrade to an LCD.
The "crappy widgets and horrible fonts" have nothing to do with Quartz vs X11. The X Athena Widget toolkit might look ugly by todays standards, sure, but why use that today? GTK with the industrial theme looks great (IMO), and there are a lot of great fonts now. If you like Aqua, fine, but that's not due to Quartz.
Quartz is nice, but IMO Cairo has it beat, being based on the network transparent, portable X window system.
If Quartz was so "good", why would Apple need to make it's own (non-free for that matter) version of X11 available as well?
Cairo uses a model very similar to Display PDF, which is a good idea which much of the good sides of Quartz stem from.
No. It was a resource hog on anything except NeXT's own machines (which had a decoding card specifically for that purpose). Not only is the X Window System a lot leaner, Display Postscript has inherent security flaws (one of the best reasons to go with Display PDF instead, as Quartz does).
Obviously, as Plan 9's Rio proves, a window system can be made a lot leaner than X. But Quartz is going in the other direction than that - features and rendering - and still it hasn't got X beat. That's pathetic, considering X is free and Quartz isn't. You can keep your golden chains.
mod the above in the "hilarious" category
You do if you don't want to shell out $$$ for a converter and/or adapter. You'll also probably want to make sure you're using a non-Apple Monitor that can be supported by Apple's Display Configuration Utility.
Go away, uneducated stupid comment maker guy.
excuse me but why exactly is this a troll ? :)
i mean i agree from a developer's point of view but i guess that the proprietary part is the price you pay for the consitency and unified feel you get. i dont have enough bsd experience to add anything worthy bout that.
i'm belgian -- i like freedom too
"So, OS X is useless, unless you need Photoshop."
There's actually some truth to that. Macs are great for artists in both the 2D and 3D space. Since OSX is built on top of BSD, it gives studios a platform to really build upon. (Sorry Microsoft.) The interface is far more friendly to those who are more right brained and visually oriented. On top of all that, it just works, no real tinkering to do.
"No wonder Apple ony has like 3% of the market. "
Art is what the Mac excels at. Can't really go wrong there. Sadly, it isn't what the general computing populace is doing. People buy their machines based on their potential, not so much for what they do out of the box. As a result, Apple is in a bit of a tight spot. It's hard to buy a Mac when you go to a store and find but the slighest trace of its existence. Being left out sucks. That leaves you making the decision to go with it in order to solve a very specific problem.
So yes, the statement does have some truth to it.
"Derp de derp."
Now that is something I'd like to have a look at.
Anyone seen it/got it/set-it-up-for-kix?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I am using a 2 button scroll mouse with all my macs
ur a troll
-joe
"only a dipshit thinks that photoshop is better than gimp. "
Either a dipshit or somebody who sits down, uses Gimp, and finds out it's missing a LOT of what Photoshop has.
There are a few things that Gimp does just fine. However, those of us that make a living by knowing every nook and cranny of Photoshop find Gimp to be virtually unusuable in many areas of image creation and adjustment. There's a reason why Photoshop is the de-facto leader in that market, think about it.
"Derp de derp."
Don't tell! :-)
--- Ban humanity.
"ree Software Camp: But Photoshop isn't Free. so "bzzt" to you too."
Sadly, I see this argument all too often. Price isn't everything, folks. If I save $600 by using Gimp instead of Photoshop, but the result isn't good enough to get paid for the project, then Gimp effectively isn't free.
I'm happy to spend the money, especially when it makes the task of making more money a lot easier. GIMP has a long ways to go before it actually saves a lot of us artists money.
"Derp de derp."
It's also the fact that systems have high initial costs ($1299 for JUST A BOX!)
It's also because most people are used to the fact that their $300 white box is unuseable as a primary machine after a couple years. Sure it makes a nice fileserver/router/whatever.
But there are many people out there happily running Panther on 5 year old Macs.
"I wish I knew what OSX was like firsthand, because I sure as hell can't afford a mac with what I get paid."
If you can afford a PC then you can afford a Mac.
Why are you bothering everyone with you worthless post?
Quite a few of the SMCs do this. Nice feature when the cable goes down.
Yep, that VGA adaptor that came with my PowerMac G4 that lets me hook up my 21" Hitatchi CRT was pretty expensive.
And if you're going to play the "well, I was talking about LCDs with DVI" game, they are available from a variety of sources for around $40.
So, if you really wanted to, you could spend less than $500 and have an OS X machine on your desktop to play with it and see if you're interested in going further.
If Quartz was so "good", why would Apple need to make it's own (non-free for that matter) version of X11 available as well?
Because people wanted to run the GIMP and X-Chat.
Seriously; that's just about it.
I have three monitors connect to my 400MHz AGP G4 running Panther, one that I connect to my 1GHz 12"PB, and none are Apple LCDs. I also have 3rd party "airport" (802.11g) wireless hardware.
Apple monitors (LCD and otherwise) have typically been at the higher end of the spectrum because they are at the higher end, quality wise. If a lower spec monitor suits your needs, then fine. Save that money and buy ass-ugly generic monitors. I did.
There is no reason to buy the Apple AirPort "flying saucer" other than it has a nice package than any other 802.11b/g unit. Some people like Apple's industrial design, and will pay a premium for the nice wrapping. But, Apple adhered to the 802.11b/g standards, so one can use whatever hardware one wishes.
And, btw, x86 folks. Whether you are a Linux-head or a Windows-advocate, drop Apple a thank you for once again dragging your hardware manufacturers into the future by pushing a wireless networking standard. You think all those 3rd party wireless networking devices would be available to you if Apple hadn't shown the rest of the industry that wireless computing was a capability desired by the consumer?
Riiiiight....
---anactofgod---
---anactofgod---
"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
Oh that just makes a ton of sense!
At this time, as I've scanned through the posts I've noticed two score modes:
0 and 5
Anyone else notice it? And if you read the posts you'll find that their contents are very consistent, too:
People who make rational observerations get a lot of 5's and then there's the Windows fags that score 0's for their incipid rants.
That's precisely the sort of thing that Fink is for: easy building and installation of Unix tools on OSX.
Incidentally, it's based on apt-get, that beloved tool of Debian users everywhere.
PowerMacs and PowerBooks have standard DVI out, and come with a free (aka zero $$$) DVI to VGA adapter. iBooks come with a free VGA adapter. Putting a 3rd party display on an iMac is just plain tacky.
Go away, uneducated stupid comment maker guy."I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer."
If you're gonna to troll, try using a topic that hasn't been done to death?
Here's something a little fresher:
"I hear OSX is based on eunuchs!"
Price isn't the argument. Vendor restrictions on what you can do with the software is.
If you're interested in trying OS X, Apple's online store has new iBook G3s for $799 (look in the Special Deals section). I bought one for my wife and 'borrow' it liberally ;-) OK so it isn't a PowerBook G4 but it has to be one of the best values in laptops. Its fast enough to do reasonably sized software development, and its more than enough for couch-born web surfing and email. Unix + great GUI + lightweight portable = bliss.
Not trying to sound like an advertisement, just giving a heads up to people that want the cheapest way possible to run OS X. (well, on new gear, on the same page you can get factory refurbs for even cheaper)
I won't bother dealing with your anti-proprietary zealotry; while I do prefer an Open-Source solution when it presents itself, I cannot simply ignore something out of hand simply because it's proprietary.
As for your "minor problems", most can be resolved with a single tool called fink, which is basically an apt-get port. Packages exist for your precious GNU tools (which, admittedly, I prefer), Apache, Postfix, and many other popular Unix/Linux tools.
As for the "various oddnesses in setup", would you care to elaborate? I do hope that you're not going to complain about the use of directory names which make actual sense.
I would rather use my right hand than have sex with another male. What you Apple users do is your own business, but I want no part of it.
I thought OS X was an operating system. I do not understand the confusion.
I hate sigs.
Macs are not more expensive than an x86 - especially used. However, you can probably get some x86 systems free and you probably can't get a free Mac new enough to run OS X. (You need at least a Blue and White G3 or an iMac.)
Maybe you should consider a higher paying job?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"Price isn't the argument. Vendor restrictions on what you can do with the software is."
Elaborate?
"Derp de derp."
you are confusing free with Free. a confusion which also is seen far too often. a quick google reveals this
if your buying a computer based on how many buttons its OEM mouse has, you have some major issues.
i recently bought my IBook 12 inch about 3 months ago, my first Apple ever, and since then, i've given my brother my new toshiba satelite 1.6ghz laptop, cause i have absolutly no use for it anymore
i've used a usb microsoft optical mouse, and a RF logitech keyboard and mouse, usb also on the mac and it works perfectly fine. So what, its not white and clear plexi glass.
I also got the airport extreme card for it, and it connects just fine to my netgear wireless hub. and the built in ethernet port ? just fine to my netgear gateway router.
and bluetooth. My girl friends phone is blue tooth. it took me 2 hours to use her phone as a modem on her windows laptop. i took the usb adapter, pluged it into my ibook, and in 5 minutes i was online threw her phone
nitpicking will get you no where. My only complaint is, if i would have known id like it so much, I would have gotten a dual g5
my 2 cents.
Airport cards are not more than other decent wireless cards. You don't have to buy Apple's base station.
They sell the eMac which comes with a CRT monitor. If you buy a G5 tower, you can use whatever monitor you want.
Their hardware is priced higher than the cheapest possible x86 box you can buy, but it also doesn't suck and doesn't contain used parts.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Elaboration: I can't look at the source code.
Personally, I think it's a stupid argument, but that's the one the open source zealots make.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Nevertheless, more commercial apps and a gorgeous desktop that is truly ready for grandma and grandpa
If I wanted more commercial apps, I'd just install Windows. Let's face it, Windows is the king of commercial apps.
*Punt kick* NEXT!
Bunk. Adobe pulled Premiere for the Mac because it can't hold a candle to Final Cut, and the comparison was embarrasing to them. If Apple were to ever port Final Cut to the PC, Premiere would be extinct in a year.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The first problem is that buying an affordable mac means buying one that is waaay below spec when compared to what a PC user may be used to (example: my G4 500MHz Cube cost me $800 via e-bay, and was considered a fairly decent bargain.)
After spending $400 for a processor upgrade, and a LOT of shoehorning just to get a competent videocard to fit in it (a cheap re-flashed Radeon 8500), not to mention OSX itself (currently at 10.2.8), I wound up with nearly $1300 sunk into a box that ran roughly as well as a 2GHz Pentium 4.
After ironing out Apple's particular quirks, I still had to contend with an eternal wait whenever I wanted to load a program, and performance was spotty at best. Granted, this was because jacking up a native G4 w/ a Powerlogix chip isn't going to get you the same performance as a system built natively w/ such speeds in mind, but quite frankly, buying a used Apple to test out OSX would be a lot like buying a 386 laptop to see how Linux stacked up against XP on a gamer's box.
Your best bet would be to spend some time on a friend's Mac (get 'im to make an account for you), and see what it would be like on something more recent (albeit more expensive.) Then, if you want to go whole-hog, go get a G5 and call it good. It'll cost a fortune, but at least you can do it knowing that it'll remain useful for at least 6 years (whereas PC's tend to become 'legacy' items after 3.)
As for me and my cube? I've got 3 Yellow Dog Linux CD's ready to get installed on it... I figure a that YDL 3.0 with MOL (Mac On Linux) for my CG proggies will suffice. At least everything that doesn't require OSX will run with a response time that ends before the next ice age
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Personally, I got tired of having to re-locate the the set of arcana I needed to get my USB and DVD stuff working again on my Linux box after each kernel update. When the time came for a new machine, I bought a Powerbook.
I still have my Linux servers, but for daily use, my Mac is a dream.
Clear, Dark Skies
No, it's compatibility FUD (I actually had an online banking support rep say to me "remember Betamax?") and a complete lack of understanding of ROI and the lifecycle of hardware. Not to mention lemming behaviour...
And I've heard more people than I can stomach who just need to use the internet and type some letters say that there isn't any software for the Mac, a salesperson told them so. (10K native apps plus VirtualPC and all those OS 9 apps, and counting.)
$1299 for just a box (WTF? which one? izzat $CDN?) that you'll use for 4 years as-is (after a third-party RAM upgrade) and can run semi-pro creative applications without geekery, viruses, or downtime--not bad at all, especially if you use it to make money.
Damn those pesky terrorists
There are also clones of NeXT/Apple's InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder and a host of end user applications. GNUstep builds on Linux and other UNIX systems. The Foundation classes work fine on Windows and there's serious work to perfect the GUI classes on Windows as well.
This isn't so much true anymore. Macs are excellent at digital music, and a LOT of consumers are into that. Nothing touches Mac for digital video, and consumers are really starting to get into that.
The biosciences community is in love with Apple, and universities are sitting up and taking notice ever since Virginia Tech made the #3 supercomputer with fewer processors and a fraction of the cost of the number 4 Xeon-based cluster (and now that G5 Xserves are out...).
I believe it was an Apple executive who recently said: When you own all the niches, you own the market. This is the plan I see Apple working toward.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
iMacs are just plain tacky.
There. It had to be said.
Darwin is the core of OS X; but you don't get the higher level APIs.
Clear, Dark Skies
"Elaboration: I can't look at the source code.
Personally, I think it's a stupid argument, but that's the one the open source zealots make. "
Oh, I see what you mean. I agree, it's a very overrated argument. Even if Photoshop did have its source code available, I don't know a single person who'd actually look at the source code. We want to get our work done, not tweak.
"Derp de derp."
Is there a printable version for those like me that prefer wireless paper solutions while in the craper?
uh...by the way - i do plan to read it. not wipe with it. hmmm...unless there's an emergency or the article sucks.
if your buying a computer based on how many buttons its OEM mouse has, you have some major issues.
There is one really, really big issue. Apple is famous for their laptops. Apple's desktops are not (IMHO) particularly exceptional or cost-competitive, but their laptops have traditionally been near-PC price and well-built. Most people I know that want Apple hardware want a laptop.
However, if you purchase an Apple laptop, you cannot simple snap in a new trackpad. You are stuck with a single button. Yes, you can can purchase an external mouse, but then you're stuck using an external mouse with your laptop. This is a pain in the ass, and something that you can avoid on non-Apple laptops -- you can get nice three-button laptops elsewhere.
This is not something that Apple is unaware of or incapable of fixing. However, they have made a conscious (and much-protested) decision to not natively support multiple buttons in their hardware, even as an option. While I can respect their reasons for doing so, it does make their hardware much less appealing. The reason people get so bent out of shape about this is partly because Apple *insists* on forcing you to use their hardware to use their software, and *insists* on not providing an option for more buttons for the (many) folks that are unhappy with their default setup.
If this is not a problem for your uses, that's fine. For me, it would be a major issue -- having to find a flat surface and carry along a big clunky external device to use the thing *is* an issue. Please do not call this "nitpicking" -- it is an entirely justified criticism that Apple has chosen not to address.
May we never see th
I guess I'm suprised that UNIX just accepted the CDE and never really extended it to be something really cool. At its base OS X is BSD, and Panther actually comes with a version of X one could install. Personally I like OS X, but macs hardware is just to expensive for a poor man like me. IMHO Mac OS X is the uppermiddle class mans extra friendly UNIX. I'll take Linux cause I'm poor ;-)
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
"Sadly, I see this argument all too often. Price isn't everything, folks. If I save $600 by using Gimp instead of Photoshop, but the result isn't good enough to get paid for the project, then Gimp effectively isn't free."
If this concept about software cannot be understood by the Open Source zealots, I don't know how anybody could ever take them seriously.
"I'd like to know what Adobe Photoshop is like."
"Check out the JPEG and TIFF standards then."
That is why I call it "FeeBSD".
Troll? Oh c'mon, it was funny last time I posted this!
Hehehe.
Seriously though, develop a sense of humor, will ya? You guys are way too sensitive about Mac jokes.
I'd consider the "Digital Audio" G4s to be the best price/performance place for people looking for a cheap way to play around with OS X. Most of them came with Quickdraw Extreme-capable video cards and they all have at least a CD burner.
Just make sure you stock up on RAM [at least 512 IMO] and you'll have a smooth while not exactly rocket-powered OS X experience. The 466s seem to run around $500 on eBay.
Almost everyone with a clue agrees OS X is pretty good. It's the damn hardware costs.
Most of what is here is cutting but true. However, the article, unlike most Slashdot posters, does not claim this. He doesn't say that OS X is a "better Linux" -- he says that they're two different beasts.
"Despite the fact that Linux is just code and can't WANT to be anything, I truly believe that it'd love to be a single-vendor, single-platform, sluggish half-proprietary OS with dwindling market share. Linux would love to throw away its impressively growing corporate takeup for that."
True, but I don't believe OS X has dwindling market share.
"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
I don't think I've ever seen people say this.
"My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done. It feels like KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, and I can't change to a light and fast WM, but those drop-shadows must make me work so quickly!"
True. However, I think they may also be referring to the lower learning curve of much Mac OS software. Unless you're using software quite a bit, the learning curve plays a larger role than the total amount of functionality. I claim that it takes around three years of heavy use of emacs before you really start to get a lot more good out of it than its traditional Windows and Mac OS counterparts.
"OpenDarwin.org and its community of about 27 is surely not just a token gesture by Apple. Pretty much nobody uses pure Darwin, and all the crucial components of the system are closed and require me to spend money just to get major OS updates, but they're really helping the community somehow."
True. Apple does not "get it" WRT open source in anywhere near the same way that Red Hat and friends do. They produce a high-end, propriatary product. However, they are infinitely better than Microsoft (and to many people, Mac OS is a valid alternative to Windows...but Linux is not). Furthermore, even before the open source thing started up, Apple was much better about helping folks tinker around with internals than Microsoft was.
"My iBook was made by in Taiwan by AlphaTop and has design and build quality flaws (needing foam sheets jammed in to stop the common problem of the keyboard scratching the screen). But it's silvery and cost far more than an x86 laptop of better spec, so it must be much higher quality!"
I agree that many folks try very hard (and fail) to justify the amount of money spent on their Apple hardware. I find such claims pretty much futile on desktops. However, while they aren't perfect, many Apple laptops are fairly price competitive and pretty good compared to their PC counterparts. Yes, Apple has had a history of doors breaking off, of scratches, and of some flimsiness. But I've also seen countless x86 laptops with all kinds of problems as well. Apple may not be light years ahead here, but they sure aren't light years behind either.
"Although there's truth in PPC being more elegant than x86, it's crushing that the top-of-the-range 1.5 GHz chip is slaughtered by the equivalent 3 GHz Pentium 4. However, Steve Jobs showed some vague Photoshop filter benchmarks at the last MacWorld, so being a leprotard, I'm convinced."
Very true. Macs are (significantly) slower than x86 machines. It's simply true. Folks who are arguing that Macs are good should not waste their time trying to argue otherwise. They're much better off with the "Yes, but what are you actually *using* said cycles for? I'm getting drop shadows out of it -- you seem to be using about 2% of your CPU on average!"
May we never see th
Make sure you partition your drive, having the first 8 gigs for OSX to install on. Later machines don't need to do that.
I have Panther on a Rev B 333mhz iMac, it runs well with 256mgs RAM
photosMy Photostream
LOL... so, so true
There are two reasons to consider Apple's Airport stations - a modem for internet connections (sounds crazy, but not everyone has broadband yet), and a USB port for simple printer sharing.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
becasue sometimes free is to expensive. To explain. I don't have time to learn to load FreeBSD on intel or PPC. I don't have time to try and find all the great apps that already come with MacOSX. I don't need to spend my time trying to figure out how, I would rather just do. I think the entire Linux Community is awesome, but as a linux head I spend to mcuh time trying to find a way to get things to work in UNIX/Linux when Apple just did all that for me for $90-129 dallors depending on wher eyou purchased it. That is why. Free in some cases means 40 - 200 hours of work and that is time I could be spending gaming, writing, or just plain relaxing doing other stuff. Plus you can't beat all the other cool stuff Apple offers. Dude....???
David Vasta iSeries(AS/400) Admin & Junkie
Can't we all just keep picking on Microsoft? and get along. MacOSX is not the devil!
David Vasta iSeries(AS/400) Admin & Junkie
More likely, it was designed by a sadist.
A masochist prefers being on the receiving end of a spanking.
A sadist, understands that in matters of pain, it is far better to give, than to receive.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Their hardware is priced higher than the cheapest possible x86 box you can buy, but it also doesn't suck and doesn't contain used parts.
Actually, Apple doesn't really use ultra-nice components, as they did back in the day. I'd say what they put into their cases is about what you'd get in an x86 box. On the other hand, Apple's prices have also come down a lot since the day, and their laptops are price competitive.
May we never see th
I wrote a petition a while back to get that added to OS X, but it never seemed that anything came of it. W00t!
...of course, there's the obvious rejoinder that Mac folks would upgrade more frequently if it were more affordable...
May we never see th
Replacing the vendor-standard Apache has issues at the GUI-CLI interface.
Installing postfix is not nearly so simple as it is on Solaris or AIX; a glance at the various online tutorials demonstrates this.
Anyway, even were Mac OS X as easily make-right-able as Solaris or AIX, it'd still be proprietary, like them. Why not use free software?
Nice troll dumbass. Halo doesn't even run on OS X. Must be the M$ bugs eating your brain.
Oh, and by the way, you can get an all-in-one eMac for about $999. Doesn't sound too outrageously priced to me.
True, but to be honest, the eMac kind of sucks compared to what you can get in the PC world for $1K.
May we never see th
Personally, I spent the last several years nursing an upgraded Beige G3.
;)
The G5 was the Apple platform I was waiting for. You can put faster CPU's in the previous platforms all you want, and it does help, and they are VERY flexible to this sort of modification - but you can't overcome the bus bottleneck. (ie. you can't polish a turd).
I ditched my G3, and bought my first power mac in over 5 years, because Apple FINALLY addressed the bus bottleneck. I wouldn't recommend buying and upgrading an old G4 even to someone I didn't like.
I'm also, not at all disappointed with any aspect of my dualie 2ghz. Except maybe it's incompatability with my old hard drives. SATA helped me get over that heartache tho
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And yes, Linux (well, the distros I've used anyway) has a pretty nice setup. The GNU tools are a joy to work with. My example of touch -d was from experience: on Linux on can do touch -d "20 Jan" FILE and it works; on OS X it must be touch -d 01201200. I know because this happened while trying to walk my brother through some things.
The problem with OS X is that it is neither a traditional Unix nor a traditional end-user OS. If one wants a real Unix, why not just get Linux: it's free as in beer and speech.
Haha!! maybe to it's Mesons and well.. nevermind
don't forget FireWire, and also really popularizing USB, and getting rid of stupid floppy drives, and Mice for that matter. The list goes on and on.
The major things I've seen that Photoshop has that GIMP doesn't are:
* No neat duotone tool. I like duotones.
* No non indexed/RGB color model support. Very, very bad if you're doing output for professional printing.
* Not sure, but I suspect Photoshop has better color matching support.
* Photoshop has a nicer warping interface.
* There are more plugins available for Photoshop. They're often quite pricy, but if you're a professional designer (the sort of person that would care about four color work and hence want to use Photoshop instead of GIMP), you're probably going to make back the cost pretty quickly.
There are only a few things that I know of that GIMP can do that Photoshop can't. Among these are:
* Better support for many languages to write plugins in.
* Some researchy plugins that go well beyond what Photoshop can do; Resynthesizer is one.
May we never see th
Frankly, Halo on Mac OS sucks from a performance standpoint.
May we never see th
I was thinking of OpenDarwin, I di actually know that Apple Darwin is APSL but I posted a little hastily. I figured someone would jump on that...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
he said:
Nice troll dumbass. Halo doesn't even run on OS X. Must be the M$ bugs eating your brain.
Nice Try, troll. Halo has been ported.
Use google first before you go shooting your piehole off on slashdot. w3rd.
Halo for mac here:
macsoftgames.com
music lover since 1969
I got an Airport card last night for my G4 ($79.00 US). It took me about 10 minutes (most of which was spent cautiously looking at the connector and card) to install & hook up the built-in antenna. It then took me about 5 minutes to set up using the airport-ready software (already installed). I was browsing the internet through my wife's Windows-based Netgear base station (using Roadrunner) about 2 minutes later. And when it comes to hardware, etc., I'm pretty much a complete amateur.
Hmmm, damn I could have sworn the PowerMac we just bought is working absolutely fine with our nice Sony CRT and our NEC LCD monitor, both of which use standard VGA connections.
And I could swear that the D-Link wireless card I have works very nicely in my Powerbook.
I must just be dreaming though.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Just adding to your list here:
* Nowhere near as many layer modes. Photoshop is more like working in a darkroom, whereas Gimp is more like working with the features of a consumer level digital camera. That bit me in the ass while trying to show my coworker how to make a seamless texture for a 3D project he's working on.
* Gimp thinks it needs to have seperate windows on the taskbar. This is useful on a multi-desktop environment like KDE where you can just dedicate a desktop to it, but in the single desktop environment like Windows, it's a PITA to have 5 extra windows open. Photoshop's MDI environment is much better in that respect. (Why not use the equivalent of Mozilla's tabbed browsing?)
* It's been mentioned before that Gimp doesn't support CMYK. Corrections invited.
* One of the filters I tried to show my coworker didn't have a preview mode. (It was either blur or a sharpen filter I think...) I've read that earlier versions of Gimp had no preview modes to speak of in any of the features, but that may have been fixed in recent months. I can tell you that as of a week or two ago, we ended up having to use trial and error to figure out the right number to plug in to a filter.
* This is related to my taskbar complaint, but a nicely contained problem all on it's own. Since there's no 'background window' to Gimp, be careful about running it with other apps on the same desktop. Otherwise an accidental click will bring a background window to front. Obnoxious. Simple fix really. Set up a background window, and when it comes to focus, bring up the other related windows. Don't want that? set up a switch to turn it off.
I'm sure there'll be rebuttals to my points. Frankly, I don't see the point. Gimp has the potential to be on the same level as Photoshop. That day has to arrive before I dump Photoshop. Sorry. I've got work to do.
"Derp de derp."
I agree that hinting too little has been a problem with past versions of OS X, but whatever they added between Jaguar and Panther (I guess Apple prefers to call it "micro-pixel positioning") has done a lot to clean up the color problems that existed before. I noticed the difference the first time Panther booted, and the appearance of small fonts in particular is much more readable now.
$130 per computer, or a single $130 cost depending on your morals. Or a $200 cost for 5 computers.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
because being able to view and modify the source code when I should be creating the products that I'm supposed ot be paid to create is going to put food on my table.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
This is the answer I never saw properly answered, and I hoped the article would.
Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?
One could be lean with a single BSD server, or flexible with Mach and a multiple server system like the Hurd. But XNU gives one the worst of both worlds as I see it...
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
think the REAL issue is that Apple users are much more likely to have actual sex
Yeah well when an apple user actually has sex with a woman let me know.
Office desktop: RedHat 9 on AMD
Home (me+wife+kids): Mac OS X Panther
Something I use for one-off client software and site testing: Win2K on Dell P3
I have used a Mac since the SE30 (circa '88). The office is 100% Windoze, including assets in India (where they are about as Windoze addicted as one can be) and my office Linux desktop and laptops work out OK with the printing and shares with some fiddling. The server room is probably 75% Linux however, much of which I manage, and I went to Linux on the desktop a year ago with no regrets when my WinDell started locking up, except that I would have prefered a Mac.
I would use OS X at work if I could get the PHBs to spring for the hardware. But they don't really care about a lot that IMHO is important to enjoying work; I already bought my own Aeron task chair (to save my aching back) and my own LCD monitor (to save my aching eyes and immune system) and already built my own workstation (because I already have one flaky Dell) so maybe I should buy my own Mac for work.
Makes me feel like a damned visitor here sometimes! Screw it; I'll get a new iMac for home and bring my G4 to work. Some things you just cannot compromise on.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
So the parent, with the same message was +3 Funny. The child was -1 Flamebait. What the fuck ever.
Quote:
I hear ya. Just the other day I was updating a complex technical document in Microsoft Word F, when FreeBSD's Unix core came in handy as I wrote a little perl script to analyze my Apache logs. Then I fired up Quicken and balanced my checkbook to find out that I have a little extra cash this month. Thank god I didn't have to pay the ridiculous Apple Tax! Those stupid suckers.
Hopefully this weekend I'll get around to editing my sister's wedding video and creating a nice DVD of it for all of the family. I don't have Final Cut, but the free movie editing and DVD creation tools available for FreeBSD are easily the best and easiest to use. I'll probably write some custom piano music for it using my MIDI keyboard and Digital Performer (which runs best on FreeBSD).
Next week I have a bunch of code development I need to do for a big project. Thankfully I have several machines at my disposal, and FreeBSD's kick ass development environment automatically senses my other machines and uses their free cycles to speed up those long compiles.
Finally, I think I'll have a nice video chat with my grandmother. Haven't seen her in a while. FreeBSD is the best platform for this. Suck my ass, Apple apologists!
That was a much better analogy.
I guess you showed those Mac zealots a thing or three... Why, even I, running on my piece of crap G4 400Mhz Mac (It's only been running 3+ years without problems - must be ready to go any time now) with my 1 button mouse (with 4 buttons?!?) and sluggish Aqua interface (which somehow seems faster on my 400 Mhz G4 than KDE does on my 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 at home -- must be an illusion...) have been convinced. I've been using Linux at home and the Mac at work (and at home with my laptop) for a while now and hadn't seen the light about Linux superiority! So in response...
Linux Zealot Translator-o-matic
"Linux is everything Mac OS X wants to be."
"Despite the fact that Linux is pulled in numerous directions by various factions, contains an antique driver architecture, and is weighted down by the need to support a gazillion obsolete bits of hardware alongside of bleeding edge hardware made by manufacturers who refuse to release specs to the open source community, I truly believe it wants to be a lean, stable, easy to configure and use OS just like Mac OS X. Linux would love to rewrite itself from scratch to accomplish this."
"Linux Hardware is for real computer lovers"
"I can use ANY hardware I want to on my Linux machine, even this cool new motherboard I just boug... Okay, once I download the drivers I can use any hardware I... Hmph, okay, after I recompile my kernel and install new dri... Blast it all, after I upgrade to the latest test kernel and install the latest patches... *&^*&^ drivers -- Fine, after I *write* new drivers, maybe? Never mind -- I'll go back to my motherboard from 2 years ago - I know *that* one works, anyway. Mostly."
"KDE makes me so much more productive!"
"Yeah, it blows away that whole Aqua thing - I can render a web page in 3.2 seconds, which is a whole tenth of a second faster than they can on the Mac. And so what if Aqua can use hardware acceleration to composite the screen faster than I can draw three windows -- who needs more than one or two windows on screen anyway - they only clutter things up and slow things down, so I don't use that many. Besides, even when I do, I know where they all are anyway - don't need that Expose crap. And I've got glasses, so when I squint to make out the fonts, it won't hurt too much."
"Only Linux is *real* Open Source"
"Just because Apple provided open source to Darwin, doesn't mean it's really open source -- you need a couple thousand people working on it to count. And it's BSD based anyway -- who needs that? It's not like BSD is a real open source system either. We all know only Linux counts. (And those guys calling it GNU/Linux should learn that too...)"
"You get what you pay for with Linux hardware."
"Absolutely. Except for quality, ease of use, quick setup -- those cost extra. But I can certainly get cheap, low quality, hardware cheaper. I might even get it to work eventually."
"...blah blah MHz myth blah..."
"Although there's truth in x86 being more awkward, it isn't really that bad -- a top end Pentium 4 when overclocked (and water cooled) *almost* comes close to the top of the end 2.0 Ghz PPC G5 chip. Why, the Athlon 64 even does slightly better, at least until higher speed G5 chips come out next month. We'll cling doggedly to our current lead to show our superiority and show those Mac weenies who's boss..."
Nowhere near as many layer modes. Photoshop is more like working in a darkroom,
:-)
Really? I'm a bit out-of-date on Photoshop, but IIRC GIMP has all the layer modes that Photoshop did back when I was admining a lab of Photoshop machines (which was, admittedly, back in the day...)
Photoshop's MDI environment is much better in that respect.
True, but Photoshop would then suck in a multi-windowed environment. It drives me up a wall that the X11 version of Opera can't do multiple windows -- that you're stuck with MDI and a single desktop. You may be on to something with Mozilla's combined MDI/SDI approach -- more apps really could use it. GIMP does do some of this -- the palettes are tearable tabs in GIMP 2 (well, GIMP 2 prerelease, soon to be GIMP 2).
* One of the filters I tried to show my coworker didn't have a preview mode. (It was either blur or a sharpen filter I think...) I've read that earlier versions of Gimp had no preview modes to speak of in any of the features, but that may have been fixed in recent months. I can tell you that as of a week or two ago, we ended up having to use trial and error to figure out the right number to plug in to a filter.
This used to be more epidemic than it once was. A few plugins still do not have it -- the Gaussian blur plugins lack it. This is actually on my to-do list.
* This is related to my taskbar complaint, but a nicely contained problem all on it's own. Since there's no 'background window' to Gimp, be careful about running it with other apps on the same desktop. Otherwise an accidental click will bring a background window to front. Obnoxious. Simple fix really. Set up a background window, and when it comes to focus, bring up the other related windows. Don't want that? set up a switch to turn it off.
Mmmf. I can see how this might be annoying on other platforms -- in a traditional X11 environment, it's par for the course, and most folks comfortable with X11 apps are pretty happy.
Some window managers (such as sawfish) can group windows, if you want the Mac OS-style transparent MDI.
I don't run into accidental clicks outside of windows, though.
Gimp has the potential to be on the same level as Photoshop. That day has to arrive before I dump Photoshop. Sorry. I've got work to do.
Sure, but you do print work, right?
For folks that only do digital output, it's not such a big deal -- GIMP does have a few lacks, but it works pretty well for digital output.
May we never see th
What is Mac OS X?
...plus more
mac os x is a real peach
mac os x is as innovative as the computers that run it
mac os x is emerging as the best place to develop and deploy your java applications
mac os x is provided in the mac os x developer tools bundle
mac os x is a rock
mac os x is apple's new operating system
mac os x is targeted at any mac that apple shipped with a powerpc g3 processor or better
mac os x is available from the xonx project
mac os x is based on unix
mac os x is visionary and practical
mac os x is riding the wave just right
"Really? I'm a bit out-of-date on Photoshop, but IIRC GIMP has all the layer modes that Photoshop did back when I was admining a lab of Photoshop machines (which was, admittedly, back in the day...)"
:-)"
It wasn't even up to what version 5 had of Photoshop, and that's going back a couple of years. When 7 came out, they added a bunch more.
"True, but Photoshop would then suck in a multi-windowed environment. It drives me up a wall that the X11 version of Opera can't do multiple windows -- that you're stuck with MDI and a single desktop."
Opera cannot open multiple windows on Linux? Oh that sucks, it does work in the Windows version. And yes, you are right about Photoshop and the multi-windowed environment. You can only open one instance of Photoshop, and that drives me NUTS sometimes.
"This used to be more epidemic than it once was. A few plugins still do not have it -- the Gaussian blur plugins lack it. This is actually on my to-do list.
Ah. Well now I kinda feel bad. I hope you're not personally insulted by my comments. If you got the idea that I'm against ever using Gimp, then I apologize. I think it's a cool project. I look forward to its future. One thing that drives me nuts about Photoshop is that if you're not already in the industry, it is hard to pony up $600 for it. (I got lucky, my first copy was on a student discount, but still hard to afford.) Gimp provides a free alternative that is quite refreshing, and it may even displace Photoshop down the road. Imagine being 18, not having a job, still living with the parents, yet developing artistic skills that get your foot in the door.
"Mmmf. I can see how this might be annoying on other platforms -- in a traditional X11 environment, it's par for the course, and most folks comfortable with X11 apps are pretty happy."
I used Gimp in Linux before using it on Windows. I was happy too. It wasn't until I used it on my personal Windows 2k machine that it irk'd me.
"I don't run into accidental clicks outside of windows, though."
Yeah, well it still happens. I do a lot of testing where I work now, and I have to be mindful of accidental situations. Fortunately this isn't a devastating case, just a minor annoyance.
"Sure, but you do print work, right?"
I primarily work in 3D, but I'm also my company's only artist. As such, I do find myself doing print work from time to time. So yes I do, but not often enough to stay on top of what Gimp has to offer.
"For folks that only do digital output, it's not such a big deal -- GIMP does have a few lacks, but it works pretty well for digital output. "
Oh I agree. As I mentioned before, I'm excited about it's future. But right now, with a fully licensed Photoshop in my lap, it's really hard to switch to. I will say, though, that FilmGimp's use of >8bit per channel imagery is QUITE attractive lately. It's on my list of 'things to go play with'.
"Derp de derp."
Sorry, meant to ask this in my previous post:
Is there a forum or something for Gimp where I can provide my input on its UI? I cannot provide programming assistance, but I can provide useful insight into making it friendlier to artists.
"Derp de derp."
Hmm, he lists Lisp amongst the interpreted languages. I hope the rest of the article is more accurate...
...
Edi.
== Programming Language Myths ==
BASIC Myth: People who learn BASIC go on to learn other languages.
Reality: Most people who learn BASIC go on to find less nerdy ways of writing "Mr. Gzabowski is a lame teacher" over and over again.
C Myth: C programs are insecure, full of buffer overflows and such.
Reality: C programs are only insecure if written by imperfect programmers. Since all C programmers know that they are perfect, there's no problem.
COBOL Myth: COBOL is dead.
Reality: It stalks from out the ancient vaults of death, its putrid mind drawn to the blood of the living.
Forth Myth: Forth makes no sense.
Reality: backwards. think to have just you sense, perfect makes Forth
Java Myth: You need Java to do business applications.
Reality: You need Java to get a job.
Lisp Myth: Lisp is an interpreted language.
Reality: Lisp is COMPILED DAMMIT COMPILED! IT'S IN THE FUCKING STANDARD!!!
Pascal Myth: Pascal is a toy.
Reality: Oh, wait, that is not a myth, it is true
Perl Myth: Perl is impossible to read.
Reality: You are not taking enough psychedelics.
Python Myth: Python's only problem is the whitespace thing.
Reality: Python's only problem is that it is fucking slow.
Ah. Well now I kinda feel bad. I hope you're not personally insulted by my comments. If you got the idea that I'm against ever using Gimp, then I apologize.
:-) Since GIMP is currently in version 2 prerelease freeze, everything's just sitting on my own system at the moment, and will probably wait for version 2.1 or 3 or something to be included. But hey, no fear -- honest criticism is the only way software gets better.
Well, I'm not currently a core GIMP developer -- I just have a bit of free time at the moment, and am working on adding some GIMP features (which aren't currently in Photoshop, FWIW).
If I was going to criticize GIMP, there are a couple of other things I'd add:
* GIMP, unlike almost all other major UNIX projects, is not particularly modular and is a pain in the ass to use from your average bash script or as a batch processor -- unlike ImageMagick. GIMP is unfortunately rather tied to X11 -- many is the time that I'd like to do effects in GIMP from the commandline, but no dice.
* I believe Photoshop does a nicer job of scaling performance up to very large images with that custom VM system it has.
* Someday, maybe, just maybe, it'd be nice to have GIMP do what xRes once did.
* The GIMP doesn't have unlimited undos. Photoshop, from what I hear, currently has a very, very nice undo system that acts essentially as a tree. I know of no other app (unless perhaps other Adobe apps like Illustrator do) that compare.
* The GIMP has some experimental work being done on natural-media composition, but it's a long way from competing with Painter.
* Photoshop has a few lighting effects that the GIMP can't pull off. Synthesizing glass in GIMP is significantly more difficult.
May we never see th
Welcome to the status of the desktop on Linux. It's "evolving" while we're waiting to get work done.
"Sufferin' succotash."
You can also use the Airport's modem to dial-up your network and use it's broadband or poke around for a file you left at home.
Its a troll, but I'll bite.
When I outgrow my Macs, I usually either sell them on eBay or donate them; they will get a few more years that way (usually running a current OS from year 1 to 4, then sticking with that in years 4 -> 8.)
For example, my first Mac, a Mac II went with system 6.0.4 in 1989 to 7.5 in 1993, when I gave it to a school where they kept it until 1995.
My second Mac, a PB 170 went from 7.1 in 1991 (or 2?) to 7.5 in 1994, when I gave it to my sister to use in her school. She still uses it.
I had a 6100 for a year or two, and sold it for about 1/3 what I paid, which is just about right for depreciation on computer equipment. System 7.5 on that, I think.
I had a PowerBook 5300 at around this point, and it was a total piece of shit. Worst Mac Ever.
My 8500 had System 7.5 to 9.0, lasted in my house for I think 2 years, and then I sold it again for about 1/3 purchase price.
My 450mhz G4 I bought in 1999 (a few months after my Dell XP 450). I still use it as my primary computer - it went from system 8.1 to OS X 10.3. I've only ever added memory and a second internal disk. I'll probably hang on to it for another year. While I use a 2ghz DP G5 at work, I don't find the G4 slow enough to warrant an upgrade for the light duty development work I do from home. If I were to sell the machine on eBay right now, I'd get about $300.
The Dell? It would cost me more to get rid of it than its worth. I see two of them on eBay with a buy it now price of $79 and no bidders.
Macs simply hold their value longer.
OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Earlier this afternoon do ya?
Where your evidence dude?
As someone that works in this particular profession (as opposed to just reading about it on Slashdot) I can tell you that Photoshop is used far more often than FilmGimp (or Cinepaint or whatever it's called now) since that's the interface people know.
And now photoshop has proper 16-bit support...
Free may sometimes be expensive, but Apple is ALWAYS expensive. If you bought something from Apple, you paid too much.
" Macs are not more expensive than an x86"
Really? Where can I get the equivalent of a dual AthlonMP 2800+ machine from Apple for $2000 new, loaded?
" Yeah, it's too bad that Apple forces you to use its LCD monitors and wireless hardware. Oh wait, they don't. Go away, troll."
Ha ha, Apple zealot ducking the obvious. He's talking about hardware, not I/O, dumbass. Repeat after me, apple hardware cost too much.
Why do you idiots keep saying "You can get Darwin."?
Well firstly, I'm not an idiot.
Secondly, the poster asked for "some sort of lite x86 version" and I would argue that Darwin is "some sort" of OS X.
And as for your "analogy", firstly it's crap. Secondly it would be more appropriate to say "I want to check out a linux box with X Windows" and for the answer to be something along the lines of "you can check out the linux kernel at www.kernel.org".
So there.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Mac OS X is, you have to see it for yourself.
This article seems to overlook (though I may have missed it) the fact that OS X is based in part on Apple's MkLinux project that had PowerPC Macs running Linux (and other OSes) on top of the Open Group (OSF/RI) Mach 3.0.
I'm buying a new computer soon. It was originally going to be parts added to the current one, but eventually I ended up affording a whole system. The system ended up being around A$1300, which largely covers an AthlonXP 2500+, flat 19" monitor, 120Gb hard drive, 512Mb RAM, GeForce4 MX, and similar, non top-of-line specs.
I remembered after I put the prices together that I said that if I could afford a whole machine I would consider a Mac, since a friend had been trying to convince me that the prices are comparable now.
Well... I priced a similar Mac. 1.25GHz G4, 19" monitor, 80Gb hard drive, 256Mb RAM, Radeon 9000 was the only part which was really better than the system I put together myself... the price? A$2500.
I think at what seems to be more than twice the price of an x86 system, Apple have a long way to go before they can debunk what they call "myths" about the expensiveness of the Mac. First of all, they need to drop over 50% off the price.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
At the job I currently have, we're stuck developing in Visual Basic .Net (ASP.Net pages and the like). My laptop had taken a crap on me and I had to buy a new one, and was forced to get a laptop with Windows when I wanted to go with a Mac.
.Net (or something that would let me work with Visual Basic .Net) was available, and I'm not sure where to even begin looking. Since I know some people here use Macs, is there any kind of IDE for developing in Visual Basic .Net?
I wasn't sure if Visual Studio
It's the fact that apple only sells LCD monitors, starting at $699.
Yes, and nobody else makes displays that work on the Mac. I'm just imagining the two ViewSonic LCDs that are connected to my G4 right now.
It's the fact that airport (which is a fancy name for 802.11b/g) is much more expensive than what is available for PCs.
Yeah, and no other wireless hardware works with the Mac. Those pesky hallucinogens pumped through the air ducts at my office only make me THINK my iBook is connecting via the company's Compaq wireless access point.
It's also the fact that systems have high initial costs ($1299 for JUST A BOX!).
Well, it's not Apple's fault that people are cheap, short-sighted idiots. I've gotten significantly longer usage out of the Macs I've owned than the x86 hardware I've owned. I got six years out of the last Power Mac I bought new, but I've rebuilt my x86 box with newer hardware three times in that same time period. You might be able to get a PC for 1/3 the cost of a Mac, but chances are you'll have purchased two more before I'm ready to replace my Mac.
~Philly
You should be kicked in the face.
You should be hit with your own mac.
You mean like bash? Get an OS X box and look in /bin /usr/bin /usr/sbin for kicks.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
How bout the "moronic/immature" category.
You can run Baldurs Gate I on Mac OS X too through the BGII engine. Get "bg1tutu" from here: http://ire.mainecoon.net/customs/weidu.html
And Free Software is not just about the price (if you ask RMS, it's not anything to do with the price). It's about me being able to do what I want with the software I paid for. Can I run PhotoShop on Linux? No. Ok, can I port it? No. Can I give it to my friend? No. Can I modify it? Extend it? Fix it? No. No. No. That's why it's not free as in freedom. It's encumbered software. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you value freedom then you don't want PhotoShop, no matter how "nifty" it is for you graphics guys.
If you harp on about the price then you merely demonstrate that you Don't Get It.
Which just demonstrates that you're young. You haven't been in a position where an application you depend upon has been discontinued by the vendor and you were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Look at software history; many giant companies that would "never" die have disappeared into obscurity. Do you think that won't happen to Adobe? Think again.
It's not about tweaking. It's about not being beholden to the whims or fate of the vendor.
Consistency. UI guidelines. Simplicity. Aesthetically informed developers. These are aspects of Mac OS X that the ad hoc community of Linux developers lacks in the desktop arena.
One can start up almost any unfamiliar Mac OS X application and find all the standard app features in seconds. Preferences in the application menu, help in the help menu, the same command shortcuts for new, open, close, save, quit, print, undo, copy, cut, paste, select all, find, find next, info, minimize, hide, switch windows, etc. The same behavior of key modifiers, such as shift to select a range, command to toggle selectedness, option to get extended behavior, shift to constrain proportions, option to snap-center, etc. Many of these standards developed in the apps of Aldus/Adobe. Taken together they compose a transactional language that Mac users expect and appreciate. A well-designed Mac application is one which adheres to the accepted standards and extends them elegantly.
I don't find the same level of consistency and simplicity on other platforms. Take a typical Windows application. The menus will sometimes contain items ambiguously named Preferences, Options, Settings, and Defaults. Sometimes the items are in the Options menu, sometimes the Edit menu, sometimes the File menu. Quite a few Linux desktop apps suffer from the same problem.
I haven't looked deeply into the development of KDE, Gnome, etc., but are there any guidelines extant for the way these UI toolkits are actually used? It seems to me that an established set of standards and practices is a necessary element. Otherwise Linux will just end up being a patchwork of ideas halfheartedly borrowed and extended from Windows and Mac OS... which to some extent it has.
-- thinkyhead software and media
The configurability is a Mac vs. Linux philosophy thing. Don't tout it, you'll start a flamewar. Suffice to say, Apple has decided that for UI, One Consistent Way is better than a huge amount of configurability.
You need CocoaGestures to get system wide gestures. The hotkeys support is already there.
The system-wide password manager? Prithee, sir, what then would we call KeyChain?
System wide spellchecking is part and parcel of the very good Apple text widgets. You use their widgets, you get it for free. You can configure it specially, or you can let all the code in NSApp just do it for you (usually what you want).
Apple doesn't do things like auto-completion in a generic fashion (although you never see it mentioned, they do provide a completion service, and other people have cheerfully extended this functionality with supplemental abilities.) because they haven't decided on their One Consistent Way to do it. Until then, we have a plethora of software, free and commercial, that does most anything we want. The OS X software community is very happy correcting any perceived flaws or blank spots a dozen different ways.
UI is a very subjective matter, so Apple (that makes money off of their good, consistent user experience) takes the middle road in most everything. It's smarter for them that way, since it's so incredibly easy to extend their input mechanisms.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Technically, the article was a good overview of the various bits and pieces of Mac OS X.
However, the article either skipped or provided very skimpy coverage of Apple's DRM system and the defacto closed source nature of Mac OS X.
The one gigantic difference between Linux/*BSD and OS X / Windows is that Linux and *BSD are *open source* while Mac OS X and Windows are *closed source*.
While there are a few pieces of Mac OS X that are open source, much of it is not. And as far as I have read, there is no way to know if what you run as Mac OS X was even built from the published Darwin sources.
Open source matters as without a full open source OS (and tool chain), an OS simply cannot be trusted. Much as there are many rumors of spyware in Windows (and some documented cases), the same sort of spyware is likely to be in Mac OS X as well. This is especially true given the environments in the western world, especially the USA and EU, with more and more draconian police state laws being passed every day.
I noticed the author didn't mention Apple's closed source DRM system, for instance. It doesn't exist in his model of Mac OS X. That was good for a chuckle. It is these sorts of externally managed and controlled "rights" systems that are most likely to invade a person's privacy and violate a person's legal and natural rights. I suppose the author didn't want to upset people with stuff they shouldn't know about...
Mac OS X certainly is a full-featured corporate OS. However, it will never be considered a trusted OS until it is fully open source. Unless a person is incredibly ingenuous, he cannot have unknown black box "digital prison management" software on his closed-source OS machine and think "yes, I trust this computer".
While opinions on the matter differ, I believe the big force driving the popularity of Linux is "trust". It is far easier to trust a product that is owned by an open community -- with everything that entails -- versus a product that is owned by a vendor whose sole goal is to bleed you for as much money as possible and return as little value to you as possible.
There is little doubt in anyone's mind that both Apple and Microsoft are out to take as much of your money as possible. Microsoft is a known monopoly with monopoly pricing and Apple is just a Mini-Me version of Microsoft, complete with their own monopoly pricing in their closed market. In an industry of low margins, Apple is legendary for their extremely high profit margins and how they respond to problems with their products only if you threaten them with drastic legal action.
It is easy to understand the author's personal preference, as a wealthy American, for Mac OS X. It works well, it looks reasonably good, and it's trendy in various American subcultures, from drug subculture, to music subculture, to the social elite subculture. So why not go with the trend? It seems like modern American culture, especially their foreign policy, management ethos, and environmental policy is "rip/mix/burn".
The great truth, though, is that Mac OS X it is not a healthy choice for the world, for humanity.
I often say "people may be ignorant, but mostly they are not stupid". And so, wisely, most people in the world avoid an expensive closed source OS from one of the world's greediest and most abusive corporations.
And while Windows users are captive under the power of a monopoly, slowly more and more of them are moving away from their closed source OS to the open source world.
There are many reasons that Apple's global market share is falling every year, but one of the most important is that even when you spend all the money it takes to buy into the Apple computing world (religion?), you still do not get a trusted computer.
Meanwhile the Linux world is getting closer and closer to giving people everything they need in "good enough" form, all in an open, trustworthy, and transparent manner.
Maybe Apple can ponder this as they wonder why -- with all that "insanely great" technology --- most people are deciding they really don't need to buy an expensive yet ultimately untrustable Mac.
Four problems for Apple:
1) Even if Macs are better than PC's for certain things they are not so much better that people are willing to buy a new and more expensive computer and learn a new operating system for it.
2) In order for people to see if a Mac is better they have to use one and be able to compare vs a PC. Most people don't have the opportunity or the desire to do this.
3) Nobody is buying new computers lately. Unless Doom 3 is in your future there is no reason to even go above 1 Ghz at this point. I know dozens of people who are happy at 450 or less.
4) Finally and most importantly - Windows has come a long way from 95. If Microsoft ever gets its act together on security then it will be lights out for Apple because they already are there on stability, usability, and compatibility. Of course, Microsoft getting their act together with security is a very big if.
You talk of being a *nix admin as though that were a rare thing on Slashdot.
And your touch story is meaningless and contrived. Is this how you recommend systems to colleagues?
"Don't touch that Mac OS X - you have to give the full date in a touch command!!"
They don't use the high-priced bulletproof components from 10 years ago, but trust me, compared to the components Dell digs out of the trash bin, they're bulletproof compared to them.
Not a week goes by that a Dell at work doesn't have some piece of hardware fail. Multiple systems have had multiple optical drives replaced simply because the cheap P.O.S. unit Dell finds don't last. Motherboard swaps, RAM swaps, hard drive swaps, you name it, it fails. All systems are connected to APC UPSes so the power is at least relatively conditioned. If it wasn't so widespread I wouldn't be so quick to blame Dell, but dear lord, systems shouldn't have their HDs fail twice in a year.
Thank god there's a whitebox AthlonXP box under my desk. It's the only reliable non-server in the building.
Sorry, Apple doesn't make any machines as crappy as that.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Linux on the Desktop!!!! Linux on the Desktop!!!!
Um, what version are you running?
1.3
Oh, you mean 2.0
No, it says 1.3
Yes, but 1.3 is 2.0. And by the way, your mother is also your brother.
*head explodes*
It ain't no saint either.
I think the new apples are pretty neat and all, but even with all the added open source goodies and BSD-like core, it's still a highly proprietary system.
There will be absolutely no desire (for me) to run a Mac once Linux gets just a tad bit "bigger" on the desktop front, and run it on a nice 64-bit AMD box.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Damn moderators: it's not a troll, it's the truth. Shoot, next thing one knows, they'll be moderating down posts which note that the sky is blue.
Overly Critical Guy has yet to put forward a coherent or logical argument for his tired and continually discredited views. He sure hates Slashdot, but hecontinues to post here!
KDE is awesome
KDE is only *tolerable* if your only previous experience with GUIs is MS Windoze.
Yesterday I was having a great time editing my masterpiece "When Trolls attack" on Final Cut Pro, especially after I finally was done tweaking the shots in Photoshop and After Effects.
Later I enjoyed solving another level of Halo while listening to my iTunes collection.
Swap out Final Cut Pro with Premiere and you can do all of that on Windows... thank god for Microsoft?
This is not true at all. Others have already pointed out that you can use a VGA CRT with a Mac with the included DVI-to-VGA adaptor.
In fact, Apple does sell CRT monitors. Just not with the Apple name. I ordered a dual 1.8 G5 earlier tonight through the online Apple Store for Eduction, and there were two Mitsubishi CRT displays listed as options, one was about $150. I notice though that they're not listed for regular online Apple Store. I didn't pay too much attention since I'm going to be using my beige G3's 17" Optiquest for now.
End of Line.
Because even if I were running a "free" operating system, I wouldn't be able to run the "not free" software I use.
And I could swear that the D-Link wireless card I have works very nicely in my Powerbook.
You failed to mention that you had to spend $25 to get a driver for that card from aerocard.
You're not just buying a more expensive version of the exact same thing when you buy an Airport base station.
We have both an airport and a linksys ap+4port switch at work, and as far as I can tell, the airport doesn't offer anything that the linksys doesn't have. The airport base station really is just a more expensive version of your everyday standard AP
I could swear I didn't, but thanks for letting me know where I spend my money. Can you tell me what my tax return will be this year too?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I could swear I didn't, but thanks for letting me know where I spend my money.
Then could you please tell me how you got your d-link card to work under OS-X? What program did you use to set your WEP key?
A few more details are available here.
But is it better than GIMP? Yes. Does Adobe have the right to prohibit you from "giving it to your friend" in order to make money? Yes. Why doesn't Adobe just make Photoshop opensource? Because how much money does Photoshop produced compared to the GIMP project?
Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with either product. If you want Free, you get what you pay for. If you want a better product, at least it's available to you.
Moof.
Nobody is disputing they have the right to do that.
If all you can see are the dollar signs then you're never going to understand. It's not about money. It's about freedom.
And it's very clear that you still don't understand. I'm not going to repeat it. Go back and read the previous post. Read it twice. Read it three times. Read it until you realise that Free Software has nothing to do with the price.
Actually, I understood your post perfectly the first time, but I failed to format my response in a very easy-to-understand way.
When I say "you get what you pay for," I'm not talking about money either. I understand very well what Free means. But now that you bring pricing into the picture, the same statement does apply.
The point is, if you care about Free, like handing out copies of GIMP is important to you or something, then go for it. But when it's time to get stuff done, the choice is obvious.
Personally, I'd say not using superior software because you're not allowed to give it to a million people is crazy. It's just an excuse. Truly, it really is about price. The same thing really applies to Linux whether anyone will believe it or not. It's like, I'm going to suffer through using this operating system without an complete desktop experience merely because it's not proprietary.
There's something wrong with that logic.
But like I said before, at least there's something for everyone.
Moof.
I've never handed out any copies of any software. That's not important to me. It never has been. Your condescending attitude is unwelcome.
There's something wrong with paying a vendor to rent the mere use of software. That's effectively what you're doing whenever you "buy" a copy of Photoshop or Windows.
Or if you're like 90% of the Windows and Photoshop users out there, you simply steal it. Free software must be a baffling concept to the hordes of thieves who have never paid for their proprietary software.
I hope you enjoy renting (or stealing) your software for the rest of your life. I intend to own my software, even if that means joint ownership with millions of other users.
Where else could I write a 13 line word processor?
http://wirelessdriver.sourceforge.net/
I win
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
you want the red candy icon, or the blue one?
"The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."
Interestingly, "his work" is the IBM Alamaden Research Center.
yes
As I have no reason to tell something on 1) and 2), but:
...they [Windows] already are there on stability, usability, and compatibility...
3) Nobody is buying new computers lately.
is just not correct.
We are working ot that boxes. I'm opting 2x1.8 G5 FOR MY JOB right now. I need that power for my primary job.
Two month ago I opted Athlon - as I was in need for that box at moment.
And on 4)
It's just not true, at least for MANY fields of usage.
Does GIMP support 16-bit color?
Does GIMP know about color models other then RGB 8-bit?
Does GIMP color-matching?
It's a toy. May be a good toy.
And do you really think that PRO Photoshop usage is so easy to know? Do you know that Photoshop allow you scripting in 4 (four) different lang-s? With FULL access to all bells and whistles?
Try this in GIMP: scan, clean and color correct 400 slides in 2 workdays.
Dipshit
And as far as I have read, there is no way to know if what you run as Mac OS X was even built from the published Darwin sources. ...except for compiling the sources yourself and comparing the size and content of the binaries. But that would require actually knowing what the hell you're talking about, which you do not.
/Applications/iTunes.app, then find a more useful way to spend your free time than trolling on slashdot.
I noticed the author didn't mention Apple's closed source DRM system, for instance. It doesn't exist in his model of Mac OS X.
Apple's "closed source DRM system" is a function of (and only of) iTunes.app. It's an application. It has nothing to do with the functionality of the core OS.
If you don't like it, rm -rf
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
In the Apple world, DRM, or digital rights management, is built into Apple digital hub products like iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, Quicktime, etc.
You might as well delete all "iLife", Quicktime, and all the other Apple software you use if you want to have a better chance of getting rid of DRM on Mac OS X.
There are many ways DRM pops its ugly head up on Mac. For instance, Apple decided not to enable screen captures so that you can't grab still frames of a DVD movie. Not even even your own DVD movie shot with your own camcorder.
And of course, if you don't have Apple's DRM system running, you cannot play back the MP4 AAC files you purchase from the iTunes store as they are encrypted and have DRM access controls.
When it comes to Darwin, Apple only released the code because Darwin is comprised of much open source code that likely has licensing requirements to maintain the openness of the code. I'm sure Apple likes all the free bug finding and fixing they get as well.
BTW, if you can prove that the shipping OS X is fully built from the published Darwin sources, by all means do so. I cannot do so, that is what I already said. Apple's website says "Many of the projects in the Darwin repository are the same live source trees used by Apple engineers for the Mac OS X product build." Which implies Darwin is not quite the same as shipping Mac OS X.
All in all, I believe I've been accurate in my comments regarding Apple and Mac OS X. Apple has a lot of DRM on their platform, not just iTunes. And Darwin is not totally the same code as Apple's Mac OS X.
There are many ways DRM pops its ugly head up on Mac. For instance, Apple decided not to enable screen captures so that you can't grab still frames of a DVD movie. Not even even your own DVD movie shot with your own camcorder.
Once again: an application is not an OS. An OS is not an application. This has nothing to do with any all-encompassing "DRM system"; it's a function of dvdplayer.app. Yes, it's annoying. 10 seconds with google would have found you the workaround for it.
And of course, if you don't have Apple's DRM system running, you cannot play back the MP4 AAC files you purchase from the iTunes store as they are encrypted and have DRM access controls.
Which part of "so don't buy from iTMS if you don't like their terms of sale" is hard for you to grasp here?
When it comes to Darwin, Apple only released the code because Darwin is comprised of much open source code that likely has licensing requirements to maintain the openness of the code.
Again: no. The open source portions of OSX are BSD, not GPL. Apple was under no obligation beyond acknowledging that portions of the OS were copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California.
I cannot do so, that is what I already said.
That's your problem, not mine, and not Apples. RTFM on "strings" and "md5" if you want to solve that problem.
ll in all, I believe I've been accurate in my comments regarding Apple and Mac OS X.
You may believe that as much as you want, but it is not so.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I think the key point here is that there is a lot of DRM that ships with "Mac OS X", not just iTunes. I don't want to have to find a workaround for all sorts of little things because Apple includes DRM sprinkled all around their OS/apps.
As for what is an "OS" and what is not, everything I mentioned other than FCP ships with "Mac OS X". While in a technical sense, some of the DRM may not be in the OS kernel, it is still part of what the consumer considers the "OS". Because all of Mac OS X is not open source, we don't know what is in the shipping OS anyway.
Time will tell if Apple's strategy of making a small part of something similar to their OS open source will provide them with any market advantage.
So far, Apple has taken far more from the open source community than they have given back, so they are nothing more than a parasite.
Oh goody, yet another non-programmer with a Great Concern for the Well-Being of the Open Source Community. Just what the world needed.
Have you considered getting a real hobby? Or at least one that you're actually good at?
I think the key point here is that there is a lot of DRM that ships with "Mac OS X", not just iTunes.
For values of "a lot" that apparently encompass...one example that you've been able to come up with other than iTunes. You're not exactly wowing us with Apple's constant perfidy here. (Please do not waste our time here by shocking us with the news that iDVD uses CSS.) My suggestion: stop reading Andrew Orlowski's columns and start reading more manpages.
Also: the distinction between DRM at the OS level and the application is not at all a trivial one. If I buy a Macintosh with the intention of running MacOS X, I don't have any choice about using, say, the Mach kernel: it's part and parcel of the OS, and it won't function without it. I do have a choice about using iTunes, iDVD and DVDPlayer: they're applications, I can delete or ignore them if I want, and if they don't suit my needs, I can install replacements that do.
And so could you, but apparently spreading FUD on slashdot is more to your taste.
So far, Apple has taken far more from the open source community than they have given back
Fascinating. I'd ask what sort of metric you're using to measure this, and how much in terms of man-hours and dollar-value Apple would have to "give back" to make up the "balance", but that would indicate a level of interest in your thought on this matter that I just don't have.
Here's a free hint, though: you can't "take" (in the sense that you're using the verb) something that's offered as a gift. Not all OSS is the GNU project.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
"If you harp on about the price then you merely demonstrate that you Don't Get It."
Actually, I'm harping about the harping of the price.
"Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you value freedom then you don't want PhotoShop, no matter how "nifty" it is for you graphics guys."
That is a rather extreme and ill-thought point of view.
"Derp de derp."
To get back to the facts --
First, there is indeed a lot of DRM in Mac OS X. Most every Apple app that deals with content has DRM code in it. While you, as a techie, are making distinctions between the Mach kernel and other parts of "Mac OS X", most people, especially Mac users, do not make such distinctions. Most Mac users don't even know that there is another way to play a DVD other than using what came on the machine as part of "Mac OS X". BTW, did you ever notice those two letters "OS" in "Mac OS X"? Your technical view of the OS is certainly not what Apple considers the "OS".
Second, Apple themselves admit that Darwin is not the same as "Mac OS X". Unless you work at Apple on the OS, it is impossible to know what the differences are between Darwin and "Mac OS X".
Third, in terms of how much open source code Apple has included with OS X compared to how much code Apple has contributed back to the OSS community, the difference is gigantic.
There is no substantial application that Apple has contributed to the open source community. There is not even one body of code similar in size and complexity to Samba or JBoss that Apple has contributed to the open source community. Yet Apple includes both as part of "Mac OS X".
No matter how you quibble over word meanings, Apple is a net "taker" from the community. I used the word parasite because this word accurately describes how Apple works with the open source community:
"One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return."
The OSS/Linux community would be far better off without any more parasites, especially those as big and hungry and vicious as Apple.
Whenever someone focuses on delivering personal attacks vs. discussing the issues, it is usually due to the fact that they have no factual argument to present and must rely on emotional attacks to confuse the issues.
Or maybe they just think you're an idiot.
First, there is indeed a lot of DRM in Mac OS X.
Repeating this over and over does not, oddly enough, make it true. You've so far come up with all of two examples, only one of which could seriously be considered an imposition on anyone's time, and neither one of which could be considered part of the operating system except in the irrelevant sense that they live on the same CD.
You also need to stop using the phrase "DRM" as if it were some sort of digital cooties. Separate application-level restrictions are a very different can of wax from hardware-to-OS-level DRM architectures such as Microsoft's proposed Palladium scheme.
Most every Apple app that deals with content has DRM code in it.
For all the fervor with which you state this, you'd almost think that it was true. Every Apple app that deals with content? Let's see, last I checked, that was:
iTunes
iDVD
iPhoto
GarageBand
Final Cut Express
Final Cut Pro
Soundtrack
DVD Player
Logic Platinum
DVD Studio Pro
Keynote
Shake
Tremor
Quicktime Player
Quicktime Pro
Quicktime Streaming Server
Quicktime Broadcaster
Of those, the only ones that contain "DRM code" that restricts what the end-user may do are iTunes, Quicktime Player, and DVD player. You could, I suppose, complain that Apple's DVD authoring software uses CSS and region codes, but since those are part of the DVD specification, that would be a stupid thing to complain about.
Three out of seventeen isn't "most", kid.
Most Mac users don't even know that there is another way to play a DVD other than using what came on the machine as part of "Mac OS X".
Wow, that must by why VideoLan and Mplayer have each had well over 100,000 downloads! Nobody knows about them!
It's called a search engine. It's all the rage.
BTW, did you ever notice those two letters "OS" in "Mac OS X"?
Why yes, yes I did. Your point?
Your technical view of the OS is certainly not what Apple considers the "OS".
Wow, I must have missed the portion of the apple developer documentation where they said that they consider bundled applications to be part of the OS! What an oversight! Surely you'll point this out to me?
BTW: Read The Fucking Article. Ironically enough, it actually explains what OS X is, and how it functions.
There is no substantial application that Apple has contributed to the open source community. There is not even one body of code similar in size and complexity to Samba or JBoss that Apple has contributed to the open source community.
You are, again, wrong. And again, you're wrong in that particularly annoying way wherein ten seconds with a search engine would have prevented you from being wrong.
The Darwin kernel (XNU) itself is easily comparable in size and scope to any major OSS project. If that's not enough, there's a full OSS implementation of zeroconf, a fully OSS streaming media server, a cross-platform game networking library, an embeddable web browser component, and god only knows how many thousands of man-hours spent on the GCC/PPC compilers.
Dare I ask what you have contributed to this "community" other than a lot of uninformed whining?
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
On the contrary, it is a rather extreme but well-thought point of view.
I don't have a problem with non-free software - my rented PS2 games (I own the media but the use of the software is a time-limited rental) are all non-free - but I'm not blind and I do recognise the loss of freedom. That's not ill-thought. It's a statement of fact.
On a side note, consider your own dismissive attitude. You think one thing and I think the opposite. In your mind, this means you're correct and I must have an "ill-thought point of view". Have you ever considered that I am correct and you have the ill-thought point of view?
"You think one thing and I think the opposite. In your mind, this means you're correct and I must have an "ill-thought point of view"
I gave your post a serious read. The reasoning is over-simplified and inconsiderate of how the people you have commented on arrived at the decision they made 'freely'. It's also unnecessarily biased.
It's hard to be anything but dismissive when it's clear you have no respect for my profession and how Photoshop attained it's popularity.
"Derp de derp."
YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.
I will happily "rent" if I get better software which allows me to do better work (make more money).
That's the real price of Free which you don't understand. What good is "owning" (and that verb is too strong) something if it isn't as good?
I'm obviously making a big assumption here that you are under the opinion that Photoshop is indeed better than GIMP. If you don't think so, then it doesn't apply. But most people consider Photoshop a better package for numerous reasons (and I have the opinion that if you don't think it is, you're in denial), so I think my assumption is safe.
But if my assumption is correct, you are indeed, in a way, "suffering" through using a product when a better one is available to you just for the sake of it being Free. What benefits do you think Free gives you other than price (because you didn't want to talk about that issue)?
Moof.
http://wirelessdriver.sourceforge.net/
I win
Then your network is wide open, since that driver doesn't support WEP.
So?
The orignal complaint was Apple FORCES you to use their wireless hardware. I proved that false.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Oh, get off your high horse. I did no such thing.
I know quite well how Photoshop attained its popularity; it's the best photo-editting software there is. That doesn't change the fact that it's a non-free piece of software.
As I said, I don't think there's a problem with that. I don't believe "everything must be free". I just know that some software is free and some software isn't. Photoshop most definitely isn't.
And I'm still not talking about cost.
"I did no such thing. "
Yes, you did. -- " no matter how "nifty" it is for you graphics guys."
The whole point of my post was that Photoshop makes me money, not that it's 'nifty'. Your rebuttal there demeans my point.
"I just know that some software is free and some software isn't. Photoshop most definitely isn't."
You're right, it isn't. It's better than free. (as in cost.) As for being 'free' in the sense that you described, no it's not. It doesn't bother me either. Adobe is free to release the software that way. Why does my 'freedom to muck with the source code' take priority over their freedom to release the software their way?
"Derp de derp."
In other words you'll happily trade your freedom for shiny coins. Ok, that's your choice to make, as long as you realise that's what you're doing.
I do understand it. I understand it very well. I know full well that freedom comes at a high price. So don't condescendingly tell me that I don't understand.
What I think you don't understand is the true cost of using non-free software. I'm even more amazed that you, an American, could so easily have forgotten that freedom is more important than material wealth.
What a strange question. Do you honestly not know?
I'm more interested in letting you discover that for yourself. Everybody gets a different set of benefits.
Bravo! I appreciate that you made some progress sticking to facts this time around the platformloveberry bush :-) Maybe one day you'll be able to have a conversation with another human being without attacking him personally.
:-)
I stand corrected about saying "most" Apple apps that deal with "content" have DRM in them. I should have been more specific in my statement and said "multimedia content playback".
<I am not addressing some of what you wrote because as I have stated before, I am not going to engage in any discussion that is based on personal attacks. FYI, I did read the entire article. Move on.>
The first link you mention says the following --
"Darwin includes the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) and the GNU Project Debugger (GDB)."
At the "most", Apple created the GNU compiler backend for the PPC. Apple certainly didn't create any substantive part of the GNU Compiler Collection or the debugger. A compiler backend, especially one written to a pre-existing framework, is not similar in scope to SAMBA or JBOSS.
Secondly, you talk about Apple contributing "XNU" to the open source community. You didn't mention that the open source community had to fight Apple as Apple's original license was horribly one-sided. It is only very recently (Sept-12-2003) that Apple changed their license and had it approved by the OSI.
While the current APSL 2.0 license is going in a good direction, none of that direction is due to Apple's innate desire or inherent corporate philosophy.
This has always been the case with Apple. The company makes the least possible effort to work with their customers or partners and people have to threaten them with massive public shaming or lawsuits to get any sort of improvement out of the company.
I'm sure you recall "www.ipodsdirtysecret.com" and the current pending class action lawsuits against Apple regarding problems with the iBook. Apple is legendary for being a nasty horrible company to work with. I would think that in practice, using their source code license would be more of the same. I notice there is nobody using Apple's XNU for anything. And I wonder if Apple Legal has crushed them or silenced them in some way.
BTW, don't worry, I spent much more than 10 seconds with Google trying to find evidence of any third party using Darwin for their own projects/products and couldn't find anything. Do you have more information?
Looking at the list of "open source projects" on Apple's website, most of code was not written by Apple.
Darwin -- major parts taken from university work (Mach/BSD)
Streaming Server -- mostly Apple code???
Compiler Tools -- mostly GNU code
Kerberos -- mostly MIT code
Open Directory -- mostly outside code
OpenPlay -- ???
Printing -- mostly outside code
Rendezvous -- ???
Security -- ???
WebCore -- mostly KDE code
X11 -- mostly outside code
So far on the list above, I don't see Apple's major contributions. While it's great Apple is putting Darwin out there as open source, most of it began as open source funded by the American taxpayer in the first place.
The Free Software Foundation is mostly of the same mind on the matter:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
"...we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what it does."
What is your objection to making all of "Mac OS X" open source?
Why do you champion DRM and its invasion of personal privacy?
These were my key concerns in my first post and it would be good to stay focused. I still haven't heard any of your thoughts. You've been too busy attacking me, I think
That's it? The word nifty in double quotes? How thin is your skin? For crying out loud, you're crying that I'm demeaning your profession over the word "nifty". You sad sack of ... spuds.
Nobody is telling Adobe what to do. Nobody is trying to take away their freedom. Don't make up bullshit.
Let's see... so far I'm crying, I'm a sad sack of spuds, and am I making up bullshit. Hmm... Can't find a rebuttal in there. Need to work on your debate style there, bud. ;)
"Derp de derp."
Oh, I'm sorry, is the appropriate debating style to complain that everybody is demeaning your profession? You're a silly person.
Its like Linux.
2.1 is dev version for 2.2
2.3 is dev version for 2.4
2.5 is dev version for 2.6 (some wanted it to be 3.0)
I.e. odd numbers are dev versions and even number
are pruduktion releses.
Actually I wasn't whining or complaining, I was answering your question. You blew your own credibility before you even made your point heh.
So are ya reply with a rebuttal or are you going to sit there and continue to sulk because I pointed out your folly?
"Derp de derp."
The first link you mention says the following
Whoops, my bad: that link was supposed to go to the projects page, not the compiler page.
Secondly, you talk about Apple contributing "XNU" to the open source community. You didn't mention that the open source community had to fight Apple as Apple's original license was horribly one-sided. It is only very recently (Sept-12-2003) that Apple changed their license and had it approved by the OSI.
Incorrect again. The OSI has considered the APSL an "Open Source License" since version 1.1 IIRC. What changed on 9/12/03 was that the FSF decided that the latest version of the APSL qualified as a "Free Software License." Yay for them, I guess.
You really need to get over this delusion that the FSF is the be-all and end-all of the open source "community." And you really, really need to understand that BSD code is not GPL code.
A compiler backend, especially one written to a pre-existing framework, is not similar in scope to SAMBA or JBOSS.
Correct, although not in the sense you mean. A compiler is substantially more difficult, which you'd know if you'd had any idea what you were talking about.
While the current APSL 2.0 license is going in a good direction, none of that direction is due to Apple's innate desire or inherent corporate philosophy.
This is so ass-backwards I don't even know where to begin. If Apple had no "innate desire" to work with the FSF and OSI, they wouldn't have released the code in the first place, nevermind burned hundreds of man-hours of lawyer time (which probably cost them millions of dollars total) continuing to work on the license.
But hey, I'm only a developer and a sysadmin who actually reads Apple's developer documentation and knows people who work at the company. Obviously your psychic powers give you far greater insight into this situation than any mere facts.
I'm sure you recall "www.ipodsdirtysecret.com"
Yes. I also recall that it was published two weeks after Apple announced their batter refurb program, and well over a year after ipodbattery.com launched their (3rd-party) replacement offer. But again, I suppose psychic powers trump mere facts. And what the hell does this have to do with MacOS X or open source? Not a goddamn thing, and the same with your pathetic attempt to drag the ibook's hardware problems into this. Stop wasting my time by trying to turn this into yet another "everything Apple does is evil" whinefest.
I notice there is nobody using Apple's XNU for anything. And I wonder if Apple Legal has crushed them or silenced them in some way.
Yeah, that's right, Apple's black-suited ninjas arrived in the middle of the night and slit their throats. SCAAAAARRRRY.
You have to "wonder" about such a thing only because it didn't happen, and therefore you're reduced to spreading FUD rather than pointing to actual events.
I spent much more than 10 seconds with Google trying to find evidence of any third party using Darwin for their own projects/products and couldn't find anything. Do you have more information?
Apparently you're just not that good at actually using google, not that this is a shock or anything.
Looking at the list of "open source projects" on Apple's website, most of code was not written by Apple.
And you of course actually looked at the CVS checkins and counted up how many lines of code were contributed by people at Apple?
No, of course not, we've already established that you're not actually a developer, just some sort of weird FSF fanboy with an axe to grind.
Yes, the Mach kernel originally came out of CMU. That was, since you were not paying attention, over fifteen years ago. First NeXT and then Apple have spent the intervening time completely rewriting most of that code.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
No, screen capturing under OS X is a function of the OS, exposed through the Grab.app application.
That said, there may well be a technical reason why you cannot capture frames from their DVD player - images may be sent directly to the video card by the application, without going through the Aqua graphical library routines.
This is not true for all OSS software they include. For instance, 'gcc' (included on the XCode CD) and 'emacs' are not only covered under the GPL, but are GNU projects. KHTML (a component used in the Safari web browser) is also covered under GPL.
-tor
It sounded like you were whining to me. "Demeaning your point" and "disrespecting your profession". That sounds like "whine whine" and "wah wah cry sob" to me.
Blew my own credibility? So apparently using the word "nifty" was the lynch pin, eh? Can't use the word "nifty" or NanoGator wins the argument. Got it. Now we're learning "debating style", are we? Or at least, Nanogator's bizarro version of debating.
You whined that I used the words "nifty", "crying" and "spuds". I'm not sure exactly why those words started you whining - they're not exactly that harsh - but you have no right to assume the high moral ground. You had previously accused me of being "ill-thought", "extreme", "inconsiderate" "over-simplified", "biased", "disrespectful", "demeaning"... the list goes on and on. Yet when you claim that I'm attempting to take away Adobe's freedom, and I say "bullshit" because that's a perfect description for what's coming out of your typing fingers, you get all defensive and indignant.
Silly boy.
There is nothing to rebut. Your last comment that wasn't an insult said that I've "lost" the "debate" because I used the word "nifty". That's not a debate. It's wishful thinking.
"It sounded like you were whining to me.... You whined that I used the words "nifty", "crying" and "spuds"."
Heh. Looks like you don't know what' whining is. Face it, you're just calling it whining so you can wriggle out of the hole you dug yourself in.
So now we're up to what... 3 responses and you still haven't come back to the discussion we're having. You can call me wrong, but you cannot defend your decision to do that. So I can see why your only defense is to say I'm 'whining'. (Interestingly, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. I guess when you do it it's "criticism"?)
Doesn't sound to me like you felt really strongly about your statement. Shootin for karma were we?
"Derp de derp."
>That's not a debate. It's wishful thinking.
:)
You two were debating about Photoshop and freedom. When he came back to you about the freedom statement, you tried to insult his personality instead of continuing the discussion. That is probably what he's referring to, and yes you are an ass for it. I have to admit, I have been having fun watching you two duke it out.
People often stoop to immature levels to try to win, then when some maturity is injected into it, they get even more immature. I'm really curious how far you will go.
You have a captive audience here, don't let us down.
It is very immature to respond in way which is just dumping a bunch of anger and hate on someone and then walking away.
I had some hope for you regarding personal attacks, but I see I must temper it. I can only be optimistic and think that you are not like this in other parts of your life, just when it comes to your precious Macintosh.
Just out of curiosity, do you eat a lot of beef? I see a lot of angry people eat beef frequently and it may be mad cow that makes you so angry and filled with hate.
I'll skip your hate-filled response to my original message and again ask --
(1) Do you have objections to making all of "Mac OS X" open source? If so, what are they?
(2) Is there ANY digital rights management in "Mac OS X" that is not in an application? If I delete the various programs you mentioned, will that get rid of all DRM? Can you point me to anywhere on Apple's public website where they discuss what DRM is in "Mac OS X" and what it is used for?
If you don't answer, that's okay. You seem like a person who is more interested in cathartic release of repressed rage than addressing the key issues I have put on the table.
This shouldn't be a difficult concept, but you are mixing stuff into this argument that should not be here. Let's stick to logic.
Things have value. Using better software is more valuable to me than using sub-par software. I get all the rights I want with the software I buy or I would not buy it. What I want is the right to use the software. The right of discribution and other benefits of Free are not important when it comes to getting the job done.
For this reason, using such software for the sake of Free is a bad decision. If you have other reasons to use Free (price issues), then whatever. But by not telling me any benefits you receive, it sounds like you truly are using Free for its own sake.
Unfortunately, you haven't proven to me that you really do understand the price of Free, but this discussion is now boring me. Good luck to you.
Moof.
There was no debate about Photoshop and freedom. Photoshop isn't free. That can't be debated because it's a fact.
You might think I'm "immature" but if you read the thread you can see that the first person to sling mud was Nanogator, not me.
Now you have joined Nanogator in the mud-slinging. But I have a firm opinion of both of you (especially from reading your other posts) and I really don't care what you think of me.
My opinion of this "debate" was that I stated a fact, Nanogator disagreed but chose to insult me first, then he got indignant over a perceived (but never intended) slight, and this "debate" has since degraded into "he said" "she said" nonsense on both sides. Now we've got a cheerleader (you) who would rather jeer and sneer than contribute in any meaningful way.
I know a lost cause when I see it. You go ahead and think what you want. I really don't care. You don't affect me one way or the other.
As I've said before, there was no discussion. You accused me of insulting your profession. I wasn't. You accused me of trying to take Adobe's freedoms away. I wasn't. Debates don't usually involve people getting on soapboxes and claiming personal injury and making false accusations.
This isn't a debate. This is you insulting me. I'm not going to be drawn. The only statement I'm making and willing to discuss is that Photoshop isn't free. Disagree all you want. That's really not something worth debating, in my opinion.
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You haven't been exactly restrained with the insults either. I think you should step back and take a good hard look at yourself. I've stepped back and reread the thread. There is no debate here. There are two idiots (now three) saying very stupid things. Leave it alone. You are no less guilty than I am, despite what you may think now.
I just can't stop singing...
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
But not enough... not enough for Apple to throw away their (core) hardware business.
One other eventuality of OS X for x86 would be Microsoft going berserk, which would be fun to watch for a bit, but would probably leave Apple crushed in the dirt.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
You are in a maze of twisty little Slashdot postings, all different
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Thanks, maybe I'll give it a try this weekend.
Can you honestly tell me you though the poster really wanted to check out the core of the system, rather than the GUI?
As I pointed out, I know my analogy wasn't good. It doesn't change the fact that you idiots suggest checking out Darwin, if some mentions trying OS X on x86.
Heh. I find it interesting, really. May I assume that the first shot you are calling mud-slinging is NG's saying your view was ill-thought? I am sorry to say, but that is not mud slinging. That was your opportunity to demonstrate how you intelligently arrived at that view. Considering the extremity and lack of detail in your original post, you were obligated to elaborate on your view.
You can blame NG and myself for your lack of civility if you like. Just remember that if that is going to be the way you handle people in the future, you may fully expect your posts to be challenged down the road. Nobody gives real attention to people who talk in an extreme sense and then deflect the blame on everybody but themselves when things go sour.
As for being a cheerleader andnot contribute in a meaningful way, you are mistaken. I have shown you your own faults. The idea is that you grow from them. I would highly recommend you give them a careful read and consideration. Frankly, I expect you to keep acting like an ass. Surprise me.
And I give no real attention to people whose first words to me are to call me an "immature" "ass".
Your opinion is worthless to me. I have no intention of correcting your false views of me.
>And I give no real attention to people whose first words to me are to call me an "immature" "ass".
You should. You cannot comb your hair without a mirror.
>Your opinion is worthless to me. I have no intention of correcting your false views of me.
My views are not false. I used to behave just like you. I learned from it and grew. One day, I hope you do the same. Until that day comes, expect more responses like immature and ass.
" Debates don't usually involve people getting on soapboxes and claiming personal injury and making false accusations. "
... spuds. Funny how things get twisted when you spend all your time trying to blame others for your own mistakes.
Personaly injury? I never said anything about being injured. I said you had no respect for my profession. When you wanted to know how, I explained it to you, and you called me a sack of
False accusations? Um, no. Accusations, false or otherwise, generally don't end in a question mark. You did not even answer my question. Instead, you tried to use it to deflect attention towards my character. There was plenty of debate and discussion to be had here, but you simply spent all your time trying to tell me what a jerk I am.
"This is you insulting me. I'm not going to be drawn."
Yeah yeah. I'm not going to be drawn, but I'll call you names and avoid the real topic of conversation.
" The only statement I'm making and willing to discuss is that Photoshop isn't free. Disagree all you want. That's really not something worth debating, in my opinion."
Well I guess that's true. You wouldn't even answer my question.
"There are two idiots (now three) saying very stupid things. Leave it alone. You are no less guilty than I am, despite what you may think now. "
Oh I happily agree with you that I was not the model citizen here. However, you desperately need to take your own advice. None of this would have started if you had taken the own topic you brought up seriously. I may be guilty, but I am nowhere near as guilty as you. I'm not accepting the fault for your own behaviour that you're not even willing to correct.
You'll pardon me for not having a lot of sympathy for you. It's a lot easier to have a civil discussion with somebody who can say "Oops, I blew it there. I can see why he responded the way he did" rather than "well you sound like you're the real asshole when I exaggerate."
"Derp de derp."
This name is familiar - can't place him. He's at IBM now, has worked at Bell Labs - but it's something else - anybody remember what?
PS. Good article...
How many licks does it take to get to the center?