Hacking Quartz

Exposed writes "Meaty interview with Rich Wareham who is known to Linux users for his libdvdnav library which is used by Xine and other linux players. On OS X he created Desktop Manager, the GPL solution for VirtualDesktops on the Mac. Highlights are secret APIs in OS X for VirtualDesktops, who steals GPL source and why beginner programmers are at a disadvantage now."

Comments

Re:Why it wasn't put in already

[Ianoo]

Perhaps Apple's HCI team didn't consider it to be "intuitive" or comprehensible/necessary for the average user. After all, the majority of Macs are shipped with high(ish) resolution screens these days, and the Dock and Exposé take care of managing your screen real estate fairly well.

Re:Undocumented API calls

[Otter]

I don't think this is so much a way to stifle competition (competition with what Apple product?) as either 1) those calls are not stable yet or 2) they don't want to encourage use of certain things at the application level.

Re:Virtual desktops

[nine-times]

' I don't really understand why Apple doesn't offer them. I've hears several reasons: the dock, expose, tranparent windows, or whatever makes them unnecessary, they're confusing for new users, etc, etc. But none of these addres the fact that Aqua WITH optionally selectable virtual windows (selectable for the "advanced user") is BETTER than WITHOUT. You can make all the same arguments for the presence of Terminal: it's unnecessary and confusing for the majority of users, but I bet few Mac users would want Apple to leave it out.'

There's a weird Apple mentality at work here. I'm not Apple bashing, it's just that the reasons are ones that most on /. won't really identify with.

Apple likes to control their product; they don't want the interface very customizable. They'll allow little tweaks, and they'll allow people to make 3rd party products that can do... whatever. But this is the issue from the point of view of Apple: look around at linux desktops. Heck, just find some screenshots online somewhere- they all look different. Both KDE and Gnome are very customizable. Great. But a lot of users are going to find it confusing. Here's an example:

If I tell you I'm running Linux with a gui, and I want to reboot, can you tell me, without looking over my shoulder, where, spacially, on my interface, I need to go? Even if I tell you "I'm using Gnome" or "I'm using KDE", can you then tell me where the 'Log-out' or 'Reboot' button is? No- because it's very customizable, any button could be anywhere.

This means that the user's understanding of where things are and how the interface operates is not necessarily portable from one installation of Linux to another, even if you're using the same window manager on the same distribution. So what you need to understand about Apple's design philosophy is this: they don't like that. They want it so, if you're using their software, with no complicated tweaks or 3rd party hacks, everything will look pretty much the same, act pretty much the same, and be in pretty much the same place.

Virtual desktops would be fine with Apple, if they liked virtual desktops enough to use it with the standard interface, but they don't. It's not that they mind virtual desktops, but Apple doesn't want to add in extra options that will change the interface and confuse many users, unless it's necessary. They'd rather, instead, come up with another interface design feature that, they believe, will be as powerful as virtual desktops, but less confusing to users (like Expose). And if you want virtual desktops, their are 3rd party implimentations available.

So, there's your difference between the Terminal and Virtual desktops. One is an application (of sorts) than can be run within the current standard Apple interface (Terminal), and the other actually changes the behavior of and the user interaction with the interface.