Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Explains How to Run X11 on Mac OS X

Posted by michael on from the having-it-your-way dept.

tuc writes "In this document posted on its Developer Connection, Apple explains how to install X11R6 on Mac OS X, details of the default quartz-wm window manager, how to compile X11 code on Mac OS X, how to install OpenOffice, and the like."

16 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Step 1: Double click X11.app by punkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Step 2: There is no step 2!

    --
    "Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
  2. Do they really need a step by step.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I did this a few weeks ago and it was pretty damn simple. The cool thing abouts Mac's is that is what you get with the Unix backend and the Quartz windowing system, it can be as easy or as complicated as you want it.

    1. Re:Do they really need a step by step.. by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do they really need a step by step..

      Why shouldn't they? Macs appealed to all different types of users including the lowly n00b that didn't want to know anything about their machines.

      A step by step guide (including how to do it all over SSH) is a great way to bring the information to ALL their users.

      OS X has been running X11 for quite some time. It's just now that there might be a need for all their users to get access to it.

  3. Re:atleast its good to see.. by grub · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I don't think Apple is embracing it. They're providing compatibility to a clunkier interface but that opens them up to the zillions of unix/linux apps available. Most of the software that runs in X11 wouldn't be considered competing packages.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  4. Reaction to OpenOffice by digitalgimpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMHO this is a reaction to the announcement that no aquafied OpenOffice is planned.

    Apple doesn't want people to think they are locked into MS Office (hope it continues to support Mac OS X).

    This way, Apple can say commercial grade alternatives do exist.

    Apple's products aren't bad... but lets face it, they target home and educational use. Not a business person who wants to occasionally work from home. Microsoft does have powerful software, despite being buggy and insecure.

    IMHO Open Office rocks. Wish Apple would invest in an aquafied port.

    1. Re:Reaction to OpenOffice by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMHO this is a reaction to the announcement that no aquafied OpenOffice is planned.
      Apple doesn't want people to think they are locked into MS Office (hope it continues to support Mac OS X).
      This way, Apple can say commercial grade alternatives do exist.

      No, this is.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Reaction to OpenOffice by generic-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where's the Excel replacement?

      Oh, there isn't one? Guess I'll have to wait for version 2, since iWork with spreadsheets every day and I haven't found a decent Mac spreadsheet app besides Excel. OpenOffice's spreadsheet program is non-native, ass-slow, and supports half as many rows as Excel does (32,000 versus 65,536). Gnumeric is even worse than OpenOffice at reading or writing Excel files, and it too is not Mac native.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  5. Remote Applications by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's worth remembering that an X application doesn't have to run on the same system as the terminal. So even if you can't get the source code, you might be able to run the software, provided you're willing to spring for a Unix box the software supports. That might be useful for people who need commercial applications (such as FrameMaker) which are no longer available for the Mac, but is still supported for Solaris.

  6. Re:Why? by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, it's there. But you're thinking like a Linux user, not a developer :-) My job is more than just getting the thing to compile and run. I need to get it packaged up in a way suitable for endusers. We don't want to explain to our users how to get the X server running. They need to be able to just click and have the thing work.

    Like I said, I'm in the middle of the project right now, so I don't know if it will be easy or hard. But I think you're jumping to the conclusion that it'll be a piece of cake just a LITTLE too soon...

  7. Re:Wow, really? by abes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    X11R6 is the protocol used, not the implementation. The XFree86 project was a popular project to implement the X11 protocol on 8086 machines. Because of politics, the X client/server was branched by x.org (as the source code was open), so a different development style could be done (and from what I understand many of the people from the XFree86 project switched to x.org as well). There do exist other implementations of X11 that cost money, but at least in the past advertised better performance.

  8. Re:Wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe you should understand what X11 is before you post on the subject.

  9. Please don't use X11 OpenOffice on OS X by VAXGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want OpenOffice on OS X, help make one of the NATIVE ports more popular by using it. NeoOffice/J It's a totally native client that uses Java to render the UI. (Native Java? These are strange days.) Please help keep X11 apps off OS X.
    I realize we're stuck with X11 on Unix, but if you're sitting on top of Quartz, might as well use it, no?

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    1. Re:Please don't use X11 OpenOffice on OS X by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People on the apple side want a system that "just works". Something that lets them do their job quickly and efficiently, with minimal initial effort.

      Trouble is: it's a marketing myth that OS X is that system. OS X gives you a nice out-of-box experience, but afterwards, it's a lot of work to maintain, configure, install applications on, and maintain. Macintosh systems don't "just work" unless you do very little with them.

      And, of course, you can get an even nicer out-of-box experience than a Mac if you buy a PC with Linux pre-installed, because unlike the Mac, the Linux system comes with a complete complement of applications.

      Now, the reason mac users are so vocal is because they see how much quicker you can get to work with a mac and then they see all the time linux users have to invest in tweaking their desktop

      Mac users believe that they work so much quicker with Macintosh, but they are wrong. They are confusing a simplistic system with a simple system.

      They don't understand that for linux desktop users the tweaking isn't a burden, but a pleasure

      Bullshit. Linux users just want to get work done, and they find that Linux is a more effective and efficient way of doing that than either Macintosh or Windows.

      Macintosh is an OK machine if you are a simple user with simple needs. But Macintosh users shouldn't project their ignorance on the rest of the world.

  10. Re:Dumb explanation of X 'client' / 'server' by mph · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In the section "Which Machine Is the Client?", they completely mess up the explanation.
    Heck, I'd say they completely mess up the question. It makes more sense if you ask, "Which process is the client?" Since most people run the server and clients on the same machine (at least on Unix workstations), their question can only lead to confusion.
  11. Re:Why? by roard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the X11 version provided by Apple can run rootless OR fullscreen. Personally I use it mainly fullscreen with WindowMaker as WM -- it's quite puzzling for people that see me using WM on my ibook, thinking I'm under linux, when with a mouse stroke I reveal the OSX desktop ;-)

    I also used it in Xnest, that can be useful too. Here is the small script I have to run it in Xnest:

    #!/bin/sh
    export DISPLAY=:0.0
    open /Applications/Utilities/X11.app
    xinit /Users/nico/.xinitrc.wmaker -- /usr/X11R6/bin/Xnest :3 -geometry 1020x680 &
  12. There you have it... by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What X11 applications look like is beyond Apple's control. If you don't like their looks, just don't use them. Most users don't give a damn in my experience.

    That's everything that's wrong with OpenOffice (and most other UNIX GUI) software in a nutshell, folks.

    Developers generally don't care about Look & Feel, and when you're developing a package that primarily targets Linux, an OS whose desktop use is primarily confined to tinkerers, devs, or people making an ideological statement, most of the people you interact with aren't going to care, either. They've got bigger things on their mind.

    But, and this is a big but, there is a reason that people who only use Windows or MacOS feel that OpenOffice is a clunky, user-unfriendly piece of software. It's because for the vast majority of GUI users (who overwhelmingly use Windows or the Mac), being able to use their software, and use it easily is much more important than whether or not it's interface cruftiness allows it to be ported to some developer's NetBSD toaster. Regularity of interface and ease of use matters to ordinary users.

    Sure, the people you interact with on a daily basis don't share these concerns, but guess what: These people are not typical. As long as the OpenOffice developers basic attitude it "Hey, just install X11 and run OpenOffice with it. Users can either put up with it's idiosyncracies or fuck off", it's destined to be a distant also ran in most people's minds.