Slashdot Mirror
Apple Explains How to Run X11 on Mac OS X
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."
I think I'll wait to RTFA until after I've tried everything on my own first. Nothing like thrashing randomly to help you learn about a system :-)
Do they pronounce it 10-11?
Step 2: There is no step 2!
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
It won't be long before windows does this too...ow wait.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Believe me, you do not want to see what the Makefiles for a piece of software like that look like. We're talking about the era before GNU-style "configure" scripts and Makefile modularity. It's hideous. But it works. And it makes the differences between the various UNIX platforms as clear as day.
Right now, I'm in the middle of porting our main project to run on OS X, so this article is very timely. To be honest, I anticipate that the majority of the difficulty will be in getting the make system to run correctly, and possibly fixing a number of linker issues. I expect that the code itself will work almost unmodified.
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,
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.
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.
It's much less work than, say, porting a UNIX project to run on Windows, but it's definitely much more complicated than just copying the source code to the Mac and typing "make."
X11 isn't installed by default. You have to do a custom Panther install.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
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...
We have been doing this via fink for quite some time now. http://fink.sourceforge.net/
Apple's X11 implementation is based on the widely-used XFree86 project
Is apple going to switch to X.org, since most everyone else has already? or are they sticking with XFree86 for the long run? What kinds of compatibility issues will develop as a result of that?
X.org is an implementation of the X11 protocol. X11R6 is the 6th revision of the X11 protocol. There was supposedly an X10 protocol before X11. What people have begun abandoning is XFree86, and not everyone is leaving it. I think NetBSD still uses it.
I rather like how the instructions talk about how to run X11 remotely, and the first thing they do is tell how to do it over ssh, with simple, easy to understand directions on how to do it. That is how "how to" manuals should be written.
2 points to Apple for doing that, and making my coworkers jobs a little harder (they're penetration testers).
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
and their X11 is OpenGL native. So, rendering is fast as hell.
http://www.abisource.com/
I could never get OO to work on OS X, though I use it on my Windows Machine.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Disclaimer: I am a developer for Mac OS X OpenOffice.org and a founder of the NeoOffice project.
:)
I happily noticed this myself earlier on in the week and was impressed to find the OpenOffice.org related section. Unfortunately there are some inaccuracies in the section, but I couldn't find any address to which corrections should be submitted.
Perhaps the most major omission is that the OpenOffice.org Mac OS X (X11) installer is not limited to 10.3 only. In fact, it supports both 10.2 and 10.3. For 10.2 users it also will automatically install XFree86 and a window manager if the system does not have XFree86 on it. Since Apple X11 is not redistributable under its license, 10.3 users are required ot manually install Apple X11. Ironically, that makes installation on 10.3 more inconvenient then 10.2!
On the trinity forums Smokey also noticed the file format "incompatibility" line in the article. It isn't actually true since OpenOffice.org is 100% compatible with StarOffice which, last I checked, is a commercial office suite even if it doesn't run on Mac OS X
Even with the little foibles, it's great to see support from Apple for X11 applications in general as well as a basic introduction that can help open up the entire world of X11 OSS applications for users, not just OpenOffice.org.
ed
In the section "Which Machine Is the Client?", they completely mess up the explanation. What is wrong with just saying "The X server is a display server. X applications are clients (running on your machine or another machine) which request the server (which may be running on your machine) to do something ("draw a line", etc)."
Disclaimer: I am a developer for Mac OS X OpenOffice.org and a founder of the NeoOffice project.
/. comments in that thread.
Well, as it turns out my update to the timeline was grossly misquoted in a couple of places. The update was really just to put things in perspective as to what was really going on in the various projects as well as to reinforce the importance of the X11 work. It was never intended to "cancel" anything since, well, there wasn't really anything to cancel. The update was just stating how things really are within the project.
Today's article on eWeek has some much better reporting on the progress towards 2.0 X11 and other issues that had been raised by my update. I highly recommend giving it a read as it's a bit more informative then the old
ed
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
The Apple article was helpful and all but there are guys who have been working on the XFree86 port for a long time, like since 2002 or something, so if you need a place to get answers to running X apps on OSX, keep an eye on www.xdarwin.org/forum
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Great, I was just thinking the other day, "Ok, having UNIX underpinnings is great, but I miss the clunky, inefficient, bloated, ugly and outdated graphical interface that I used to have with linux and solaris."
I think you're over-estimating the animosity between MS and Apple, if indeed there's much at all.
Of course, they compete with eachother, but what you describe doesn't sound like my interpretation of Apple and MS's behaviour.
The Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft have a very close relationship with Apple. They're not just some MS developers who've been told to bash out some Mac knock-offs of Windows software. They're all long-time Mac developers who want to make the best Mac software they can. The spin-off of the MacBU to a separate division meant that they could work on making Mac software, not Windows ports. As this article explains, before the creation of the MacBU, the Win & Mac versions of Office shared 80% of the same technology. The result? Shoddy, un-Maclike software which no-one liked and few bought. The MacBU now works every bit as closely with Apple's technologies as it does with MS's.
Office:Mac (both v.X and 2004) are very nice programs. They're not perfect, but they bring a very usable, feature-rich, Mac-specific Office suite to the platform.
Apple would not benefit one single bit from making the MacBU's software unprofitable for Microsoft. iWork is not a replacement for Office. Keynote's a very nice alternative to PowerPoint, sure. But one app does not an Office-suite make. Pages is clearly not in the same space as Word. If you need Word, you won't buy/use Pages. If you don't need Word or can't afford Office, Pages is a sensible choice. If Pages is aimed at those who don't need or won't buy Office, it's hardly a competitor, is it?
Just as Pages is not a drop-in replacement for those who need Word, any rumoured spreadsheet app will not be a drop-in replacement for those who need Excel.
Apple aren't in the business of making 'temporary, difficult alternatives'. They're about fulfilling user's needs (with the caveat that, like all corps., they don't always get that right!).
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
I've done this sort of thing before - had to have things that run under linux, Irix, SunOS, and windows. It's not really hard as long as you start out with the idea that things are going to be system-dependent. I had directories with Makefiles in that called directories (some ours, some 3rd-party) Makefiles etc. etc. You just need to put the thought in ahead of time.
/. these days leads me to believe I've become an old fart. Oh well. Happens to the best of us [grin]
My solution was to have the top-level Makefile set a variable based on running the 'uname' command, and then 'include' the definitions that worked for the platform, based on the variable name (we were running gcc and gmake on all the platforms, although the windows one was cross-compiled under Linux. Believe it or not, this was easier!)
So, CC, CXX, JAVA, LD, RM, AR, RANLIB
etc. etc were all defined within the platform-specific file, and the main Makefile looked pretty clean. All you have then are the #ifdef statements in the source code. It did get to the point where for one project we simply had different source code for the Windows variant, and the platform-specific Makefiles copied the correct file into place before trying to compile the module in question...
Looking back at the posts I'm making on
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
To expand upon what canon006 said, by default the "root" account is disabled in OS X. For security reasons, it's not recommended that you enable it unless you really, really need it. If you need to run a command as root, you can type "sudo [command name]", and when it asks for a password, type in your own password, assuming your account is considered an Admin account in the system preferences.
.deb package format, even). If you're a long-time Linux user, there are probably a lot of little programs in there that you'll find useful.
By the way, if you're new to OS X, I'd recommend checking out Fink. It's basically a package manager for UNIX software that is known to compile on OS X; it works somewhat like Debian's apt-get (it uses the
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)