Slashdot Mirror
Hacking Mac OS X
Bill Hamm writes "DB is carrying a deep interview with Jonathan Rentzsch, who created an open source technology to allow other developers to inject their code into any running process to alter its functions and written papers for IBM to program the PowerPC correctly. The interview is huge and technical, and all over the place in terms of content. Some of the things discussed are the reasons for corporate America's resistance to buying from Apple, software optimization, the importance and history of 10.4's Core Data, why WebObjects is no longer relevant, the status of PowerPC compilers, and why Mac OS X's Finder should be killed off."
...that the "hacking" in "Hacking Mac OS X" is referring to "hacking" in the traditional sense, not "cracking".
And for more on mach_inject, referred to in the summary, see Jonathan Rentzsch's website...and an interesting list of mach_inject and mach_override users.
As for the Finder, it may be true it was a "compromise" of sorts between the NeXT world and the Mac OS world. But it wasn't necessarily the social compromise between "personalities" within Apple it's pained to be; it was likely more of a technical one. It's not perfect, and it's woefully inadequate for some tasks that involve managing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of files. But it's still more than sufficient, and there's no reason to completely junk it: it can continue to evolve and be improved upon.
The interviewee argues that WebObjects is still relevant, and the fastest way of coding Web Applications, but is in danger of becoming irrevelevant if Apple do not update it soon!
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
I wouldn't be surprised if Core Data apps don't get AppleScriptablity for free-to-cheap circa 10.5.
Seems like this is the promise of Automator - once every app can understand Applescript, every app can interact with every other, without the user.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
To understand the basic complaint about the OS X Finder look at this ArsTechnica article.
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
Doubling the size of your IT department in order to deal with technical problems is MORE expensive...
Which, many believe, is exactly the conspiracy that IT pushes on management. Bad computers justify their very jobs.
I suggest you read Slashdot
The interview is huge and technical, and all over the place in terms of content.
A huge technical interview on Slashdot?
A guess that means no one will read it, but everyone has an opinion.
Nice comment, too:
The Army reading list
Take a look at this on IBM compilers on mac os x. According to SPEC ratings int performance is 11% to 50% faster using xlc and floating point is apparantly even better. Most of the performance gains are over 50%. Apple of all people can afford a compiler to at least compile their own OS on. The free software side of me in the other hand is happy that they are choosing to improve the gnu compiler instead but it honestly doesn't make any sense to me since they can get a practicaly free huge performance gain on a relatively cheap purchase of a compiler.
-bloo
so long as you're going to argue by exaggeration and BS, then businesses have avoided Macs because they're run by retards and easily swayed by the herd instinct to go with Microsoft.
look at academics - Mac use there is enormous, because academics are intelligent enough to choose the best. they also use computers to do actual computer work, not just the occasional email and word document.
I guess that's why there are Mac users, Windows users and X users -- for my part I find it incomprehensible that there are people who prefer the Windows paradigm of stacks of windows they blindly Alt-tab through, or having all their open Word or Excel documents globbed together in a giant opaque square. And I don't see why those globs are more attractive in the office than at home. But I'm glad we have a choice.
By the way, when people bitch about Mac usability by complaining about the drag-disks-to-the-trash issue that was resolved a decade ago and has always been a non-issue for any user I've ever seen -- the absence of any second criticism tends to make their point in the opposite direction of intended...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Like hell. I moved my least techical users (Sales and execs) to Macs and haven't had a support request in months. The ROI is very much worth the increased price tag over your typical Wintel box/laptop. The stability and lack of malware are some fo the more obvious benefits but don't forget the lack of forced upgrades, no antivirus licensing to worry about. Not to mention IT issues a Mac and completely forgets about it since there are no support issues. A Mac might be out of place if you're a Windows admin trying to lock down your users with draconian Group Policies but for those of use with servers to run that don't want to spend our time worrying whether or not our users can browse certain sites or install programs of their own, Macs are freaking great. I have idiot Sales guys running around the world with 70 day uptimes on their Macs. And not 1 complaint.
This guy is way out there
To understand the basic complaint about the OS X Finder look at this ArsTechnica article.
Which is essentially asking for a finder that works like the spatial Nautilus (this isn't surprising given that spatial Nautilus was designed based on this series of Ars Technica articles). We all know how well spatial Nautilus was recieved. I don't think you can win - there is no "better" only "different".
In the end I quite like what Nautilus has ended up with - you can pick or choose between the two options, and both are reasonably (if not exceptionally) well implemented.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I was going to mod you down for this bit "Mac designers were so proud of multitasking that windows didn't maximize automatically -- hardly making efficient use of screen real-estate. (See! There are multiple apps running behind this window!)." but decided the post had some worthwhile things overall.
I suppose it's a usage debate, really, but it always made sense to NOT maximize Windows in the MS-OS's way. It's disgustingly wasteful. With higher res displays, one should not be asking for a wider view of a single window, but how one can use that space for multiple windows. That's efficient multi-tasking, in my opinion. Not having one giant square blocking everything else from view.
No it didn't.
It's a well known fact that the term "hacker" did not originally apply to the people that media now calls hackers.
Cracking refers to people who break into computer systems using nefarious means. Ie Kevin Mitnick is mentioned on the wikipedia page, as he should be since he is probably the worlds most notorious cracker.
Just because the media says it, doesn't mean it's true. And if a cracker ever refers to him/herself as a hacker, you can rest easy because all your base will not belong to them. Anyone worth their merit knows the correct definition and differentations between cracking/hacking/spidering/phreaking/etc.
And just in case you all are too lazy to read the links... Linus Torvalds is listed as a famous hacker. This is the true definition of the term. It's not because he ever broke into computer systems, it's because he's a good programmer.
Also of note is that in the computer science community the word "hack" has gone on to have a somewhat negative connotation. For example, "Dude this code is such a hack." Although this refers more loosely to the "hack and slash" programming methodology... which often results in ugly code that is held together very loosely.
However, an ugly code "hack" and the word "hacker" are distinctly different. Please refrain from falling prey to false assumptions based on media in the future.
Ok feel I feel I need to address this.
1) I use my iBook everyday in my "corporate America" Job
2) 'Mac' is not a company
. Error messaging was minimal ("sad mac"? please.)
3) the 'sad mac' was to indicate a hardware failure of some type, and it gave a diag code to lookup. Im not sure what kinda of failure code you are looking for from the built in ROM software. Perhaps you would like a blue screen filled with unintelligible register contents?
4) Ejecting a disk, well then I ask should there have been a separate 'eject media' icon?
5) One button mouse. Dont like the mouse go buy a 2 button mouse. they work just fine. However i get the distinct impression you dont use a mac anyway.
6) Auto sizing windows: this behavior is a personal preference, Some windows I want large, some not. Based on your previous comments you seem to be upset that Apple makes some choices for the user that are personal preferences, but when they dont make this one you are upset about that also.
Mac offered compatibility with windows networking very late in the game
7) Im not sure im getting the point of this one. If the complaint is that Apple (see #2) didnt add windows file sharing until osx, this seems to miss the point of this screed about 'Corporate America'. From a corporate network POV, the server is supposed to be set up to talk to the clients, the clients have no onus to be peer to peer compatible with other clients, otherwise you lose the central control that is predominant in the corporate arena. Of course to be fair you would also have to complain that PC work stations haven't added any non MS windows compatibility.
I can only assume by your context that you mean wintel x86 as corporate workstations, so I have to base my comments on that assumption. I suppose its possible you mean some stripped down unix workstation from like 1998.
You claim to 'like' macs, but your things you dont like seems to be picayune at best. For all of these things that you believe that would get in the way of your 'corporate' workflow, it seems as if you have never tried to do such a thing to begin with.
I feel that you are using this 'corporate' thing as a bag you can fill up with a bunch of complaints and use it to bolster your beliefs.
Replace "PowerBook" with "laptop" and it makes perfect sense. It's not about the brand name, so much as the flexibility that a portable offers. Some people, upon buying a laptop, get rid of all their desktops and live off of the notebook. It becomes a "lifestyle," inasmuch as your work files, eMail, calendar, address book, etc. are all on a single machine. Like the Blackberry lifestyle, or the Palm Pilot (remember those?) lifestyle, or the cell-phone lifestyle.
For the longest time, Mac-heads used "PowerBook" to mean "laptop" the way some people use "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."
For years Mac's windowing/subwindowing functions required multiple open windows on a screen to explore subdirectories.
... um ... WRONG.
This has been untrue since System 5, circa 1989. Certainly pre Windows 3.0.
Mac designers were so proud of multitasking that windows didn't maximize automatically -- hardly making efficient use of screen real-estate.
This is a bizarre remark... drug induced?
1) Macs had overlapping Windows before they had threading.
2) The first multi-tasking implementation (beyond desk accessories) involved multiple virtual screens (no overlapping applications).
Many applications remember the state you set them in when you last used them and reinstate it when launched. Some don't. The same applies in Windows, with the exception that (a) it's easy to force maximization if you know a bit, and (b) Windows maximizes windows to fill the screen whereas the Mac maximizes windows to show as much as possible, but no more than required. I don't see how the latter is a less efficient use of screen real estate than filling the screen with a largely empty window.
So
Mac never attempted to price their machines competitively for corporate America
I assume by "Mac" the writer means "Apple". In fact, Apple has offered many price-competitive computers, e.g. the Classic, the SE, the IIcx, the IIsi (the Mac mini being the most extreme example). It's not like the IBM XT was priced under the Apple II.
In any study of TCO I've read (e.g. from Gartner) you'll see Macs have a lower TCO than Wintel boxes. I would assume TCO matters to corporate America -- but only when comparing non-Apple options.
Apple has had *so long* to get the finder *perfect* and it's still not nearly as good as it could be.
looks-wise: when going from 9 to X, they threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater. consider active and inactive windows. in OS 9: foreground window had 3d effects all around it. EVERY OTHER WINDOW was solid light grey and a 1-pixel darker grey outline, period. no question about which was which. in OS X, it's waaaay too overly-cutely-designed and too subtle to be useful. OK, so the drop shadow is a bit smaller? great, that'd be tought to see even if my desktop picture *weren't* black. And the stoplight buttons are not there? OK, thanks. and the titlebar text goes from dark grey to medium grey? OK, super. OS 9 made the state of the computer *obvious.* OS X hides it behind pretty-but-subtle cues.
And the performance isn't nearly what it could have been. Every use BeOS? You make a file on the desktop from within an app, boom, it appears in the background instantly. OS X: make a file or folder, click on the desktop to (hopefully) force a redraw, and a moment later (on a dual-G5) it'll show up. Editing a file that you can see in a window in list view? Save it and BeOS updates the 'date modified' column in the background instantly. OS X? Click the file and it'll update. And the Finder is especially lazy about updating disk usage when you have the 'calculate folder sizes' option checked. C'mon, Apple... I had BeOS R3 for Intel and PPC in *1998*! It's 2005 now! Want me to send you my old CDs?
perfect quote: "Finder X is the compromise between the Mac OS folks and the NeXT folks. Neither won, everybody lost."
great quote: "the entire bastardized notion of switching from metal to aqua and hiding the sidebar when clicking on the toolbar chiclet in the upper right-hand corner. Bonus: notice how if you click on the extreme right of the chiclet and try to switch back, you fail -- the window theme switch moved the chiclet slightly to the left and now you've got to follow it. Gag. Folks, this type of stuff makes Gnome look good."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
"..and why Mac OS X's Finder should be killed off."
Precisely, one of the reason I find OSX so annoying to use; this 'Finder' assumes software is somehow lost already. A debilitating metaphor to say the least..
If it's not lost, how come you are looking for it in the first place?
At least "Finder" implies you will actually find something you are looking for. Consider please the term "Explorer" which implies a long journey, at great cost and possibly without success at the end. Nothing could be more apt to describe Explorer and the annoying little dog that couldn't find drugs in a reggae bands luggage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They don't, for the most part, stock replacement parts. They don't do anything but the most basic repairs.
I have to chime in here. I have a refurbished dual G5 in which one of the processors stopped showing up. The guy at the Genius bar told me it could be anything from an improperly seated processor to a bad CPU or logic board -- both of which were parts that they had in stock and could fix within a day or two. Luckily, it the processor wasn't firmly "in place" and it just took a bit of reassembly.
They had it diagnosed and back to me in less than 24 hours, no charge. And I don't have Applecare on the machine. My opinion is that Apple hardware is great, but regardless, I've had few occasions to have to get repairs over the years. And when I have, it's been a relatively painless experience. I never had to ship anything in or wait for some obscure supply-chain hopscotch to get a part.
A number of other comments in this post give me pause, but I'm not qualified to respond so I'll just say "hmmm...OK, whatever" to the rest, and admit people's experiences vary.
Overall I'm not impressed with your comment as I think its largely irrelevant/innaccurate. This snippet I take particular issue, when you send them some hardware, they ask you on the phone "is the data backed up or do we need to do that?" They make a note in your case and bam they do that for you(they charge you for that).
My experience with Apple is that with AppleCare support is incredible. Direct sales is useless to me as I don't need some rep to tell me what to order, I order that and it appears at the office in a few days, why do i need to talk to somebody?
You make issue of losing the computer for a few days, but any business will/should have backup workstations/loaners for this purpose. If fact I cannot imagine a business so small, that they could afford a IT staff but not have the money to have a spare iBook chilling around for emergencies.
Oh and FYI, 60gb worth of backup space is what ~$30 now(cheap IDE drive that i pop in format, copy files over and rip out in time to send machine out.. before you come back foaming at the mouth this does not violate warranties so your gonna have to complain from a different angle).
Thats a horrible idea. You want them to ditch great next generation technology just to fit in? Apple is all about next generation technology like Quartz, and how would dropping Quartz help them fit in? Every platform has it's own programming interfaces. Linux does, Windows does, Apple does. Are you suggesting that Linux drop its own API's and have everyone standardly use WINE because thats what everyone else uses? Cause Cocoa is so easy, if I had to code using other API's, I would leave the Mac platform.