How OS X Executes Applications

MacHore writes "0xFE has an excellent tutorial on Mach-O, which is the file format used by OS X executable files and libraries. It goes into great detail about how Mach-O works, and explains what OS X actually does when it loads and runs an application. Subtopics include Universal Binaries, The Dynamic Linker, Using otool, and other goodies."

Comments

boo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw showing how OS X launches applications, I want to see the inner workings of Steve Jobs' pancreas

Re:boo!

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that Steve Jobs now is a Universal Humanary.

Re:boo!

[minus_273]

"I heard that Steve Jobs now is a Universal Humanary."

I think thats what Ubuntu is.. or kubuntu or edubuntu or something like that.

Re:boo!

[Tezkah]

you're thinking of a eu*nix

thats what ubuntu is

How I execute applications :)

[Anonymous Coward]

When FORCE QUIT doesn't work, 120V A/C to the processor does the trick every time.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[1336.5]

When FORCE QUIT doesn't work, 120V A/C to the processor does the trick every time.

You mean 120V AC (stands for Alternating Current, not Alternating per Current) to the Power Supply Unit (not the processor).

Effectually I'm sure the processor wouldn't like that either.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[voidware]

A/C is amps per coulomb. Since an amp is a coulomb per second, the parent is clearly refering to the frequency.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[1336.5]

A/C is amps per coulomb. Since an amp is a coulomb per second,

yes yes, I know this but you got to dress it up somehow to make it funny.

:0)

Re:How I execute applications :)

[DaSwing]

V A/C would then mean Volts per second? Is that a unit of processorburning?

Re:How I execute applications :)

[squiggleslash]

No, he's refering to the operating system "A" combined with the "C" kernel. It's pretty logical to be honest, and it avoids insult to the thousands of developers of A whose work would be forgotten if it was all named after some crappy programming language that happened to write a kernel of its own.

Confused? Not as much as me.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[himself]

voidware split the hair:
>
> A/C is amps per coulomb. Since an amp is a coulomb per second, the parent is clearly refering to the frequency.
>

    Does anyone remember "Running Scared" with Billy Crystal and What's His Name? " It's not the volts. It's the amps."

Re:How I execute applications :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he meant Anonymous/Coward.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[soft_guy]

"kill -KILL pid" should work.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[m50d]

120V AC to the processor sounds like a good way to be really sure you'd killed the application

Re:How I execute applications :)

[geoffspear]

No, but I've heard that maxim repeated by lots of people, including science teachers.

In high school I asked my physics teacher to explain how you can get more amps running through your body, assuming you're not changing your resistance, without increasing the voltage. Ah, the cognitive dissonance created by realizing that either you don't know what the formula you're asking your students to memorize actually means, or that some quote you heard from somewhere might not be scientifically rigorous.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[geoffspear]

It should, yes. Oddly enough, if you're using OS X, it only usually works. The only thing more frustrating that a process that ignores SIGKILL is being told that root doesn't have permission to do something.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[Anonymous Coward]

In high school I asked my physics teacher to explain how you can get more amps running through your body, assuming you're not changing your resistance, without increasing the voltage.

Easy. Get a better contact between the source and the body. By moving the electrodes under the skin, for example.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[uglyduckling]

You're missing the point. The maxim about amps not volts is to do with how much current the power supply can source, which is the limiting factor. A 12V battery made from 8 1.5V AA dry cells is unlikely to do me any harm, even if it takes a fairly low resistance path through my body. The 12V lead acid battery in my car will give me a fairly hefty kick through the same path even though the resistance of my body hasn't changed.

This is the reason why it's a good idea to use a 1:1 isolating transformer when working on mains equipment - you can get seriously injured in the time it takes a fuse to blow, whereas the transformer will saturate and provides an absolute (and hopefully safe) limit to current flow.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[Medievalist]

A 12V battery made from 8 1.5V AA dry cells is unlikely to do me any harm, even if it takes a fairly low resistance path through my body. The 12V lead acid battery in my car will give me a fairly hefty kick through the same path even though the resistance of my body hasn't changed.

Humans feel no noticeable shock from a 12VDC lead acid car battery. I handle fully charged ones reasonably frequently, occasionally with my hands wet or bleeding. If you dead short the terminals you make lots of hydrogen very fast, and under most circumstances you also create a welding arc, which are two things that do not co-exist well. But you can lay on the terminals with your naked body and nothing will happen.

This is the reason why it's a good idea to use a 1:1 isolating transformer when working on mains equipment - you can get seriously injured in the time it takes a fuse to blow, whereas the transformer will saturate and provides an absolute (and hopefully safe) limit to current flow.

120 VAC at 60 Hz will not injure a normal healthy human adult. Speaking from extensive experience and observation. But from the word mains I am suspecting you are a Briton, and while I don't think 240 VAC will seriously injure anyone from electric shock, it certainly hurts like the very dickens!

My own observation, based on subjective amounts of pain experienced through various kinds of inadvertently administered eletric shock, is that frequency matters. That 12VDC from your car battery becomes a whole different animal once it's been through an ignition coil, and the anode of a CRT will make you feel like your eyeballs are smoking. Perhaps 50Hz 240VAC is more injurious than 60Hz 240VAC... I hope not to find out.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[tiptone]

Wasn't it Gregory Hines?

Something like:

Billy: "It's not the volts that'll kill ya, it's the amps."

Gregory: "Well how many amps is it then?"

Billy: "Shit I don't know, enough to move a train."

I love movie quotes. :)

Re:How I execute applications :)

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a process ignore SIGKILL? I am not a mac user, but if it is a true BSD system, the only thing SIGKILL does is detach the process from "init", at which point it does not exist anymore. Since it is not a true "multiprocess" OS (none are), it emulates it by dishing out a certain amount of clock cycles per time period to each process. SIGKILL makes it so that a process gets no more clock cycles. At least that is true on a normal *nix system. There is no way to ignore SIGKILL in a true *nix.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[Aranth Brainfire]

Even easier: I run a Windows ME system.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[NuclearDog]

Well, if you have a process waiting to open a file on a NFS mount which is running over a link which has died, I think you'll find the process quite invincible (FreeBSD 5.4).

Or at least I found `kill -9` quite ineffective against the apache processes waiting on the dead NFS mount.

(It was also more than a little confusing until I noticed the NFS mount _was_ down...)

ND

Re:How I execute applications :)

[vought]

When FORCE QUIT doesn't work, 120V A/C to the processor does the trick every time.


I just line the applications up in the dock and shoot them.

Re:How I execute applications :)

[bursch-X]

Windows ME? That's called torturing your computer, not executing an application.

How it launches?

[pryonic]

All I do is click on the icon and it launches the application! It obviously doesn't do any of that fancy stuff the article mentions or the pixies would tell me!

Universal Binaries, The Dynamic Linker, Using otool? pah!

Re:How it launches?

[eonlabs]

"I forgive you stupid people" -Neurotically Yours

Re:How it launches?

[michelcultivo]

Why use GUI if you have the powerfull command line :)

I don't have a Mac

[drewzhrodague]

I don't have a Mac. Instead, RTFM to learn how Linux executes applications.

Re:I don't have a Mac

[Da_Weasel]

But i'm lazy! Can't you just RTFM to me?

Re:I don't have a Mac

[Homology]

What is this RTFM you are talking about?

Re:I don't have a Mac

[Haeleth]

Oh dear, does Linux practice this awful act as well? I'm an opponent of capital punishment, so it's now clear to me that I can't, in all conscience, use a Mac or Linux. No application, however detestable a crime it may be accused of, should ever face what is no more than state-sanctioned murder!

My question to Slashdot, therefore, is what operating system should I choose?

I've heard good things about FreeBSD's jails, which are apparently very secure without being inhumane. But on the other hand, Windows also has some advantages - I understand it opposes the death penalty so strongly that that it's been known to commit suicide in protest when a user attempts to execute too many applications?

Re:I don't have a Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

who the hell wants a mac anyway? macs suck balls... anyone who owns a mac needs to be killed. they are a waste of money and are basically linux on some shity hardware. screw macs, use linux.
EOF

Re:I don't have a Mac

[mejesster]

Haeleth: This is likely the funniest comment I've ever read on /. and I find it appalling that it was initially modded OT. Just because I don't have mod points doesn't mean I can't say it with words.

Re:I don't have a Mac

[Celsius 233]

I don't have Linux. Instead, RTFM to learn how Mac OS X executes applications.

Mach-O

[Anonymous Coward]

Mach-O? Further proof that Mac users feel emasculated and need to make up for it. : p

Obligitory...

[fak3r]

How OS X Executes Applications

Slowly. Call this flamebait, but I have two Macs at home and am always frustrated with the spinning beach ball animation while I wait for my app to launch. The icon bounces, bounces and bounces. I know my 800Mhz iBook with 640Megs RAM isn't the latest/fastest machine, but when I boot back into Ubuntu Dapper it's MUCH faster. I think OS X is a fine OS, but much of what it does in the background isn't helping me check my email, instant message or ssh to remote boxes.

Re:Obligitory...

[MBCook]

I have a 1.67 GHz G4 with a gig of ram and I almost never have speed problems, everything is quite snappy enough (although I hear the new MacBook Pros would put my Mac to shame). More memory may help you if that is an option (I didn't follow Macs well enough back then to know what your max is).

That said, I seem to remember (and personal experience seems to bear this out) that OS X is really slow executing a fork() system call relative to Linux. I'm not sure if this is has to do with using a microkernel, or is because of specific decisions they made, but anything that fork()s a lot will run slower than on the same computer running Linux.

My only suggestion to you would be... are you running the Dashboard? As interesting as it is, I avoid it because it is a resource HOG like nothing else on the system. If you google around you can even find a way to completely disable it.

In general it is a very responsive system. The only time I can consistently cause a beachball is copying files (digital pictures) off of a CF card. This uses enough kernel time that the computer does seem to stop responding for tiny fractions of a second (and my CPU usage goes WAY up). I don't know what the computer is doing, but it has got to be able to do it faster. My theory? Hard coded uninterruptible sleep statements for timing purposes. Just a random guess though.

All that said, I regularly use a 2.3 GHz Windows laptop and I am constantly amazed at how long it seems to take some applications to launch, and how different it is. IE will come up almost instantly most times. But sometimes it takes 30 seconds to launch and show the page (then feels slow after that). Other apps can do the same thing sometimes. But most applications (IE is preloaded by the OS) take just as long as on my Mac, if not longer.

Re:Obligitory...

[vertinox]

The icon bounces, bounces and bounces. I know my 800Mhz iBook with 640Megs RAM isn't the latest/fastest machine, but when I boot back into Ubuntu Dapper it's MUCH faster.

It's you and anyone else who has a 800Mhz PPC. (I've got a flowerpod iMac myself and it is a dog)

If I you happen to have a Intel or a 2ghz G5 then its not as much as a problem.

Even my PPC 1.5Ghz mini isn't as bad as the earlier systems.

Re:Obligitory...

[ZachPruckowski]

A lot of that might be your applications. I use Thunderbird instead of Mail, and it's faster. OO.o beats NeoOffice, and Adium is faster than AIM.

Re:Obligitory...

[Tezkah]

What about kde, which does the exact same thing but tied to the mouse cursor?

"that it does in the background isn't helping me check my email, instant message or ssh to remote boxes."

Call me crazy, but I dont think everything linux does is helping you do those things either:

[4294669.546000] Checking for popad bug... OK.

POPAD BUG? WTF THAT IS NOT EMAIL/BROWSING/IM/SSH!!!! STOP WASTING MY MEGAHURTSZ!!!

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn the bounce off. It's annoying, and wastes precious processor cycles.

Re:Obligitory...

[arpajian]

Huh. My old wallstreet (300Mhz w/ 384M & 10.3.9), while not speedy, doesn't seem to take forever... ofcourse I don't try iPhoto or anything that is really taxing... but then... it does work well for what I use it for: email, ssh, im, interarchy, firefox (looking up stuff while watching the tube)

To put stuff in perspective... it does feel comparable to my old PIII/500 box with KDE & debian.

But hey, ymmv.

Re:Obligitory...

[MBCook]

I hadn't thought of that. My Mac is new enough to have accelerated Quartz Extreme graphics, so the bouncing is almost free for me (the graphics card is doing all the heavy lifting).

But for him, I'm guessing his iBook doesn't have a good enough graphics chip, so his CPU is doing all that compositing... which would really slow things down during an app launch.

Interesting point!

Re:Obligitory...

[tpgp]

He mentions ubuntu and you reply with a KDE comment?

At least the GP has used the operating system he's talking about....

Re:Obligitory...

[Tezkah]

I've installed KDE on Ubuntu, I'm typing from it right now. that is from dmesg on this ubuntu box.

YOU CANT DO THAT ON TELEVISION!!!!

Re:Obligitory...

[fak3r]

That probably has ALLOT to do with it, I don't have the 'quartz extreme' thanks to this graphics card. Turning off the 'bounce' is something I'll def do tonight, appreciated.

And also, just so no one is confused, I love my iBook, and OS X *is* my second favorite Desktop OS, but there's just a huge gap in speed on my setup. Still, I am foaming at the mouth (well maybe not really, but...) at the prospect of a new Intel iBook, and have already spec'd out a local store where I can trade in my old 800Mhz (along with its installed THIRD 'logic board') and get some scratch off a new one.

Damn, and they marked my original comment Offtopic...this one is even farther.

Re:Obligitory...

[ElephanTS]

I have an old 600MHz iBook with 640MB and it is slow to launch stuff. A 600MHz iMac is a much faster machine with the same amount of RAM but those are the compromises of a cheap portable machine. The 2.5" drive is slow too - it's not necessarily Mach's fault. You should have seen OSX 10.0 - launching without all the fancy prebinding that came later was really really slow even on 'fast' machines. I still hope for further optimisations on Mach but it's all about design compromises so I don't hold my breath.

Got a client's 2.1GHz Macbook Pro here and it's really quick to launch everything - Aperture just opens in one bounce and Safari is close to instant. The relative 'slowness' of mach will become irrelevant in the future for sure.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

> That probably has ALLOT to do with it I suspect most apps on OSX really aren't written in Forth.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on now, wait a second. Are there CPUs where the POPAD instruction is broken? I would think that that would be a pretty easy one for Intel to get right.

If there are bugs in popad, that might mean that registers might be corrupted at IRQs and system calls, which presumably use pushad/popad to preserve them. Which means that yes, your web browsing/AIM experience might just crash violently. I'd say it'd be worth checking. ;-)

Re:Obligitory...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I take it that transferring 17MB folders is strictly off limits then?

Re:Obligitory...

[mrchaotica]

Unless you're running Firefox, of course. I have an 800Mhz iBook G4 with 640MB RAM as well as a 2GHz iMac Core Duo with 512MB of RAM, and Firefox's memory leak brings both to their knees due to swapping. If only I wasn't such a fan of all those extensions and that cross-platform-ness...

Re:Obligitory...

[misleb]

Well duh, you're not supposed to start your applications more than once. Once started, you never shut down or log out. Just put your iBook to sleep (No! Don't euthanize it!)

-matthew

Re:Obligitory...

[mrchaotica]

His 800Mhz iBook (which is presumably a G4, just like the one I'm typing this on) does support Quartz Extreme, but doesn't support Core Image.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (an 800MHz iBook with 640 Megs RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running Ubuntu, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

Re:Obligitory...

[misleb]

Ugh! OO.o on a Mac? Isn't that like towing an RV with a Porche?

-matthew

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh.... The problem with your reasoning is that 800MHz shouldn't be slow. I have a 1.4GHz Thinkpad that runs OpenBSD, and when I use the Pentium-M's power saving features to scale down the CPU to 600MHz, I hardly notice a difference. C compiles are slower but my user interface and GUI programs seem to operate at the same speed.

That said, I've used OS X on a 400MHz G3 with 768MB and it doesn't seem to be too slow. (Again, except when I do C compiles.)

In both these cases I suspect RAM has more to do with it than anything else.

Re:Obligitory...

[moosesocks]

A lot of that has to do not only with Mach, but simply with the fact that up until recently, a lot of OSX applications (specifically, those built on Carbon) were not multithreaded. In other words, if one bit of the application hangs or times out, the application and everything that depends on it goes to hell.

This is why BeOS appeared to be lightning fast on even slow machines. Even the smallest tasks were executed independently, and bottlenecks were hardly noticiable.

Apple's doing a good job making everything work, and Cocoa is definitely a step in the right direction, but apple really needs to kill all of the single-threaded applications they've got now. The Finder is the most prolific and outrageous example of this, and anybody who's ever lost a network connection while a network share was mounted knows what I'm talking about (the system virtually hangs for 45 seconds until the connection times out. awful. simply awful)

Otherwise, I love OSX.

Re:Obligitory...

[tpgp]

I've installed KDE on Ubuntu,

Big deal - you can install KDE on OS X - but I wouldn't point out something in KDE as a problem with OS X as it's not the primary UI.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

just because ubuntu comes with the smelly foot desktop environment doesnt mean you have to use it

using X in a compatibility layer is not the same as an alternate desktop environment

Re:Obligitory...

[ZachPruckowski]

What would you suggest? I use text edit mostly, but I need an full suite every once in a while if I want anything more than AppleWorks can do.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever retard.

Why don't you install a distro designed with KDE in mind (like kubuntu or mandriva)

Re:Obligitory...

[generic-man]

Microsoft Office is still way ahead of (Open|Neo)Office in terms of speed on the Mac, though Office on Windows is faster still. Office/Mac exposes interfaces like AppleScript that other programs can use, whereas OpenOffice stands alone.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

apple really needs to kill all of the single-threaded applications they've got now

For the record (insofar as slashdot records things), the Finder is multithreaded; you can, as a matter of fact, copy two files at the same time, or format a disk while doing something else, and all those stupid things Macs were accused of being incapable of.

BUT, the Finder right now does block when it tries to access network resources, which everybody hates passionately, but blocking behavior is not the same as being "single-threaded".

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a KDE problem. Nor is it really a problem. It's a kernel message. It comes from a dmesg. popad is a 386 instruction. Presumably some CPUs have a bug in this instruction and the Linux kernel is working around it.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The relative 'slowness' of mach will become irrelevant in the future for sure."

Oh, I hate seeing this line of reasoning. Sun said this once, too....

Re:Obligitory...

[Angostura]

That doesn't sound quite normal; I have an 800MHz G4 iMac with a mere 512Mb running 10.4 and Word launches in 11 bounces (splash screen in 7)

Camino launches in 4 bounces (13 the first time after a reboot). Neither takes more than a couple of seconds.

It might be worth giving your Mac a good old house clean (delete caches, repair permissions, check the disks - all the usual stuff).

And no, your comment isn't flamebait, as far as I can see. ... Of course it could be you are trying to launch NeoOffice (the native Mac Open Office port) in which case, yes you can make a cup of tea in the time it takes to load.

Re:Obligitory...

[Homestar Breadmaker]

"but blocking behavior is not the same as being "single-threaded"."

Yes it is. If its multithreaded then when one thread blocks, the others will still keep working.

Re:Obligitory...

[Angostura]

Depends a bit on what type of facilities you want beyond Apple works. TextWrangler is pretty good if you are after grep-type text jiggering. If it is formatting you are after, well Pages 2 ain't half bad.

Re:Obligitory...

[the_humeister]

The relative 'slowness' of mach will become irrelevant in the future for sure

Unless you're using it as a moderately trafficked server

Re:Obligitory...

[dfj225]

I think most power OS X users will agree that the Finder is a glaring weak point of OS X. My feeling is that 10.5 will have an update to Finder.

Other than fixing problems with hangs due to network drives, like you mention, one thing I would really like to see in a new Finder is better Spotlight integration. I'd like to be able to view, edit, and organize by metadata. From what I've read, it seems like Windows Vista will do most of the things I'd like to see from Finder in this regard. Since OS X 10.4 already has the framework for Spotlight, it shouldn't be that hard to give an interface update to Finder (although I'd be in favor of a complete re-write). As things stand right now, I even feel that Apple could implement and deliver this before Vista sees the light of day.

Re:Obligitory...

[geoffspear]

The other threads don't block. The problem with Finder is technically not that it's single-threaded, it's that it doesn't use multiple threads is a very smart way.

I think Apple intends it as a learning tool for programmers who think that multi-threading is some sort of panacea. "Look, developer! If you choose what to run in a separate thread really badly, you'll end up with a crappy application like this one!"

I don't see it being fixed any time soon. NeXTStep had the same sort of problems 15 years ago. Using the file browser thingy on a system with AFS was painful, since half the mountpoints in the /afs/ directory were always broken and when the system tried to stat them the entire thing hung for minutes at a time.

Re:Obligitory...

[misleb]

I'm hardly an MS fan (or office suite user), but MS Office for OS X isn't bad. Of course, I didn't have to pay for it, so it is an easy choice.

I refuse to run any X11 applications under OS X unless I absolutely have to. It kinda ruins who whole OS X experience. And OO.o in particular is a bloated pig. I won't run it on Linux either.

-matthew

Re:Obligitory...

[Y2]

am always frustrated with the spinning beach ball animation while I wait for my app to launch.

My laptop is hardly better than the system of the paent's author, but there are only two apps I experience unacceptable launch-waits for: one is a java game platform that the loads dozens more jar files, and the other is Adobe Acrobat Pro, which does something similar.

Actually, in both cases, the app starts and shows itself on the screen promptly, it just isn't ready to do anything for me for a great many seconds.

This is at 1GHz, 1GB, PPC ... and with the Dashboard running. But I must say, I have seen reduced VM trashing with java apps if I first send the Dashboard away by using Activity Monitor to quit (not force quit) the Dock. The Dock restarts right away, but the Dashboard widgets don't start until the next time I visit the Dashboard.

Re:Obligitory...

[Kadin2048]

Up until about 4 weeks ago I was using a 400MHz "Sawtooth" G4 with 768MB RAM and the stock 32MB video card as my main machine, running 10.4 with all the latest updates, new version of iLife, etc. I really didn't think it was that bad, and in fact when I upgraded to my new machine (a dual 2GHz G5), I was actually surprised that the UI "speed feel" didn't change all that much. Opening applications and windows are noticeably faster, but the difference wasn't as dramatically night and day as some previous upgrades I've made. This is not a criticism of the new machine as much as I think it's a credit to how well OS X performs on older hardware, at undemanding tasks. Sure, that machine was an absolute horror if you wanted to transcode a few hours of MPEG-2 video (might as well just let it run overnight), but for day-to-day stuff it really wasn't bad. I think in some ways, OS X gets a bad rap for being a resource hog. There are definitely parts of it that are (Dashboard, etc.) but in general I don't think it is.

I have a Kubuntu system running on an HP workstation (Pentium 4 Prescott, 512MB RAM, NVidia NVS 200 Quadro), which if K/Ubunutu's reputation for running on older hardware was as good as people say it is, ought to fly. (In fact this was why I bought this machine in the first place -- I thought it ought to be smoking, for the very basic level of stuff I wanted to do with it.) However, I can bog the system down by dragging a large selection rectangle on the KDE desktop: it takes probably 3 or more seconds for the selection box to catch up with the cursor going from one corner of the screen to the other, and XOrg's processor utilization goes up into the 95-98% range. I was shocked the first time I did this. Is this a big deal? No, not really -- but it sure makes the machine feel slow. I accept that the Mac/PC thing isn't a scientific comparison because the hardware is different, but really I think the advantage ought to go to the PC here (3.2GHz P4 with a 64MB display card, versus a 400MHz Mac with an ancient 32MB one?), and it comes out feeling worse.

Anyway, I just wanted to agree with you; the seemingly accepted wisdom that Mac OS X is inferior to a Linux desktop on older hardware is something I have yet to see a whole lot of evidence for. One of these days maybe I'll load Kubuntu-PPC (or Ubuntu -- perhaps KDE is the problem) onto my iBook and see how it fares, but as of right now I'd say there are a lot of valid reasons to use a Linux desktop, but UI responsiveness isn't one of them.

Re:Obligitory...

[master_p]

I would like to point out here that the BeOS UI was multithreaded by default: the UI was on another thread from the main thread.

Re:Obligitory...

[Quantum Fizz]

The Finder is the most prolific and outrageous example of this, and anybody who's ever lost a network connection while a network share was mounted knows what I'm talking about (the system virtually hangs for 45 seconds until the connection times out. awful. simply awful)

Hopefully you won't need to wait too much longer. As reported on Mac Rumors , as of at least Jan. 26, Apple has been seeking a "Finder Software Engineer". Hopefully we can see a better Finder out in Leopard.

The job requirements were listed as

• Participate in all of the various stages of feature development from design brainstorms, through feature development, all the way to fixing that last critical elusive bug under a tight release deadline.
• You will be required to produce clear designs, excellent implementation and tight code.
• Deliver tight, well implemented features, fix bugs and develop Finder into the best file browser on the planet.
• Work on performance and responsiveness of the Finder, making it feel lightweight, fast, snappy and pleasant to use.

Re:Obligitory...

[Blakey Rat]

ThinkFree Office is Java-based, but it runs a heck of a lot better than either OpenOffice.org or NeoOffice/J and it's only $50. They've done a killer job adapting a Java app to look and feel native on OS X, and you don't notice the slowdown.

Mariner sells a good word-processor and spreadsheet combo as well... I don't remember the price, but I want to say $120 for word-processor and spreadsheet packaged together.

http://www.thinkfree.com/
http://www.marinersoftware.com/

I ended up buying ThinkFree because 1) I'm cheap, and 2) it's good enough. From the trials of both I'd say that Mariner is better.

Re:Obligitory...

[MBCook]

My brother has an original Titanium Powerbook, and I know things have gotten faster for him through all these upgrades (it originally came with 9.x). That is such an amazing credit for Apple.

As for the PC/Mac comparison you made, I think it's perfectly valid. No P4 with a workstation graphics card (a Quadro) should have an issue like that. That's just sad. I don't know if things aren't configured right or what, but that shouldn't be happening. As Linux moves to OpenGL accelerated X over the next year or so that should be fixed though.

You may want to try something other than KDE. I used to use WindowMaker on my Linux box and even on my slower boxes it ran FAST because it was so light and it did everything I needed. KDE is nice, but with KDE you also have QT, KDM, and a million other things. It's a great desktop, but it's speed can't (and never will) compare to something more stripped down (like WindowMaker).

And of course, as long as you have all the libraries on, you can still run KDE programs.

You could even try running KDE with WindowMaker as your desktop manager and it may be faster.

Re:Obligitory...

[Anonymous Coward]

the system virtually hangs for 45 seconds until the connection times out

You mean Finder.app hangs.

You can continue surfing, typing or doing any number of other things you might have going in other apps while waiting for the Finder to come back.

Or why not just relaunch the Finder? Simple, painless, no hang, back in 5-7 seconds. Yes, it's an issue that needs to be fixed, but it's not that big a deal.

"Using otool"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean big "O" tool?

Re:"Using otool"

[Sqwubbsy]

Obligatory Office Space quote:

Drew: I'm thinking about taking that new chick from Logistics. If things go right I might be showing her my O-face. You know: Oh. Oh.

Re:"Using otool"

[ettlz]

I'm guessing that's something to do with the GNAA's "special" DVD release of "Mac OS X Tiger" for x86.

Re:"Using otool"

[Hal_Porter]

Office Space/Simpsons/Monty Python quotes aren't literally obligatory you know.

http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/10012

Re:"Using otool"

[mederjo]

The other day I was buying a bunch of computer science/programming type books from Amazon. One thing I'm really interested in is something with a good description of Big-O ( Oh ) notation and how to assign it to an algorithm. I searched for "Big O" and of course I ended with a whole lot of results about having/giving orgasms, fellatio, cunnilingus etc. Not *quite* what I was looking for...

Please include all jokes relating to reading /. and sexual activity, or lack thereof for someone posting to /., in the box below.

BTW, does anyone know of a book with a really good treatment of Big-Oh, hopefully including good worked examples ?

Regards,

Jo Meder

Re:"Using otool"

[J.Random Hacker]

I think you want to search for "computational complexity". The classic text is by "Aho, Sethi, and Ullman", IIRC. There may be newer texts by now. Happy reading.

Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[OlivierB]

Great strides are made weekly on the usability of linux, package management, dependencies, New File Systems, More apps, Wine etc.. and there is no doubt in my mind that they all work towards making Linux easier to use and more accessible to Lambda Joe's.

There is one thing without which no Joe User will go, no matter how pretty or compatible linux becomes: installing Apps.

No matter if you are a Windws, Linux or other die-hard you have to admit Mac OS X Make's it damn easy to instll 99% of the apps. Drag and drop what looks like a single file (in reality a *.app folder) and clik to run.

I immediately knew this was huge when OS X came out and made this possible on *NIX machines, and was secretly hoping that Linux wold catch up with it's own version and take-off.

Unfortunately, we are still relying on the age-old install with dependencies, of-course Synaptic, apt and Yum all make that easier but still too complex for 80% of the people.

When will we get drag and drop app install for Linux?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Sodki]

When will we get drag and drop app install for Linux?

We already have it. Check out GoboLinux.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has something similar and it's called Klik. It needs more support from the community, but it seems the community prefer things the old fashion way as they are content with building from source, yum, synaptic, apt-get, etc...

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[OlivierB]

Thanks, that looks great. I'll definitely invest some time in knowing Gobo better.

Anychance this would make it's way to mainstream distros like Ubuntu?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

When will we get drag and drop app install for Linux?

When it's a better solution. I use a Gentoo workstation and an OS X laptop. I prefer Gentoo.

You mention dependency handling as if it's a bad thing. Why? When I try and install something on OS X that doesn't have the required dependencies, it simply fails to work and gives no user-friendly clues why. When I try and install something on Gentoo that doesn't have the required dependencies, it installs them for me.

I seem to remember having one-click install of RPMs back in the 90s with Mandrake and Redhat, where it worked identically to what Mac OS X has now when there are no dependencies. Isn't that what happens now? What happens when you click on an RPM these days?

Have you seen Klik? Seems to me that requires even less work.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but not quite the same thing. GoboLinux apps are not relocatable, for isntance. The great thing about OSX apps (and other real appdir implimentations) is that they can be installed in the users home directory, on their desktop, on a network folder, on a disc, or in any system shared folder just as easily as it can be installed in the official "Applications" folder.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Gentoo, can you install an application to, and execute it from, your home directory, desktop, a network folder, or a CD as easily as you can to its "proper" unix directory?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Raffaello]

When I try and install something on OS X that doesn't have the required dependencies, it simply fails to work and gives no user-friendly clues why.

We're talking about applications here. On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a .app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies - everything it needs to run is either in the .app directory, or comes standard with Mac OS X.

Any application packaging that assumes that users will not relocate an application is broken on Mac OS X. This means that any having dependencies not contained inside the .app directory (aka the app bundle) is broken, since users can and will relocate apps to removable media for use on other machines.

Now, some misguided *nix hackers will cobble together an application to run on Mac OS X that scatters little *nix file turds all over various directories, or will hard code installation directories so the application is not relocatable. These are both wrong on Mac OS X (though common practice on *nix) because Mac users have been relocating applications since the mid 1980s, and will continue to do so.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Raffaello]

Just as importantly, even if you can install it to any user specified directory, can you move it elsewhere after installation and still have it work? Can you move it to a CD, pop that CD in any other Linux user's machine and have the app run off the CD? Properly packaged Mac OS X apps do all these things.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

When I try and install something on OS X that doesn't have the required dependencies, it simply fails to work and gives no user-friendly clues why. When I try and install something on Gentoo that doesn't have the required dependencies, it installs them for me.

I assume you are installing through Gentoo's package-managemnt tool which satisfies the dependencies for you. A fair comparision would be using Mac OS X with darwinports vs Gentoo. However this is only for command-line tools. Application bundles should not require you to install any depenendencies -- they either should be packaged in the .app bundle or be installed with an Installer.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tpgp]

We're talking about applications here. On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a .app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies

So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.

While the Apple way of handling applications is nice and all, it's really more suited to a closed, vertically integrated framework, whilst linux's method is more suited to an open, looser framework. (where all apps can share libraries, rather then each having their own copy of a library)

Additionally - linux apps are not harder to install. Imagine you're working in a small business, you need an application to print barcodes.

On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, can I trust this site? Am I downloading a trojan. Oh, this is windows only, but says I can run it using VPC. Will it work on my new macbook under rosetta? Once you've downloaded it, things are pretty sweet, but finding the download can be a PITA.

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.

Now - its easier for a binary-only software maker to distribute to Macs, but thats a different discussion.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[slagell]

Several apps have little problems if you move them into a subfolder of the App directory. (Dictionary, iCal, MS AutoUpdate, JumpDrive Secure, Zinio Reader). Plus any app that loads on startup is messed up when you move it because tha path isn't automatically fixed. I have iTunes under the "Multimedia" subfolder. With every update, I must move the new version to that folder and manually add the login item so it points right location. I even found strange problems when moving Adobe Acrobat out of that folder.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tomcres]

I was actually wondering whose idea it was, NeXT's or Sun's. Anyone happen to know which came first--NeXT .app packages or Java .jar packages? Either way, it really is handy.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[TheRaven64]

GNUstep provides similar functionality on other *NIX platforms. The real problem with doing something like this on, for example, Linux is that there is very little by way of standard libraries. A *NIX app can expect some form of libc, a set of POSIX and SUS APIs (with varying degrees of implementation) and, hopefully, X11. If you want you app to run on all distributions, this is about all you can assume - everything else needs to be in your .app bundle.

OS X has it a lot easier, since anyone writing an OS X app can assume all of OpenStep, QuickTime, OpenGL/OpenAL, etc. If you are using GNUstep, then you can assume a more-or-less complete OpenStep implementation and POSIX, but everything else needs to be in the bundle or dragged in as a dependency.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

My god! That will use up megabytes of disk space!

I also find it totally hilarious how Linux users are now advocating a completely centralized model of software distribution. Freedom of choice! As long as you only ever choose things approved by your distro maker!

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[m50d]

On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a .app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies - everything it needs to run is either in the .app directory, or comes standard with Mac OS X.

How bloated must that be?

Seriously, how many copies of a library does that leave you having installed?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tkdog]

If I need a Mac application for barcodes I go to one of my bookmarked recommended Mac apps sites and get something from one of them; for free if there seems to be a decent one or by paying for it. I've never had VPC on my Mac and rosetta is a necessary evil (though not very) of limited duration.

Now, finding those app sites requires a google search and everything, but can't see it raising to the level of "scouring". Suggesting that it would either reflects a difficulty with using google, or an attempt at FUD.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Please explain where he said that?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[berj]

a) disk space is cheap.. we're probably talking on the order of 10s of megabytes here. Maybe low 100s
b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other? You never need to think about this with the .app method.

To me dynamically linked libraries are neat in theory and useful for certain things (ie keeping the memory footprint down by sharing code in RAM) but they're kinda like global variables. Dangerous and not always worth the trouble. I don't like to have to worry that my app is suddenly going to break because some dso or another has been upgraded without me knowing it. I prefer to statically link things whenever possible.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[thejam]

I think this issue of centralization is a key difficulty with linux package management. Thanks for bringing it up. Now that disk space is cheap, we can afford to install libraries redundantly, with the guarantee that each app has the right versions of libraries installed. What we need is a decentralized package manager. Let's not worry about point and click for now, just command line. I think LSB aimed at providing a basis of known libraries, so that installers could work. Frankly I think the BSD approach of developing a core system with known and supported libraries is nice. But it shouldn't be necessary for a distributor of apps to have their app sanctioned on / approved for the ports tree. They should be able to distribute it themselves from their own web site. Currently either they are forced to pick a distribution or they must provide a tar-ball of source. (Binary tar-balls are pretty risky as they have binary dependencies which aren't enforced.)

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Not to mention hunting down every single copy when there's a security update...

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[prockcore]

So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.

Even worse. A security vulnerability is found in gtk. How many different apps do you have to upgrade? Bonus points for realizing that Apple won't let any 3rd party software use Software Update.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

What's the OS X equivalent of 'apt-get upgrade'?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.

No, the post you were responding to phrased it poorly.

What is inherent in a MacOS X version (say, 10.4.5) already covers most of what an application might need, including Apple's "equivalent" of gtk. Go browse the Apple Developer docs sometime, and you'll see a much richer set of libraries that come with the OS by default. Thus, if an application wants an "obscure" library and decides to bundle it, the cost to the system is minimal even if another app has the same one. The MacOS bundle is not at all the equivalent of statically linking against gtk and other "fundamental" libraries in Linux.

On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, [...] Once you've downloaded it, things are pretty sweet, but finding the download can be a PITA.

Have you ever heard of versiontracker?

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.

Which can bring in new versions of a library, which in turn brings in new versions of another application, which may be broken in some way (like any app can be). In other words, installing one app in Linux can effectively break another one. You pay for the isolation available to MacOS X apps in the form of disk space and RAM, both of which can be relatively cheap depending on what you're doing with your computer.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Been on TV]

Right. If you want to install the exact same apps on Mac OS X as you want to do on your Linux boxen, you can choose between the Debian apt-get package management system Fink or the FreeBSD Port package management system. They even have GUI frontends if you choose in .app directories that you can move wherever you want on the filesystem. Pretty simple, eh? ;-)

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[gellenburg]

VersionTracker.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[thejam]

Really, who cares if there are multiple versions installed? Well, I used to, and I still appreciate minimal elegance of a single library, but modularity cannot be won without some redundancy. Think of the library version problem: we need to get developers at disparate locations and levels of time commitment all to update to a specific level of library? E.g., what if one developer's app depends on a specific bugfix/update of a library, and another very busy developer's app does not? This sounds like a recipe for disaster, or, the nightmare that linux distro. developers have to confront all the time. We need more decentralization!

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tpgp]

My god! That will use up megabytes of disk space!

*sighs* - OS X provides a core set of libraries, linux provides a choice of which core set you want to use.

Both operating systems (unlike you) understand the importance of using dynamic libraries to save disk space.

If every file on your mac was statically compiled, we would be talking gigabytes, not megabytes.

I also find it totally hilarious how Linux users are now advocating a completely centralized model of software distribution. Freedom of choice! As long as you only ever choose things approved by your distro maker!

You only find it totally hilarious because you fail to understand the difference between making it convenient for users to use software from a central source and forcing users to use software from a central source.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Been on TV]

apt-get update if you have installed the Fink package management system.

For normal Mac apps, either an installer will do the upgrade, or simpler, a drag and drop of a new version to the location of the old version to replace the old one.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[quanticle]

Really, who cares if there are multiple versions installed?

If there is a security vulnerability, do you want to track down all the appropriate files and patch them?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, installing one app in Linux can effectively break another one.

Linux is a kernel - not an operating system.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[m50d]

a) disk space is cheap.. we're probably talking on the order of 10s of megabytes here. Maybe low 100s

Point, but it's still going to be a problem when they're loaded into memory.

b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other?

That's why you have versioning, foo.so.2 and foo.so.3 or similar (I appreciate gnu ld is not very good at versioning, so it's a poor example, but still). It's a very badly written library if you'll have problems with this sort of thing, and especially with upgrades.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[m50d]

Really, who cares if there are multiple versions installed?

I don't care about it directly. I care about the performance implications.

Think of the library version problem: we need to get developers at disparate locations and levels of time commitment all to update to a specific level of library?

No you don't. If there's a change big enough to break compatibility, you bump the major version number, and users keep both versions installed until all their apps are using the new one. It's not rocket science.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but not quite the same thing. GoboLinux apps are not relocatable, for isntance. The great thing about OSX apps (and other real appdir implimentations) is that they can be installed in the users home directory, on their desktop, on a network folder, on a disc, or in any system shared folder just as easily as it can be installed in the official "Applications" folder.

Hear that? That's the sound of a million nerds fighting the urge to push their glasses up the bridge of their nose while explaining to you that putting apps somewhere other than an apps folder is a Bad Thing.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're preaching to the choir here. I think the package management apps on Linux and OS X have a piece of the puzzle. It would be great to see Linux distros standardize on a GNUStep or OpenStep implementation that integrates with any number of custom software repositories and includes the ability to do updates. It would be great to have a single package for Linux and OS X for those of us who realize our executables only take up about 2% of our disk space. Drag and drop on Linux would be great. Nicely consolidated packages for application management would be great. On OS X a service that lets all your applications update without their own implementation, allows for review of applications, and provides the ability to search repositories for types of applications would rule. Right now you can get both of these on Linux and OS X, but not in one nice, integrated and standardized environment.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[PitaBred]

Screw the disk space. It uses up much more RAM than a shared-library solution.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[revscat]

port -a upgrade

Google for DarwinPorts for more info.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tpgp]

No, the post you were responding to phrased it poorly.

What is inherent in a MacOS X version (say, 10.4.5) already covers most of what an application might need, including Apple's "equivalent" of gtk.

Even though the post I was responding to was phrased poorly, I understood - I was talking about wanting to use something not in the OS X core libraries.

Have you ever heard of versiontracker?

*puts small business owner hat on*

No.

Which can bring in new versions of a library, which in turn brings in new versions of another application, which may be broken in some way (like any app can be). In other words, installing one app in Linux can effectively break another one.

Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.

You pay for the isolation available to MacOS X apps in the form of disk space and RAM, both of which can be relatively cheap depending on what you're doing with your computer.

I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Wesley Felter]

Klik appears to have a centralized server, so if your app isn't listed on the server, it can't be installed with Klik. This is no better than a kitchen-sink distro with Synaptic.

On OS X, developers can easily distribute their apps directly to users with no middlemen in the way.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[domanova]

>> scatters little *nix file turds all over various directories, HAHAHAHA That's funny. My dev machine's like the hamster box.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[XMilkProject]

I've never installed anything on windows that was as easy as apt-get install x.

Lets see, for Windows I must:
1) Goto Store
2) Pay for Software
3) Insert CD
4) Wonder what Autoplay is going to do
5) Navigate non-standard installation

For my debian/ubuntu systems:
1) apt-get install softwarex

Or if I don't even know what I want to install, I can always do an 'apt-cache search pron' and search the ~16k free and tested packages for numerous architectures.

Although I suppose I'm gleefully overlooking the times it would be neccacery to download kernel source, configure the source, set up symbolic links, make && make install, etc. But hey, if it's not in the package repository, a Windows user probably doesn't need it.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[handslikesnakes]

And lets not forget having to upgrade every application when there's a bug or vulnerability in the library they all duplicate.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP has excellent points.

I am not an Apple fan boy (I use Windows/Linux machines) but the App folder concept has ALWAYS been a good one. I remember using OpenSTEP and being very impressed with it (and OSX just continues the NextSTEP/ OpenSTEP ideas).

Linux does have something like this ("Klik") but it still only works on some distros and not others. The App folder concept is something I wish every OS would adopt and standardize on.

There are a lot of people that will cry "If there is a security vulnerability, you only have to upgrade one library"...right, and when your distro doesn't happen to have the library available yet, what then? Or when you try to compile from source and you're missing some bizarre dependency or the library doesn't like GCC 4.01 but compiles with some other version, what then?

All of us have been in the situation where something doesn't compile even though it "should" and yet you seem to have all the dependcies needed. It's 2006, why are we still fighting computers for basic things like installing programs? For the majority of us, compiling a program gives no benefit; I see programs like MPlayer (libffmpeg, etc) as exceptions, but you can usually compile those with optimizations enabled for most platforms and let it auto-detect CPU specific extentions at run-time.

We have PLENTY of diskspace (we had plenty even 5 years ago) so duplicating a 10 MB library two or three times isn't going to kill anyone. I haven't heard or seen any real comments that show why the App folder concept is a bad one.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[lostchicken]

NeXT's .app came long before Java came close to being released. The first web browser was a .app, and Java didn't get released until everybody knew what the web was.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[hyperizer]

So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.

Or you could use a package manager like Fink or DarwinPorts.

On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, can I trust this site? Am I downloading a trojan. Oh, this is windows only....

VersionTracker and MacUpdate keep track of "official" software sources. Apple has a directory as well.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Hes Nikke]

don't forget about Portage for Mac OS X! :)

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Senjutsu]

So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.

ZOMG that will eat up tens of megabytes of precious space!!!11eleventyone.

Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to non-shitty apps that don't forego the benefits of looking and working like every other program on my machine in order to saddle me with the "benefits" of a non-standard GUI toolkit that doesn't work the way everything else on my system does and looks worse too.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[2nd Post!]

Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.

Except Mac OS X.

Installing an app under OS X will never break another app by design because each app has it's own set of libraries. The only way to break apps in OS X is if you install a framework, which is not an app, and is the equivalent of updating GTK or libgc.


I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.

It's a trade-off anyone can make, but most people except Apple have not.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

...and was secretly hoping that Linux wold catch up with it's own version and take-off.

Except that Linux (and Unix in general) doesn't need it. Most package managers are extremely simple to use. Download package, double click on package, done.

The app bundle concept is nice, but it has several problems. First of all it's wasteful. Imagine every KDE application being an app bundle with their own private copies of all the KDE libraries. Second, it's more difficult to run the app bundles from scripts (most end users won't care, but most admins will). Third, you STILL have to sudo to root and install in the system wide Applications directory if you want more than one person to use the software. Fourth, this works on OSX because you have a comprehensive set of standard system libraries, something that Linux does not have. Everything that isn't glibc has to go into the app bundle. Finally, app bundles are only application for standalone applications. They don't make sense for services, daemons, and the like.

A good package manager, on the other hand, will automatically deal with dependencies. A good front end integrated into the desktop makes it a snap to use. It has the added bonus of providing a simple software upgrade path, something I've seen break in OSX in a couple of cases.

OSX has a package manager which Apple uses for ALL of its software. iTunes isn't an app bundle. If package managers are good enough for Apple, they're good enough for everyone.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

Sorry, that's not the equivalent. Not even close.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[kdmstanton]

I'm buying my first Mac soon and i'll need lotsa software. Would you mind sharing your favorite Mac apps site(s).

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

Thus, if an application wants an "obscure" library and decides to bundle it, the cost to the system is minimal even if another app has the same one. The MacOS bundle is not at all the equivalent of statically linking against gtk and other "fundamental" libraries in Linux.

That's because OSX is a closed system, whose "fundamental" libraries are defined by Apple. Linux and BSD cannot do this because they are open. What do you do if the system has all the KDE 3.4 libraries installed, but you want to run a KDE 3.5.1 application? Or worse yet, how do you upgrade without a package manager when KDE 4.0 comes out?

No one here has cojones large enough to tell EVERY ONE of the thousand or so "fundamental" libraries that their APIs are static and frozen. Hell, KDE and GNOME can't even do that within the KDE and GNOME projects!

That's why app bundles won't work under free Linux and BSD systems. But it won't matter because package managers are a better solution.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

My god! That will use up megabytes of disk space!

Let's take an example desktop and examine it to see how much diskspace it would take. Let's consider the the mythical GDE desktop. It uses the GDE libraries which in turn use the QTK+ library. It also uses about a dozen other minor libraries. This is not counting the various specialized libraries that individual GDE apps might use (like libbrainz). Also, there are fifty applications and utilities in the "core" GDE distribution.

All numbers are examples pulled out of my ass:

GDE application: 5Mb
GDE libraries: 15Mb
QTK+ library: 10Mb
Supplemental libraries: 10Mb

Total app bundle size: 40Mb
Total GDE installation size: 2000MB

That's not that horrible considering the size of today's harddrives, but it's wasteful nonetheless. Consider a system that uses shared libraries instead, and it only takes up 285Mb. That's a huge difference.

I don't know what the numbers would be with real KDE or GNOME desktop, but I greatly suspect my numbers are pitifully low. This is why Apple, yes Apple, uses shared libraries for every piece of software it distributes.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Jackmn]

ZOMG that will eat up tens of megabytes of precious space!!!11eleventyone.

And the instant a security exploit is discovered for a library you have to update every single application that has it's own copy of it. More than likely you miss one or two applications and the security of your machine is now compromised.

Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to non-shitty apps that don't forego the benefits of looking and working like every other program on my machine in order to saddle me with the "benefits" of a non-standard GUI toolkit that doesn't work the way everything else on my system does and looks worse too.

Clearly using a cross-platform library that can be compiled for almost every system out there makes an application 'shitty'.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cadaeibfed]

Macupdate
Version tracker

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

Even though the post I was responding to was phrased poorly, I understood - I was talking about wanting to use something not in the OS X core libraries.

If you understood, then your choice of gtk as example was poor both in its size and popularity.

Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.

Only because of diligent work by volunteers, not because of inherent technical merit. As I have explained, using shared libraries increases the risk of bringing bugs far beyond what you think you're updating, and that's a bad thing from a technical perspective. Human diligence mitigates that somewhat, but don't hide behind that.

I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.

Not everyone, sure. But how many Linux users still really care about disk space or RAM for end user applications? More importantly, what Linux distro gives you the choice to ship binary application bundles for the users that are willing and able to make that trade-off?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

That's because OSX is a closed system, whose "fundamental" libraries are defined by Apple. Linux and BSD cannot do this because they are open. What do you do if the system has all the KDE 3.4 libraries installed, but you want to run a KDE 3.5.1 application?

Until the relevant people figure out that this is not the user's problem, it will remain something that makes Linux harder to use. Why should they care if they have enough disk space and RAM to hold both versions of KDE?

Or worse yet, how do you upgrade without a package manager when KDE 4.0 comes out?

You mean like when OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 came out?

That's why app bundles won't work under free Linux and BSD systems.

That's partly why I got tired of maintaining my Linux box, even though I started using Linux around 1992.

But it won't matter because package managers are a better solution.

I just explained the technical reasons why massively shared libraries are bad for desktop, end-user applications.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, can I trust this site? Am I downloading a trojan...

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it"

So, how do you, in your infinite wisdom, know these programs to be "free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it"?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[essinger]

Help! I can't understand why 'apt-get install Half-Life_2' isn't working!

> Lets see, for Windows I must:
> 1) Goto Store
> 2) Pay for Software
> 3) Insert CD
> 4) Wonder what Autoplay is going to do
> 5) Navigate non-standard installation

> For my debian/ubuntu systems:
> 1) apt-get install softwarex

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[poofyhairguy82]

Anychance this would make it's way to mainstream distros like Ubuntu?

Not really. Gobo is cool, but the way "Linux" (as in the OS, not the kernel) is its actually harder to use than an Ubuntu for most users. If the Linux community actually wanted the OSX like packages then by that merit alone Gobo would have become a major distro (just as Ubuntu came out of nowhere recently to claim the top place). What we actually want is to have as many software packages as possible.

That's why Ubuntu got popular- it forked the distro with (maybe) the most amount of software "released" for it. Package managers work great if the software you want can easily be installed by them. If you can't then most of the time the software is not "released" for you distro anyway and YET ANOTHER PACKAGE FORMAT (YAPF) won't solve that problem alone.

Things like apt-get control the chaos that is the Linux desktop. Projects like Autopackage have looked at making a universal OSX type installer for the Linux desktop, only to find that its basically too hard.

Repositories and package managers do an ok job. The main problem people have with them is if they lack new enough packages or certain packages. In each case a better way to install software does not matter- if people refuse to support a distro then YAPF will not convince them. If someone wants to support Ubuntu (and many developers do now) they will make debs which hopefully in the next version users will be able to install with a double click.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Macka]

Have you ever heard of versiontracker?

*puts small business owner hat on*

No.

So you're telling us that a "small business owner" doesn't know how to Google for an app and stumble onto VersionTracker (which he/she should suspect exists anyway as similar sites exist for Windows) but the same "small business owner" knows what a Terminal app is; knows how to drive a command line, and knows that he/she needs to use a command called "apt-get".

I don't believe you!

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[mdwh2]

Drag-and-drop install is nothing new I'm afraid - certainly this was common on the Amiga years ago. Indeed, this sort of thing is entirely possible under Windows - the question is whether it's worth doing this.

I can think of at least two reasons for requiring installation for non-simple applications - being able to share libraries, and only having to install what the user needs. How are these handled in MacOS X's system?

Now I see that the shared library issue is discussed elsewhere in this thread - I can see the argument that diskspace is cheap, I suppose, and that outweights the risk of conflicts (though Windows has given library sharing a bad name - it's not a bad idea when done properly). But that's a choice that the application makes, it's not something which should be fixed in stone by the OS.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[larry bagina]

The OpenStep specification was a collaboration between NeXT and Sun. OpenStep ran on Solaris (over XWindows), HP/UX (over XWindows), NeXT hardware (as a complete OS), x86 hardware (as a complete OS), and Windows NT (over the windows GDI).

Solaris eventually decided to go with Java. If you look at the early Java Framework, you can see the OpenStep influence.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

You are significantly mis-representing the concept.

>The app bundle concept is nice, but it has several problems. First of all it's wasteful. Imagine every KDE application being an app bundle with their own private copies of all the KDE libraries.

Thats what a "standardized base system" is for. But, as you said later
>Fourth, this works on OSX because you have a comprehensive set of standard system libraries, something that Linux does not have.

Why not specify a set of "frameworks" then? Large collections of system enhancing functionality that apps can list as requirements. For instance, KDE apps can list as their requirement the KDE framework. Note that this is entirely different from listing 40 libraries as requirements as Linux apps usually do. Then just include libraries that arent't part of a framework in the appdir.

>Second, it's more difficult to run the app bundles from scripts (most end users won't care, but most admins will)

Only if your scripting environment doesn't impliment the concept. For instance, Bash can be patched to be ROX appdir aware.

>Third, you STILL have to sudo to root and install in the system wide Applications directory if you want more than one person to use the software.

Or place the bundle in the /Users/Shared directory. No admin access is necessary.

>Finally, app bundles are only application for standalone applications. They don't make sense for services, daemons, and the like.

Agreed, but this is only a problem if you don't differentiate between system functionality extentions and applications. Since it makes sense that ONLY admins should install system extentions, then there is good reason to do this already (Linux doesn't). Package managers are great for these.

>A good package manager, on the other hand, will automatically deal with dependencies. A good front end integrated into the desktop makes it a snap to use.

And if you want to install something that isn't in the package repository, a commercial app for instance, then you're SOL.

>It has the added bonus of providing a simple software upgrade path, something I've seen break in OSX in a couple of cases.

A legitimate concern, but not one that can't be solved with a little enginuity I'm sure.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Blakey Rat]

The reason Apple lets you is probably more historical than anything...

Mac OS has let you move apps anywhere before the concept of an "Applications Folder" even existed. (I don't think Apple added one in until Mac OS 7... or maybe even 8.) Used to be you'd put your common applications on the root level of the drive and then make a Utilities folder for the other stuff. At least I did. But really, the whole filesystem was a playground and you could put stuff where you want.

Now OS X lets you put applications anywhere, but it's too goddamned stupid to figure it out. My Applications folder was messy, so I made categories... "Media Players," "Internet Apps," etc. The first time I ran Software Update, OS X decided to re-download ALL of the apps that come with it because it thought I deleted them. So the choice is have an organized Applications folder, or don't use Software Update... pain in ass!

Behind the Finder, Software Update is probably the stupidest application on OS X.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Blakey Rat]

If Linux distros would all standardize on some libraries, you wouldn't need to statically link in a KDE for every app... you could just use the one provided by the system. You know, like Mac programs do with Apple's various frameworks.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Blakey Rat]

Uh, it's not new on Mac OS, either. Mac OS 1 had drag&drop installs in 1984... when did Amiga come out again?

The reason it's 'fixed in stone by the OS' is that it greatly enhances usability if all applications behave in the same way. "I could drag this app to the external HD and run it from there, but when I do it from this other app it doesn't work!" Of course, OS X *does* also have an installer, and installed apps, so it kind of defeats the purpose, but go figure.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[mdwh2]

Uh, it's not new on Mac OS, either. Mac OS 1 had drag&drop installs in 1984... when did Amiga come out again?

I never said it was new on MacOS, or first on AmigaOS; rather it was the original post that seemed to imply this was some wonderful new feature on OS X. And as an aside, that it was on classic Mac OS in 1984 isn't any credit to OS X, since they are completely different OSs on a technical level. There's no need to quibble about who got there first - the fact that classic MacOS also had this years before OS X just invalidates the original poster's point even further.

Of course, OS X *does* also have an installer, and installed apps, so it kind of defeats the purpose, but go figure.

So it isn't "fixed in stone" by the OS after all?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[kubrick]

Help! I can't understand why 'apt-get install Half-Life_2' isn't working!

I blame Steam.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[drsmithy]

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned.

And if no results are returned ?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

that can be some form of kioslave, that shows installed applications and repository applications; and when you drag from the last one to the other, it runs apt-get install ...

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

bundles can coexist with package-managers, in the from of package-bundles: like a tar of rpms, the first one is the intended applications and the rest are possible unresolved dependencies. The package manager has to be modified so when the user tries to install this bundle, it picks the first rpm from the tar, and tries to resolve dependecnies from repositories, if not found, it looks in then rest of the bundle.

it can result on big downloads, but the installed files are only those necessary, and the package manager keeps the account of installed software

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bar-agent]

It's not the apps that have problems, it's Software Update. It doesn't know that you moved the app. Granted, that's an issue, but the apps themselves work fine wherever you put 'em. Except, you might have problems running an app from a read-only disk image.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Stamen]

I love when someone does this: comes up with a silly overly long list for one side of the argument, then provides a unrealistically short list for the other side of the argument. You don't have to exaggerate to make your point. I've taken the liberty to fix your second list:

debian/ubuntu systems:
1) Google all over the Internet to find solution for your problem
2) Wade through the pages of flamewars on which competing software is better (VI or Emacs, only god knows for sure)
3) Call grandson to see how to enter "app-get install Vimacs"
4) type "apt-get install Vimacs"
5) Call grandson to ask where the icon is to run Vimacs
6) Be confused as to what grandson is talking about, still wonder where the icon is, all the rest of the applications have one?

Now lets add the Mac way of doing it, just for giggles shall we:
1) Go to Version tracker, and find the app you want, or read about in MacWorld magazine (yes they review small apps as well as Word), or go to Apple store (yes small apps can actually get shelf space in a retail store, try that in CompUsa)
2) Download (tiny file usually) the app from Version tracker, or from the Author's website
3) Finder window pops up, with nice little graphic showing you to drag it to your applications folder. Or if you are a "power user" you can install it to any folder you like. To the user it is one file, and usually it will run from anywhere
4) Double click on the icon to run it.

What else can we do with an OSX app:
1) Want to move the entire application to another computer (this even works with M$ Office), simply copy the file over
2) Want to move it to another folder, go for it.
3) Want to reinstall your OS, go ahead, just copy all your apps back, there is no "Install" needed. "Install", wtf?
4) Want to "uninstall", heh... uninstall... silly Windows people, just delete it.
5) Want to run it from a CD, thumb drive, over the network, no problem 'mon
6) Want to run 10 different versions of the same app (this is great for many reasons), no worries, just change their name or copy them in different folders

I sum up the 3 ways of dealing with installs this way:

Windows - "Go to window 1, fill out this form in triplicate, proceed to next 15 windows, move along, move along, next user please"

*nix - "How do you install XYZ, oh, it's so easy, just start with the quadratic equation, you do know the quadratic equation don't you?"

Mac - "Look at the pretty picture, move it here ...aaah... don't you like pretty pictures"

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bar-agent]

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.

On Version Tracker, I get 48 results for "barcode." The top two have been downloaded more that 10,000 times each. I'd say that's free of trojans, and I don't even need to think if it's compatible & configured for my system. Of course it is! Download, drag from the disk image to my own hard drive. Done.

Mac OS X, FTW!

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Jackmn]

Oops, s/it's/its/

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[tpgp]

So you're telling us that a "small business owner" doesn't know how to Google for an app and stumble onto VersionTracker (which he/she should suspect exists anyway as similar sites exist for Windows) but the same "small business owner" knows what a Terminal app is; knows how to drive a command line, and knows that he/she needs to use a command called "apt-get".

No - nowhere in my post do I mention the command line or apt-get - a typical small business owner will get his machine setup for them and then:

Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.

I don't believe you!

That's because your reading comprehension is poor

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Clockwurk]

http://www.softpedia.com/
http://www.macosxhints.com/ and
http://insidemacgames.com/
are all sites I've found to be helpful...

As far as must have OSX software, I would recommend:
Adium, Comic Life, Flip4Mac, Inquisitor (awesome extension of safaris search box), RockNES, SNES9x, and SCUMMVM.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

Both operating systems (unlike you) understand the importance of using dynamic libraries to save disk space.

If every file on your mac was statically compiled, we would be talking gigabytes, not megabytes.

Considering the fact that they're not, and nobody suggested they should be, I fail to see what on Earth this argument of yours is about. The point, if you had been paying attention, was exactly that OS X has a decent set of default dynamic libraries that you can assume are always available, and anything above and beyond that is fairly rare, and therefore can be included in the app bundle.

You only find it totally hilarious because you fail to understand the difference between making it convenient for users to use software from a central source and forcing users to use software from a central source.

Yeah! Everybody can just compile the software that isn't in repositories from source! Especially software with external dependencies that aren't in repositories, or don't have a new enough version in repositories.

Try running that one by your family and see how they like it.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

Yes, let's take an example that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and is completely unrealistic! Nobody said that core libraries should not be dynamically linked. Mac OS X is the model for this discussion, and if you look at it, you'll find that every app doesn't contain its own copy of Cocoa.framework, as you say. It sure is easy to win arguments against strawmen, isn't it?

> This is not counting the various specialized libraries that individual GDE apps might use (like libbrainz).

These are the ones that should go in app bundles or some equivalent, because they are specialized and only used by one or two apps.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.

Gee, I dunno, that sounds like using centralized software repositories to me.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Yes, but you said:

Freedom of choice! As long as you only ever choose things approved by your distro maker!

Which is complete nonsense. Anyone can set up an apt repository and use a web server to make it available to anyone on the Internet; and anyone can add third party apt sources to their system to enable the use of such software.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

Except nobody said that libraries that every app uses should be included in each app.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

If they're not part of the base system, then they have to be included in each app.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

And nobody will ever use it, so what does it matter? The minute you start require people to re-configure repository lists, you've lost way over 90% of your audience already.

Not that I as a software developer would ever go through the bother to do it in the first place, either. If there was just one system, it would be feasible, but I don't even know how many different software distribution methods there are for Linux any longer, to speak nothing of the BSDs and so on, and I definitely have no idea how to set something up for all of them.

In practice, you're stuck with whatever your distro maker makes available.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

Yeees... and?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Then we're back to the original point: if there's a bug in the library that needs fixing, every app that contains it needs to be upgraded.

It's like being back in the dark ages, where everything was statically linked.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

And nobody will ever use it, so what does it matter?

The abundance of software already available from such repositories indicates that you are incorrect.

The minute you start require people to re-configure repository lists, you've lost way over 90% of your audience already.

People are perfectly capable of entering the address of a web site into their web browser, clicking on a link to a program, downloading the target of the link, running it, and pressing next several times. Why are they incapable of entering the address of a package repository into Synaptic, clicking on the name of their program and pressing the big INSTALL button?

Not that I as a software developer would ever go through the bother to do it in the first place, either. If there was just one system, it would be feasible, but I don't even know how many different software distribution methods there are for Linux any longer, to speak nothing of the BSDs and so on, and I definitely have no idea how to set something up for all of them.

That's ok, I will just use some other program that has already been packaged. But you don't need to learn the ins and outs of packaging for yourself: if your software is Free Software then someone else has probably done it already.

In practice, you're stuck with whatever your distro maker makes available.

Unsubstantiated FUD.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Which can bring in new versions of a library, which in turn brings in new versions of another application, which may be broken in some way (like any app can be).

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

On Version Tracker, I get 48 results for "barcode." The top two have been downloaded more that 10,000 times each. I'd say that's free of trojans...

Tens of thousands of systems are inflicted with Gator, Comet Cursor, Sony's root kit, and so on. I guess that means that these pieces of software are beneficial?

Besides, how do you know that an attacker hasn't put their own trojaned copy of the software on the publisher's web site? How do you know that an attacker hasn't subverted the software publisher's DNS server and isn't redirecting requsts for the software to their own modified copy? How do you know the software has really been downloaded tens of thousands of times, and the VersionTracker web site isn't lying to you in order to get you to download the malicious software, or that the tens of thousands of downloads weren't just triggered by wget in a for loop in order to boost the software's popularity on this site?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

http://macupdate.com/
http://macskill.com/?q=softwareupdate
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

So educate us.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

But what libraries do you standardize on? And once you standardize, how do you upgrade to a newer version? For example, currently KDE uses Qt 3.3.x. If Linux is "standardized" on 3.3.5, what happens when KDE 4.0 comes out which will use Qt 4.1.x? Neither version is compatible with the other. Do you put KDE on hold for two years while the bureaucratic standards committee argues over this? Do you tell Trolltech they can never change their API because it's been standardized?

Even if you keep the app bundle concept in a specific distro (which every distro is free to do), there's still no way to easily upgrade an individual application bundle. Which means you have to keep older libraries around forever. You have to keep them around or the users' applications will break when you upgrade the base system. In the case of KDE, that's dozens of gigabytes of old library versions since the 1.0 days.

A proprietary (in the sense that the system is controlled by a single entity) operating system does not have this problem because it can control the APIs for the system libraries. You cannot do this with free operating systems.

A package manager avoids all these problems, without adding any burden to the user.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

Why should they care if they have enough disk space and RAM to hold both versions of KDE?

Both versions? You're talking about every KDE version since 1.0! And not just the KDE libraries, but all the Qt and miscellaneous support libraries as well. Oh, and all the various glibc versions as well (they tend to break compatibility every other release). Since they are user downloaded app bundles residing in user home directories, the system cannot upgrade them. You don't know what the user has so you have to assume they have something old. It's very bad form to break applications just because you did an automatic system software update.

You mean like when OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 came out?

That's not a problem, because Apple is in firm control of the system libraries, and more importantly, in control of the system APIs. Not being a free operating system, it doesn't have to worry about several dozen fundamental third party system libraries.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

But why are you assuming they would be included in every app? That would be stupid, and you would obviously not do it the stupid way.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

The abundance of software already available from such repositories indicates that you are incorrect.

I am a fairly experienced computer user, who has used Linux for many years on my work computer. I have no idea where to find such a repository, nor any idea how to find out. If I don't know anything about this, how will anyone less experienced than me to this?

People are perfectly capable of entering the address of a web site into their web browser, clicking on a link to a program, downloading the target of the link, running it, and pressing next several times. Why are they incapable of entering the address of a package repository into Synaptic, clicking on the name of their program and pressing the big INSTALL button?

Because the web is a familiar environement, while things like "Synaptic" and "address of a package repository" are pretty much moonspeak.

That's ok, I will just use some other program that has already been packaged. But you don't need to learn the ins and outs of packaging for yourself: if your software is Free Software then someone else has probably done it already.

They haven't, because my software is not popular enough to attract one of the very, very rare people who have the actual skills to do this.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

Mac OS X is the model for this discussion...

No, this discussion is about moving Linux and Unix to the OSX model. You cannot do that because you don't have a single centrally controlled framework.

Which version of KDE do you make the core libraries? 3.5.2? What do you do when 4.0 comes out? In order not to break everyone's app bundles, you have to keep the old libraries around. Ditto for 4.1, and 4.2, and 4.3., etc, etc. Imagine doing this since KDE 1.0. And GNOME 1.0. And for all of the supplemental libraries they use. And for glibc (which breaks compatibility ever other release even though it's the closest thing to a stable API Linux has). That starts adding up to a LOT of disk space.

Application bundles work for OSX because Apple retains firm control over all aspects of the core system. The core system libraries come from *Apple*, not from third parties. It can force its own developers to retain API compatibility, but it has no say over what KDE, GNOME, GTK+, Qt, or glibc developers can do.

That's one disadvantage to Free Software. But it is made up with many many advantages. Our trains may not run on time, but that's because we have more than one train.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

You're talking about every KDE version since 1.0! And not just the KDE libraries, but all the Qt and miscellaneous support libraries as well.

So? Why should I care as an end user? If I need more RAM, they're about $100 per GB. If I need more disk space, they're about $1 per GB. The question here is whether binary application bundles are useful, not a laundry list of pseudo-technical excuses why they can't be done. (Also, if there are so many versions of everything to talk about, how exactly is shared libraries saving me any RAM compared to the MacOS approach?)

The fact is, distro builders have failed to either backport bleeding-edge apps to the older libraries they use, or port older apps to bleeding-edge libraries. I use "failed" very very lightly here, because many distro builders are volunteers who make little or no money, and there are just so many libraries and apps. I'm just pointing out that either port can result in minimizing the duplication of libraries in the system, which then makes binary application bundles more feasible.

Now, maybe such a distro won't sell, which would be an entirely valid reason to not do it. But so far you've been trying to put up technical hurdles that somebody has clearly worked through.

Not being a free operating system, it doesn't have to worry about several dozen fundamental third party system libraries.

Free as in speech or beer? If the former, MacOS is built on top of BSD, so I'll have to disagree that it makes any difference. If the latter, many Linux distros cost money, and they still don't do this.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

Also, if there are so many versions of everything to talk about, how exactly is shared libraries saving me any RAM compared to the MacOS approach?

Upgrade! When you do an upgrade you upgrade everything! When you upgrade KDE 3.5.1 to 3.5.2, you upgrade the libraries AND the applications. This is why package managers are so damned useful. Most of the time you can just rebuild and application and it will work with the new library. Other times just a few lines of patching by the distro and it will as well. There will always be a few apps you'll have to wait a a few months on, but that can easily be managed without having to keep everything since KDE 1.0 on your system.

Imagine doing a software upgrade on Mac OSX, but having it apply to EVERY piece of installed software! That's what a package manager does.

Free as in speech or beer?

Free as in "trying to herd cats." Free operating systems don't have dictatorships coercing developers into one centralized API. They don't have police telling users they're not supposed to use a certain appliation anymore. What few standards groups exist do not have the power to enforce their vision on anyone. In a free operating system, everyone does whatever the hell they want, without asking for your permission.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[mccabem]

So the choice is have an organized Applications folder, or don't use Software Update... pain in ass!

That's a negative, Ghost Rider.

Only Apple's suported Apps have this "limitation", and they only if you want/need to use Software Update to patch your App's. It is not required.

To me (most?) the small sacrifice of leaving Apple's App's where they are is worth it so they can be maintained by Software Update.

Anything you install can be kept anywhere you please. (For my setup, I still install everything to /Applications.)

If you wish to have greater organizational flexibility, you can do what I do (many variations for this):

I have a folder where I keep aliases (shortcuts) organized to all of my App's. I have a few of these folders, in fact. Once you have them initially set up, drop the folder(s) (as well as your actual /Applications folder) into your Dock as aliases and - Voila! - you have super easy access to all of them. There are several benefits you will discover when using a system like this one.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[gknoy]

So you're telling us that a "small business owner" doesn't know how to Google for an app and stumble onto VersionTracker (which he/she should suspect exists anyway as similar sites exist for Windows) but the same "small business owner" knows what a Terminal app is; knows how to drive a command line, and knows that he/she needs to use a command called "apt-get".

As a user of PCs and Linux machines for a LONG time, I have long known of terminals (Eterm, Xterm, so many flavors), know how to use a command line, and know of the existence of apt-get, emerge, yum, and at least one GUI package management tool for Ubuntu.

I had never heard of VersionTracker, and would never have thought to look for it if you had not posted about it. On one hand, thanks for the tip -- it sounds handy. On the other, it is a little elitist for you to assume that it's impossible (or even indicative of idiocy) for someone to know about these advanced tools, and to have never googled for VersionTracker.

Cut the guy some slack. :D

Of course, as a small business owner, the fellow in question probably pays someone else to manage his computer assets. Not all small businesses are the 4-person kind that deal intimately with software. :)

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

If an application depends on a library that is not shipped by Apple, and is not included with the application, then where does it load the library from?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

I am a fairly experienced computer user, who has used Linux for many years on my work computer. I have no idea where to find such a repository, nor any idea how to find out. If I don't know anything about this, how will anyone less experienced than me to this?

Pull the other one; it has got bells on.

This is such basic knowledge for anyone who has installed Debian that I don't know how you could have missed it. Maybe you should have read the manual?

Because the web is a familiar environement, while things like "Synaptic" and "address of a package repository" are pretty much moonspeak.

The entire problem is one of familiarity. The user who is familiar with downloading an installer from a web site will not be familiar with the use of Apt; but terms such as "web site address", "download", "installer", "double-click", "license agreement", "spyware", "trojan horse", "virus", "malware", "crash", "uninstall" and "reinstall" were also once so much moonspeak. Not to mention "web browser", "email", "mouse", "computer", "internet", "icon", "chair", "car", "money", "food", "house" and so on ad birth.

They haven't, because my software is not popular enough to attract one of the very, very rare people who have the actual skills to do this.

But anyone who wants to use your software can file a bug requesting that it be packaged. That automatically ensures that your software is available to Debian users, and the users of all Debian-derived distributions. That someone can even be you!

I've wasted far too much of my time working around various software publisher's brain-dead ideas about how to package their software for Windows and the Mac OS. Having used Debian for some time, I believe that it is the role of the software publisher to just make their software available; those who know how to package should create excellent packages that install and work, and keep on working.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Oh, the irony of a Mac OS user complaining about programs that use non-standard GUI toolkits! Mac users lost the right to complain about this when Mac OS X shipped. :)

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Why is this? Do applications expect to be able to write to their own directories? :/

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

So basically, there is no equivalent.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

But it's not Free Software, and it costs money (in fact it seems to be a subscription service, yuck!), and it won't upgrade apps that aren't listed on the site, and it won't touch the applications that come with the Mac OS. It's not even close.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Doesn't upgrade all programs on the machine though.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

You seem a bit slow to catch on here.

Most apps only use the base install libraries. This would be stuff like Cocoa.framework and Carbon.framework. These are shipped with the OS.

Some apps use a custom framework or two. They include these in the app bundle. Chances are, any such library will exist in one or two app bundles on your system only. This is a minor waste of space for a huge increase in convenience. None of your arguments apply, since most apps just use the base libaries, and those libraries that are included in apps are used by very few apps.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

debian/ubuntu systems:
1) Google all over the Internet to find solution for your problem
2) Wade through the pages of flamewars on which competing software is better (VI or Emacs, only god knows for sure)

Let's just count these as "find some software you want to install", shall we? They are common steps for all three platforms.

3) Call grandson to see how to enter "app-get install Vimacs"
4) type "apt-get install Vimacs"

Why are you disallowing the use of Synaptic?

5) Call grandson to ask where the icon is to run Vimacs
6) Be confused as to what grandson is talking about, still wonder where the icon is, all the rest of the applications have one?

Policy states that all applications should register in the standard system-wide menu. Any packages that do not do so are buggy.

The Debian approach basically *does* boil down to 'install the foobar package'.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

This is such basic knowledge for anyone who has installed Debian that I don't know how you could have missed it. Maybe you should have read the manual?

I did what most normal users would do - I put in an Ubuntu disc, answered some questions, and I got a working system. That part was very good. I never once had to worry about a "repository" or a "Synaptic".

The entire problem is one of familiarity...

Basically, "Users are too dumb! They need to learn!"

That is not how you get anyone to use your software.

I've wasted far too much of my time working around various software publisher's brain-dead ideas about how to package their software for Windows and the Mac OS.

In Mac OS X, I generally package my software by right-clicking the app bundle and selecting "Create Archive". If it is any harder to do than that, that's the fault of the OS.

Linux users in general seem to consider the fact that packaging software for their OS is much to difficult as some sort of natural law, that is to be worked around by complex technical and social solutions with repositories and other people packaging your software for you, instead of actually fixing the OS so that it's not such an incredible pain in the ass to distribute software for it.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Some apps use a custom framework or two. They include these in the app bundle. Chances are, any such library will exist in one or two app bundles on your system only. This is a minor waste of space for a huge increase in convenience.

Although the wasted storage space is a disadvantage, we are talking about having to upgrade every application when there's a bug or vulnerability in a library that these applications all duplicate.

None of your arguments apply, since most apps just use the base libaries, and those libraries that are included in apps are used by very few apps.

This sentence contradicts itself. If this argument does not apply then no applications exist that ship their own copies of libraries. As soon as two applications ship the same library, you are in the situation where you must upgrade both in order to make sure you are not vulnerable to a bug or security flaw in that library. That's if the software publisher even bothers to update their own copy--most vendors of software for Windows never bothered to issue advisories relating to the libpng flaws of last (or the previous?) year. Microsoft released a scanning tool that could be ported to Bourne shell thus:

find / -name libpng.dll && echo 'Copies of libpng were detected on your system. Please check with the person you got each copy from to make sure they have not given you a vulnerable version of the library.'

I don't even want to *think* about how many vulnerable copies of zlib there are statically linked throughout a typical Windows system.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[GlassHeart]

Upgrade! When you do an upgrade you upgrade everything! When you upgrade KDE 3.5.1 to 3.5.2, you upgrade the libraries AND the applications.

One of us is severely confused. On the one hand, you wrote "You're talking about every KDE version since 1.0!" which sounds like I need to have every version of KDE in RAM, which is indeed a pain. Now you're saying I upgrade the apps as well, to minimize on the RAM cost.

Let's rewind a bit. Shared libraries only make sense when most or all of our apps are using the same version, because otherwise they don't get to share any code. However, to get all the apps to use the same version when only one of them really needs the newer one, you have to upgrade them all, which risks bringing in bugs.

Thus, our choices are to waste memory or risk bugs. Compared to the MacOS X approach, which minimizes memory waste by having a large set of core libraries, and minimizes the risk of bugs to unrelated apps by keeping the core libraries relatively constant, how is the "package manager" superior?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

I did what most normal users would do - I put in an Ubuntu disc, answered some questions, and I got a working system. That part was very good. I never once had to worry about a "repository" or a "Synaptic".

And if you wanted to find out how to install additional software, you would have seen explanations and a step by step guide in the manual.

Basically, "Users are too dumb! They need to learn!"

What is wrong with education? Are users so dumb that they are unable to learn?

I note that you haven't bothered to address the point I raised, that users somehow managed to learn how to use the web to download new software for their PCs in the first place, often encountering setbacks such as viruses, trojans, spyware and the need to reinstall their PCs upon the way; not to mention that they learned how to use a PC or perform $any_other_task in the first place. Or were you born with this knowledge built in?

As a Mac user, you of all people should understand the problem with "GNU/Linux should just duplicate $what_i_am_used_to exactly".

In Mac OS X, I generally package my software by right-clicking the app bundle and selecting "Create Archive". If it is any harder to do than that, that's the fault of the OS.

Compression is built in to the deb package format.

Linux users in general seem to consider the fact that packaging software for their OS is much to difficult as some sort of natural law, that is to be worked around by complex technical and social solutions with repositories and other people packaging your software for you, instead of actually fixing the OS so that it's not such an incredible pain in the ass to distribute software for it.

You fail to understand that good packaging is hard.

It's as easy to make a bundle for a random piece of end-user desktop software as it is to make a Debian package of that software; the difference is that the Debian packages can do so much more. Show me how you can make a bundle of, say, Apache that will, when installed, automatically configure and start the server. When upgraded (since you can't apt-get upgrade, we'll overlook the tedious browse/download/mount/delete old bundle/copy new bundle process), your bundle should automatically upgrade the user's configuration, taking into account the (possibly extensive) modifications the user has made. Oh, I guess we can't forget the tedious process, since by deleting the old bundle we just vaped the user's configuration. Oh well. Along with the newly upgraded^Wfreshly-installed Apache, we also want PHP. How would you make a bundle that, when installed, automatically updates Apache's configuration so that the PHP handler is invoked for files ending with .php?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bar-agent]

I wish I knew. Only happens with some apps, though.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bar-agent]

Tens of thousands of systems are inflicted with Gator, Comet Cursor, Sony's root kit, and so on. I guess that means that these pieces of software are beneficial?

Besides, how do you know that an attacker hasn't put their own trojaned copy of the software on the publisher's web site? How do you know that an attacker hasn't subverted the software publisher's DNS server and isn't redirecting requsts for the software to their own modified copy? How do you know the software has really been downloaded tens of thousands of times, and the VersionTracker web site isn't lying to you in order to get you to download the malicious software, or that the tens of thousands of downloads weren't just triggered by wget in a for loop in order to boost the software's popularity on this site?

Every point you raise (except for the wget one) applies as equally to any package download site you care to name. VersionTracker has a product to sell and a reputation to maintain. They are a trusted site, just like the package download sites.

VT has admins that are capable of removing listings. Also, VersionTracker has product ratings and a comment system. If a product turns out to be spyware or something, someone will end up reporting it. If it looks like someone is astroturfing their own product under different usernames, you can send a report in to the admins.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Arandir]

On the one hand, you wrote "You're talking about every KDE version since 1.0!" which sounds like I need to have every version of KDE in RAM, which is indeed a pain. Now you're saying I upgrade the apps as well, to minimize on the RAM cost.

In an app-bundle-only universe, you will want all the old libraries installed, because you don't know what the user will need. In a package-manager-only universe, everything gets smoothly upgraded all at the same time. Thus I am not confused, just talking about two very different scenarios.

Of course, the package manager solution only works when most of your software comes via the package manager. For Windows and Mac, most software is third party shrinkwrap and shareware, and this doesn't work. But for Linux and BSD, it does work, and it works very well.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Every point you raise (except for the wget one) applies as equally to any package download site you care to name.

But I'm not talking about a package download site; I want the ease-of-use and security afforded by Apt, which is impervious to these attacks:

• Since only Debian Developers are able to upload packages, a malicious software vendor would have a hard time getting their package into the archive in the first place.
• Since Apt verifies all downloaded packages against the repository's PGP key, an attacker is unable to trick me into downloading their software by breaking into a Debian mirror or play with DNS to redirect me to their site.

Using Apt isn't just about the ease of upgrading--it is also a security thing. I can trust that there are no viruses, trojans, spyware or other malware in Debian's archive; I can't make the same assumption if I download software from a vendor's web site directly.

VersionTracker has a product to sell and a reputation to maintain. They are a trusted site, just like the package download sites.

VT has admins that are capable of removing listings. Also, VersionTracker has product ratings and a comment system. If a product turns out to be spyware or something, someone will end up reporting it. If it looks like someone is astroturfing their own product under different usernames, you can send a report in to the admins.

So one must just hope that such problems are reported and fixed before one has the chance to download the software? Besides, if the price was right, who is to say that the company behind VersionTracker wouldn't deliberatly point users at malware, or take just that little bit longer to remove the bad software from their listing?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bar-agent]

Apt does sound pretty good from a security perspective. Less choice, though.

Be that as it may, I have a few comments:

Since only Debian Developers are able to upload packages, a malicious software vendor would have a hard time getting their package into the archive in the first place.

The Debian developers get the packages to upload from somewhere. They probably take source code, compile it, and upload it. This is fine if the source code in question is open source; you just have to assume that any problems were fixed before the Debian devs uploaded it, and that no one added a back door. Similar to what VersionTracker users do.

Since Apt verifies all downloaded packages against the repository's PGP key, an attacker is unable to trick me into downloading their software by breaking into a Debian mirror or play with DNS to redirect me to their site.

If the attacker can redirect the download to his site, is there a reason why he can't just redirect the key-query to his own site as well, and provide a key that matches the package?

Besides, if the price was right, who is to say that the company behind VersionTracker wouldn't deliberatly point users at malware, or take just that little bit longer to remove the bad software from their listing?

An individual Debian developer can be bribed as easily as an employee of VersionTracker, and more easily than VersionTracker as a whole.

The rest of your points stand.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bursch-X]

This is the best. Here you can even search specifically for Open Source apps, Cocoa apps only etc.

http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/apps.php

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[bursch-X]

In most cases:

[put your app name here] --> preferences --> [x] automatically check for updates.

Next time I launch the app and there's a new version it'll tell me.

For Apple's apps and the OS:
System Preferences --> Software Update --> [x] check for updates [daily/weekly, monthly]

Fair enough.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

I don't know about there being less choice. The last release of Debian contained 15,197 packages; unstable currently contains 17,550!

Obviously you do have to trust the Debian Developers to review the packages that they upload; this job is possible because packages may only enter Debian if they are accompanied by the complete source code of the package.

This task is also performed by the ftpmasters, who are a small group that administrate the archive itself; they ensure that the packages uploaded comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and that they aren't malware, and so on.

About the security of the keys; the keys for the verification live on the system itself, so you can't redirect a query to your own site as you described. The system is described pretty well in section 7.4 of the Securing Debian Manual; but basically when a package is downloaded, it is checked against the checksums present in the repository it was downloaded from; each repository can provide a PGP key that is used to ensure that these checksums are valid.

When freshly installed, a system will already have the Debian Archive signing key installed. If you broke into ftp.uk.debian.org and replaced the package of Firefox with your own Firefox+Gator, and fudged the checksums in the Packages and Release files, the Release file would fail to verify against the Debian Archive signing key already present on the user's system.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Exactly!

I agree with you completely!

Everyone who writes an application for OS X, from Apple, to Microsoft, to Adobe will use the default set of dynamic libraries.

The idea that any of those companies would be porting software from another platform, leading to staticly compiled bloat is ludicrous.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

Uh, framework bundles are designed to contain multiple versions of libraries for exactly this reason. There's no need to "imagine doing this since KDE 1.0. And GNOME 1.0", as you would only need to have the versions that actually introduce incompabilities since you started packaging them as frameworks.

Furthermore, the reason that people keep breaking compatibility in libraries at the drop of a hat is because they know you'll have to recompile anyway. If you take that away, library developers will be forced to think a bit harder about whether they can afford to do this or not.

Saying there's no central control is a total cop-out - each project has central control over itself, no? Why shouldn't they be able to handle this themselves?

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

As soon as two applications ship the same library, you are in the situation where you must upgrade both in order to make sure you are not vulnerable to a bug or security flaw in that library.

Sure, and in practice, this is not a problem. You're updating apps to fix security vulnerabilities all the time anyway. This will not signficantly change that, since dangerous vulnerabilities in these libraries are much more rare than vulnerabilities in the actual apps, and the number of apps that use a specific library is very small anyway. You keep using examples like zlib, which is a very common library and thus wouldn't be included in the app, but in the OS (As it is under Mac OS X - and what Windows programs do has nothing to do with this argument).

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

What is wrong with education? Are users so dumb that they are unable to learn?

This has nothing to do with it. Good design should absolutely minimize the amount a user needs to learn. You may enjoy learning things about computers, but most people do not. This is the absloute basics of user-friendly design.

Compression is built in to the deb package format.

Oh come on, now you are just being intentionally daft. Do you really think I was talking about compression there?

You fail to understand that good packaging is hard.

No, it is made hard. You can make installers and scripts and any fancy thing you want for Mac OS X too, but the important point is that very few apps actually need this.

What I was trying to say is that your average program that a user will actually want to install can simply be zipped up on the developers machine, and given to the user to unzip. They then get an icon which they can click to run the program. This is incredibly simple and convenient, both for the user and the programmer, and covers at least 90% of all applications. The rest is harder, but there are other mechanisms in place to handle those.

You example of Apache is completely atypical, since it is both a program of daunting complexity (unnecessary complexity, I'd say, but that's another topic entierly), and not a program a normal user would ever install. OS X has it pre-installed for you, if you want it. It is in every way a special case.

PS:

since by deleting the old bundle we just vaped the user's configuration.

No, configuration files are not stored inside the bundle.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

what

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

It's only "not a problem" until you are screwed by an app shipping an out-of-date private copy of a library. The fact is that your system is potentially vulnerable as soon as you have one application present that ships a private copies of a library. This is not the case on Debian, because there is a single copy of each library; when a flaw is discovered, there is only one package to upgrade to ensure that you are safe.

My png and zlib examples were to illustrate that vendors often *don't* bother to issue updates rolling in the latest versions of these libraries

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

This has nothing to do with it. Good design should absolutely minimize the amount a user needs to learn. You may enjoy learning things about computers, but most people do not. This is the absloute basics of user-friendly design.

This is true, but there is in this case a trade off between being secure, and being easy to learn. Although I don't think it's much of a trade off, because I don't think any user would find it hard to use Synaptic. Choose the software you want to install from the list, click install, wait for the package to be installed... easy!

Oh come on, now you are just being intentionally daft. Do you really think I was talking about compression there?

I assume that when you right click a file and choose 'make archive' it fires up Stuffit and makes an archive.

No, [packaging] is made hard. You can make installers and scripts and any fancy thing you want for Mac OS X too, but the important point is that very few apps actually need this.

As I stated, packaging most programs for Debian is similarly very straight-forward. I'm sure you could write a script on OS X to do all the things I mentioned, but then you wouldn't be using the application bundle system any more, would you--which is what we are comparing to Debian in the first place. Besides, any script a random software publisher came up with would be unlikely to be as robust as the tools that Debian provides for packages to use, which have matured over many years of use.

No, configuration files are not stored inside the bundle.

So removing the bundle wouldn't completley remove the software from the user's machine. By contrast, removing a Debian package leaves the configuration in place, and tracked by the packaging system (in case the package was removed by accident, for example) until the package is purged.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[Goaway]

You're losing sight of the argument here. What I was saying was, on OS X, I can distribute my app as follows:

1. Compile app.
2. Right-click app bundle, select "Create Archive".
3. Upload archive to webserver.
4. Link archive on website.
5. User clicks link, doubleclicks archive, has program ready to run.

Linux:

1. Compile app.
2. Somehow create .deb file, I have no idea how.
3. Get .deb file onto official software repository (not going to happen).
4. Get .deb file onto alternative software repository (Don't know of any, don't know what it takes to get it there, not under my own control so I have no way to ensure it's available unless I run my own, no idea how to do that).
5. Post explanation for the user how to add this particular software repository to their package manager. At this point, most users balk.

This covers ONE distro. I now have to go on and do something with .rpms, and something for Gentoo, and something for whatever weird system someone else might be using. I probably have to set up my software development environment to cater to other people on wildly varying systems who are not in themselves developers, because in practice a lot of people will end up having to build from source anyway because I didn't cover their particular distro.

Re:Kinda OT.. yet relevant to this thread

[cortana]

Well the argument is about comparing the use of Apt vs the use of bundles for the end user, so any discussion about how bundles/packages are made is off topic.

All you need to do is put the source on your web site, and someone else will pick up the packaging if you don't want to do it yourself.

slow

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, you got to love that mach kernel http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/and how slow it is

Ooh, I know this one!

[Anonymous Coward]

With extreme prejudice?

Re:Ooh, I know this one!

[blinder]

please, for all that is holy and right in this world, please mod this as funny? okay? will ya? i know this is ot... but i nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one.

Re:Ooh, I know this one!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

We'll have no prejudice here.

Re:Ooh, I know this one!

[Arandir]

Unless you don't hate Bill Gates or George Bush...

Klik for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Klik apps for Linux is almost similar to the OS X method. It needs more support from the Linux community. Apt-get and other methods are great, but should really be used for system installs instead of applications. Klik could really help make Linux better.

First it uses a spinning beach ball...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then it uses a picture of a round bomb.
Simple.

Oh this can't be good

[1336.5]

0xFE has an excellent tutorial on Mach-O, which is the file format used by OS X executable files and libraries. It goes into great detail about how Mach-O works, and explains what OS X actually does when it loads and runs an application. Subtopics include Universal Binaries, The Dynamic Linker, Using otool, and other goodies.

GREAT! Lets tell every wanna-be 1337 h4x0r how to screw with excecutables in OS X only to clog messageboards for help when they screw it up.

On the other hand I guess it does ensure job security for those of us WITH brains.

0xFE

[MagicM]

Offtopic, but can someone tell me how "0xfe.blogspot.com" is a valid domain?

According to RFC 1034:
<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

I have some code to fix if "someone@0xfe.blogspot.com" could be a valid address...

Re:0xFE

[generic-man]

Same reason 3com.com, 37signals.com, and 23.com exist: the RFC was a Request For Comments, and some people commented "no."

Re:0xFE

[Anonymous Coward]

3com.com and 3m.com are technically invalid...

Re:0xFE

[MagicM]

Bastards.

Re:0xFE

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely in all your magical years of using the intarweb, this is not the first _DIGIT_ you've seen in a hostname .... 'blogspot.com' is the domain name, '0xfe' is the hostname. Get your terminology right Mr. RFC reader.

Re:0xFE

[Homology]

Offtopic, but can someone tell me how "0xfe.blogspot.com" is a valid domain?

According to RFC 1034:

<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

Please read what is written a few lines above: "The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET)."

I have some code to fix if "someone@0xfe.blogspot.com" could be a valid address...

Time to fix some code then ;-)

Re:0xFE

[boneshintai]

Actually, the full grammar in the RFC is

<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "

<subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>

<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

<ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp>

<ldh-str>

<let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-"

<let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>

<letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case

<digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

So a hostname beginning with a digit is actually invalid by the RFC. Nobody actually uses that definition; it turns out it's fairly easy to distinguish a DNS name 127.0.0.com from an IP string 127.0.0.1 in other ways.

Re:0xFE

[fishbowl]

>3com.com and 3m.com are technically invalid...

In old-school records management, 3Com is filed under "T", and 3M is filed under "M" (The name of the company is "Minnesota Mining and Minerals".

Re:0xFE

[Anonymous Coward]

congratulations, you have now learned the difference between reference and implementation

Re:0xFE

[Phroggy]

I think you mean Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing?

Re:0xFE

[fishbowl]

> I think you mean Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing?

Yes, my mistake. Still, filed under "M", not under "3" or "T".

Re:0xFE

[larry bagina]

that grammar isn't particularly valid with internationalized domain names.

I do remember, back in the mid 90s, when leading numbers in a domain name confused Mosaic/Netscape's domain resolution.

Re:0xFE

[showardkid]

Don't forget 2600.com, the only domain I can think of that has zero letters in it...

Re:0xFE

[SkiTyke]

RFC 1123 (status official specification) section 2.1 relaxes the original specification in RFC 1034 by allowing a digit for the first character. The revision dates from October 89.

See http://rfc.net/rfc1123.html

"0xFE - 1111110b - 0376"

[tygt]

Am I the only one to notice that the supposed binary representation of 0xFE on the blogger's page is actually that of 0x7E (ie, it's missing a one)?

Re:"0xFE - 1111110b - 0376"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post title is missing the 1, but the site isn't. Try learning to count, then complain. It's a good order to do things in.

Re:"0xFE - 1111110b - 0376"

[tygt]

Nice try, but he just fixed the title since my posting. I double- and triple-checked. In fact, on his page in the comments is:

# At 12:32 PM, Anonymous said... 0xFE != 1111110b # At 12:34 PM, /foobar said... Ha... just fixed that... 0xFE == 11111110b

So how about YOU read and double-check YOUR sources before complaining?

Re:"0xFE - 1111110b - 0376"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read the linked site, you would see that it was originally incorrect, but was later corrected

Re:"0xFE - 1111110b - 0376"

[TheRaven64]

Yes, but only because no one else actually bothered clicking on the link...

What this means

[Markvs]

Expect an increase of the number of Mac virii out there in a now to 3 month timeframe.

Re:What this means

[Zwets]

Expect an increase of the number of Mac virii

And wormii! Don't forget wormii.

Re:What this means

[andreMA]

Expect an increase of the number of Mac virii out there in a now to 3 month timeframe.

Yes, because this information was a closely held secret before this meddlesome blogger came along. I bet Steve Jobs is really pissed and is taking out a contract on his life.

Re:What this means

[Markvs]

It's not if it was a closely held secret or not... it's how public the information is/how easy it is to find!

Re:What this means

[minus_273]

Actually, I am a mac user/developer and I expect the number of Mac worms to increase by 5-10 times the current amount. I dont want to agree with windows fanboys, but have to admit this. This really a cuse for alarm. The number of worms will increase by at least 5x and millions of mac users are not protected.

Re:What this means

[Raffaello]

It is trivial to find. Googling "mach-o" pulls up both the man page and Mac OS X ABI Mach-O File Format
Reference in the first 3 hits.

Re:What this means

[Sqwubbsy]

I bet Steve Jobs is really pissed and is taking out a contract on his life.

Do you think he'll use the dread 'otool' on him?!?!?

Re:What this means

[andreMA]

I think he'll beat him to death with a chair and then say that it must have been some other "Steve"

Re:What this means

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... 5x0=0. I hope it gets a hundred times worse. It would increase the funny factor. :)

Re:What this means

[minus_273]

you can multiply, i can multiply most people cant ;)

Re:What this means

[Markvs]

I find it hysterical that the Macfanboys have moderated this as Troll/Flamebait, but if I'd made this same post regarding Windoze that It'd have been +5 Insightful.

Ah... I do love the smell of that Slashdot hypocrisy.

Re:What this means

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, much of what people call virii would more properly be called troiani...

Re:What this means

[Listen Up]

LOL!!!

iVillage People

[Aesiq]

Mach-o mach-o man,
I want to be a mach-o man!

Why?

[Quevar]

Why? Are you writing one?

HOWTO_run_mach-O_binaries_on_NetBSD

[10kelvin]

HOWTO_run_mach-O_binaries_on_NetBSD

Decent article

[hackstraw]

I'm fairly new to OS X, and don't know much of the internals and I have no clue on developing via Xcode or a lick about Objective-C.

The otool command is new to me. Its handy because I too was getting "No such file or directory" with trying to use ldd. One thing this article does not mention is weather OS X calls mmap() on an executable and/or libraries? It probably does. I believe all modern OSes do this now, but I could be wrong.

Re:Decent article

[wiml]

It doesn't literally call mmap(), but if what you're wondering is whether the executable files are memory-mapped and demand-paged, the answer is yes (as for pretty much all unixes in the last fifteen years). In fact, I've had OSX behave in ways that makes me think that large read() calls actually do a mmap-equivelent --- read() followed by a write() to /dev/null doesn't actually ever read the data into memory. Yikes!

Re:Decent article

[misleb]

Demand paging support would imply that it does something at least similar to mmap().

-matthew

Fuck the Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Macintosh users whether they know it or not are highly bisexual as opposed to the manly Linux and BSD users. Windows users are sexual neuters so this discussion isn't even relevant to them. The only reason they go on and on about "insanely great" thing is because they've been insanely anally violated on an infinite number of occasions not matter what sexual preference their partners had. Case in point. When I was in college I was a Mac user. I thought it was really good (that's before I found the one true saviour: Linux). I was straight, or at least I thought I was. But the more I used the Mac, the more I got curious about the cock. Until I started calling gay chat lines and getting off with dudes! I couldn't believe it. At first I was kind of repulsed after I shot off. But then I started to crave more. But I was still straight because I liked girls too. So, I put up a Bi ad on a phone dating service and someone on campus called me! He wanted to get together and see if we could fit each other's cocks in each other's mouths just as a test. I agreed and I got my first BJ from a dude! It was shocking. Even more shocking was that I had to give him a BJ, but since I already came, I wasn't too interested in doing it. So I just kind of lazily ran my lips along his shaft and gave him a hand job. We saw each other a few times on campus and nervously said hi. But I never got together with him again. So I never told my girlfriend about this because I though she'd dump me. But I soo learned that she wanted to do me with a strap on. I didn't mind because sometimes I could imagine it was the big manly leader of our local BSD user's group. So anyway, I'm straight now because I don't do stuff with guys. And ever since I stopped doing stuff on the Mac, my craving for the cock has disappeared completely. I now let my wife sodomize me with her strap-on (yeah she used to be my girlfriend) but I only think about menly men and not wimpy bisexual Mac users.

Re:Fuck the Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's customers are like no others--a rich blend of the most sociologically elite with those seeking elegant, simple computing... Unlike users of Intel/Windows computers, a significant portion of Apple's users are active , exploratory , avant-garde and early adopters . The activities they enjoy are unique in the way that they more often incorporate rich media such as video and music as well as more active prosumer behavior than many more passive Windows [and Linux] users.

-- MetaFacts, Inc.

With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population [is] very attractive [ intellectually as well as physically .]

-- Nielsen/NetRatings (as quoted by C|NET)

Re:Fuck the Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

Big deal. Some ugly kyke girl and her pussy whipped boyfriend use the Mac. Whoop-de-doo. The Mac still sucks.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some funny shit right there, seems Apple built gayness right into the OS.

What this means about Markvs

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

Jobs is gonna *execute* him!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG!

How OSX Executes Applications...

[Prototerm]

Do they get a cigarette and a blindfold?

Re:How OSX Executes Applications...

[alfredo]

Smoking in public is a no no in California. Medical Marijuana is acceptable though. Might as well go out grinning.

Interesting, but why?

[klubar]

It's kind of cool (in a geeky kind of way) that someone has reversed engineered all of this information. But itsn't it really the vendor's responsibility to document the system and make it available to developers? Alternatively, with open source the source is available to developers who are interested.

I would have thought that how programs are loaded would be well documented by Apple, rather than being some mystery to be decoded.

Windows may suck, but at least the giant sucking sound (tm) is documented.

Re:Interesting, but why?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

I didn't know it was a big secret.

Re:Interesting, but why?

[AtrN]

But itsn't it really the vendor's responsibility to document the system and make it available to developers?

Certainly. That's why there are documents such as this one.

Re:Interesting, but why?

[Goo.cc]

Did you read the article? He does give links to Apple documentation on the subject.

Re:Interesting, but why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said, this is all documented, and no reverse-engineering was involved. But you do have a point in that all of this is hardly newsworthy.

It is documented

[SteeldrivingJon]

At the bottom of the article, he gives a bunch of links to the technical documentation from Apple.

Mac OS X ABI Mach-O File Format Reference
Executing Mach-O Files
Overview of Dynamic Libraries

Turn off swapping! (OT)

[x2A]

Yes I know this goes somewhat against the grain, but try shrinking your swap right down (max 128meg or something)... then, you get OOM messages, at which point you can close/reopen apps, rather than losing control of the system as it grinds to a halt trying to swap constantly.

This might not be so important in your (and possible, in most) case[s]. The server's I run I admin remotely. A runaway script can eat through the swap, slowing things to such a halt that logging in, finding the process, and killing it, can become next to impossible.

The smaller the swap, the less time there is before a runaway script (or memory leaking app) will run before the OOM killer gets it.

(I know this isn't really relevant stuff... I'm avoiding doing work :-/)

Re:Turn off swapping! (OT)

[mrchaotica]

Great idea; I'll do so once I upgrade the RAM in my iMac... but how do you actually do it in Mac OS? It's not the kind of setting that Apple thinks users should care about...

Re:Turn off swapping! (OT)

[timeOday]

Under Linux, I don't even enable any swap. It's worse than useless, all it does is cause the system to come to a crawl and become unresponsive. If you don't have enough RAM, it's better just to get more. Swap is an idea whose time has come and gone.

Re:Turn off swapping! (OT)

[x2A]

I find a good halfway point is to have a small swap, and fiddle with the swappiness setting in /proc (i forget which way... 0 or 60?)

Re:Turn off swapping! (OT)

[Midnight Thunder]

Another solution that I would prefer is a computer that incorporates both fast and slow memory. The 'fast' memory would be the active memory. The slow memory would be cheap, slow, high capacity memory, that would act as a half way point between actually offloading things to disk and keeping them in the main memory.

I have no idea whether anyone has actually implemented this or whether there would be drawbacks.

Re:Turn off swapping! (OT)

[x2A]

NUMA code does something similar, but that's generally more to do with when memory has different latancies due to being connected via other CPU's (eg, in clusters).

Vista sounds like it's going to [attempt to] do something similar to what you say, where it can use solid state storing (eg, thru usb2) as almost a level-1 swap (then l2 swap would be on the slower harddrive).

This is pretty much just the low end of the stack of what l1 cache - l2 cache - main memory is.

Re:Obligitory flamebait

[x2A]

"but I wouldn't point out something in KDE as a problem with OS X as it's not the primary UI"

not the primary, KDE it's the ONLY UI! :-p

OS X Frameworks too.

[cryptochrome]

Speaking of which, OS X frameworks are another sterling example of a saner approach. None of this crap where a bunch of files that interact with each other are squirreled around in countless bin/sbin/lib/share/man/etc/include and so forth. All relevant resources in one place. Store it in your .app, or in any Library folder, it just works. Drag and drop.

I only wish that Apple and 3rd party developers were as logical when they put stuff in ~/Library. There's folders for Application Support, Caches, and Preferences: use them.

Well, there are a lot of things *nix could learn from Mac OS X that would make life easier for both users AND developers. But *nix programmers tend to be pretty set in their ways.

If you like otool

[soft_guy]

there is a graphical version of otool that is perhaps a bit easier to use. It is called "TimmyOTool" and is located here.

are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[davek]

Does this executable format have anything to do with the binaries being able to execute on both ppc and intel machines?

I have a friend who just got a new intel mac laptop. There are a lot of programs which won't run correctly because they don't fully support the intel architecture. However, I know from my linux experience that if I compile something for ppc, and then something for x86, neither executable will even LOAD on the other architecture, let alone execute with any functionality. When I download things for this new mac, I never select anything that is intel specific, and programs like oggdrop and vlc seem to work just fine.

Is this some magic that the program is doing? Or is it on the system level? Or am I missing something obvious about macs?

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[frankm_slashdot]

iirc non native macintel apps run through an emulator called rosetta.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[aduzik]

As a previous poster mentioned, PPC executables run through an emulation layer called "Rosetta". However, Mac OS X binaries are stored in the Mach-O format. A Mach-O file can be divided into multiple segments, each of which can contain machine code for a different architecture. So, Universal applications really do include equivalent code for both PPC and x86. It's not really magic so much as it is that the loader knows to look for non-native code in a binary and run it through Rosetta if no x86 code exists. Here's the reference.

As for your friend's programs not running, Rosetta does have some limitations. In particular, Rosetta can't handle Altivec instructions well -- Altivec being the rough analog to SSE on Intel chips. However, few programs use this, so I'm a little puzzled.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[geoffspear]

The answer is "sort of".

The architecture does support Universal Binaries, which have code for both PPC and intel processors. This isn't really anything new or magical, the OS is just smart enough to know which code to execute. The same thing existed in the classic MacOS to support both PPC and 680x0 systems with FAT binaries.

As with the classic MacOS, there's also an emulator involved, so the newer architecture can run (most) binaries compiled on the older architecture.

However, compile something just for the Intel processors, and it won't run on your PPC hardware. If I understand your question correctly, if things worked the way you were assuming, Mach-O itself would guarantee any Mach-O binary would run on either system.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[gandreas]

Rosetta supports Altivec, and surprisingly well in fact (I tested a fractal rendering application I've written and the Rosetta Altivec version ran a surprising 6.3x faster than the Rosetta non-Altivec version, as opposed to the much more expected 3.2x faster that it did on a G5).

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[aduzik]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. What Rosetta doesn't support, and what I meant to say, was that Rosetta doesn't support certain G5-specific features. My bad.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing existed in the classic MacOS to support both PPC and 680x0 systems with FAT binaries.

Actually, in this usage FAT is just fat, not an acronym.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[stewby18]

As with the classic MacOS, there's also an emulator involved, so the newer architecture can run (most) binaries compiled on the older architecture.

Rosetta is not an emulator, and it bears essentially no resemblance to Classic from either a technology or user-experience perspective.

Re:are osx binaries cross-architecture?

[geoffspear]

To be clear, I was referring to the ability of PPC Macs running OS 7(?)-9 to execute 680x0 code, not OS X's Classic, which allows a PPC running OS X to run non-Carbon PPC binaries from the older OS. This is, of course, nothing like what Rosetta does.

As for Rosetta not being an emulator, I suppose that's may be technically true for some definition of "emulator." From the user's point of view, though, it's doing the same thing as emulation, just using a more efficient mechanism. I'd argue that on some level, an emulator is doing the same thing that Rosetta's doing: translating instructions from one architecture to another. The only difference is that true "emulation" uses a virtual processor as an abstraction rather than skipping the middleman and directly translating.

Of course.

[Homestar Breadmaker]

Most unixy software (and all software using GNU autotools) all you to configure with --prefix=wherever. This isn't even something special about gentoo, this has just always been possible on every unix.

Since OS X is UNIX based...

[QRDeNameland]

...isn't this information available when you type "man macho" at the command line?

It's case sensitive...

[argent]

man Mach-O

Re:linux apps..

[giorgosts]

one of the two (usu. the newest and bestest) might not be able to install because of unsolvable dependances, the other is ten years behind in features or usability from what is available in the commercial world..

Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[Senjutsu]

How bloated must that be?

Seriously, how many copies of a library does that leave you having installed?

Generally? One.

Remember, this isn't a Linux distro, where the user has all the choices in the world except the one that matters most: the choice to have all of their apps look and behave in a consistent manner. 99.99999% of all apps targeting OS X link against the standard system Carbon or Cocoa frameworks. The odd app might have a really large third party library linked in and included in the app bundle, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, as the bundled libraries tend to be of the small, utility type that only run a few K. How bloated is it? Not very at all.

Now compare that with the situation on your average Linux distro: Instead of one version of one or two frameworks, every third app is written against a different toolkit. Want GIMP? Install GTK. KDevelop? Need QT too. Your text editor links against the athena toolkit, your system management utilities against Tk, your games against SDL, your audio editor against WxWidgets, your file manager against GNOME, something else against FLTK, FOX, Lesstif, Xaw...your shared libraries folder reads like an explosion at the acronym factory. Repeat ad naseum for your XML parsing libraries, your regex libraries, your sound libraries, etc, etc.

And it doesn't end there. Binary compatibility between library releases is the exception rather than the rule. Every third GTK app requires that a different point revision of the GTK libraries be installed. XMMS requires that you install libraries that are several major revisions out of date. You've got 6 different versions of three different XML parsing libraries installed, 2 regex engines, 3 copies of your JPEG, PNG, etc libraries, 3 or 4 different audio libraries with a couple different versions installed. Multiple versions of multiple libraries; an endless proliferation of crap that all does the same job with only the most miniscule of differences. All for the sake of an illusion of "choice" foisted on the end user by a fractious developer base with a raging case of Not Invented Here Syndrome and a belief that their convenience is more important than a consistent experience for the end user.

Now, how bloated must that be?

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[Arandir]

Remember, this isn't a Linux distro

But this is what people here on this thread want Linux distros to be. The app bundle concept works ONLY because OSX is a closed an centrally controlled system. There are solutions much more appropriate to free and open systems, such as package managers (a concept, btw, the Apple uses to distribute all of its own software).

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[m50d]

Remember, this isn't a Linux distro, where the user has all the choices in the world except the one that matters most: the choice to have all of their apps look and behave in a consistent manner.

You can do that. I can get a perfectly good system using only KDE applications.

The odd app might have a really large third party library linked in and included in the app bundle, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, as the bundled libraries tend to be of the small, utility type that only run a few K. How bloated is it? Not very at all.

So there's very little code reuse in the OSX world? If there's that little use of libraries, I can only assume the bloat comes in when each app rewrites how to do a particular thing (Either that or the standard system library has ridiculous amounts of stuff).

Instead of one version of one or two frameworks, every third app is written against a different toolkit. Want GIMP? Install GTK. KDevelop? Need QT too.

That sounds like two frameworks to me.

Your text editor links against the athena toolkit, your system management utilities against Tk,

Not mine. Qt versions of those are fine.

your games against SDL,

Hardly the same thing. Games graphics and normal widgets don't have a lot in common.

your audio editor against WxWidgets,

I'm calling this my one odd app.

your file manager against GNOME,

Same thing as GTK

something else against FLTK, FOX, Lesstif, Xaw

Haven't needed any of those.

Binary compatibility between library releases is the exception rather than the rule.

Not with the KDE libs. Two incompatible changes in what, ten years?

You've got 6 different versions of three different XML parsing libraries installed,

Everything's libxml as far as I can see.

2 regex engines

Hmm? pcre is all I know of.

3 copies of your JPEG, PNG, etc libraries

Not on my system. JPEG 6b and libpng 1.2.8.

3 or 4 different audio libraries with a couple different versions installed. Multiple versions of multiple libraries; an endless proliferation of crap that all does the same job with only the most miniscule of differences.

Simply not true. And if it were, I'd be no worse off than you are. If we each have x programs, you're including x copies of the library to do whatever they do. If even two of mine have picked the same library to do it, I have one less library to worry about than you do.

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[stuuf]

What exactly is your point? You seem to be living on some mythical planet where every computer runs OS X, and/or developers are always willing to spend time and money that they don't have maintaining completely separate code bases for different platforms, and it's easy to port existing applictions to a totally new framework. In reality, it's much easier to port 5 or 100 libraries so that the thousands of existing applications can be ported with minimal effort. Applications WILL use libraries other than the ones packaged with the OS, and OS X needs an efficient way to handle this, just like Linux package managers have.

I call bullshit on your entire last paragraph. You're citing outdated examples, and also just making up stuff. On my gentoo system, I've upgraded GTK+ about a dozen times from 2.4 to 2.8 and NEVER had an existing application break. "XMMS requires that you install libraries that are several major revisions out of date." Sure, it's a dead project. The only reason not to use BMP or rhythmbox or anything else is if you want to point out that XMMS requires old libraries. The JPEG and PNG libraries haven't changed much in years, so there's no reason to keep multiple versions installed. Your only valid example might be the XML parsers, although I only have 2 versions of libxml and 1 of expat, and don't know of any others.

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[HaveBlue34]

Now, how bloated must that be?

0WN3D!

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[cortana]

Binary compatibility between library releases is the exception rather than the rule.

Not with the KDE libs. Two incompatible changes in what, ten years?

The grand parent poster seems to have no idea what he's talking about. GNOME also has an excellent policy to ensure library compatibility.

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[CTachyon]

... Your text editor links against the athena toolkit ...

Athena? I... I'm so sorry. Is there anything I can do?

(Damn, makes me sad that Hallmark doesn't make a "Sorry you use Athena widgets" card.)

Re:Yeah, let's talk about bloat...

[Listen Up]

LMAO!!!

That is EXACTLY what I have been wanting to say, and have tried in various ways, after struggling with Linux dependency hell for about the past 10 years but never have I seen it so succinctly, elegantly, and humorously said.

Absolutely perfect.

The only reason I use Linux right now is because I am waiting until Apple releases their second generation MacBook Pro and then I am switching to OS X for good. I have had the pleasure of using an Apple iBook for the past 8 months and it has been an absolutely wonderful experience.

It is funny reading the posts by the Linux folks on this forum. Look, installing applications in OS X is a dream, and uninstalling them is a dream as well. Drag and drop, done.

Excellent, Smithers!

[Medievalist]

Despite all the boring back-and-forth between the supporters and detractors of defining a new plural word meaning computer virii (as opposed to biological viruses) you have just made the first intelligent comment that wasn't annoyingly longwinded pedantry.

And furthermore.... oh, shit!

You don't even need internet access!

[Cybrex]

If you have access to an OS X install disc than you have access to this information. The optional developer tools contain a wealth of information, as well as tutorials, and come free with the os (and by extension, with every Mac sold since Apple switched to OS X).

How Apple executes applications:

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautifully!

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Kadin2048]

Humm, next time I'm looking for a project I'll have to give installing WindowMaker a shot.

I knew that KDE wasn't exactly renowned for being lightweight or speedy, but I'm glad to hear somebody else agree that the hardware I'm running it on shouldn't be that underpowered for it, because I didn't think so either. I'm willing to cut it a little slack too because it's KDE 3.5.0, so hopefully it will improve in time, but I was still stunned by the lack of performance. (Konqueror also SIGSEVs repeatably when I try to use the "File Image View" on my home directory, and I can't figure out why...one of many quirks that system seems to have developed.)

I would consider using Gnome, but the lack of a screen-top, context-sensitive menubar is a deal-breaker for me. Is using the full-blown KDE window manager the only way to get this? Linux window managers are relatively new in my life; the majority of my Linux use in the past has been through shell sessions, this is really my first attempt at giving it (what I thought was) a fair shot as a desktop system. If I can get a desktop that has a top-of-screen menubar, without the load of KDE, I'm really not wed to it in any way.

Re:Thanks for the suggestion.

[MBCook]

The next release of KDE should be quite a bit faster as they are moving to the new version of QT (4.0?) which is supposed to have some dramatic improvements.

As for the screentop menu bar, I don't know of others that do it, but they must exist. I haven't had a Linux box in a few years, and I haven't looked at the different window managers in 2 or 3 years more than that (you stick with what you like). Look around, they must exist.

Shocking!

[greginnj]

You mean, there are millions of Mac users? Gee, who knew?



(I kid, I kid...)

BINGO!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what I meant. The problem is figuring out which processor pins to wire to 120V and which to ground.

Mea culpa for saying A/C. Some days I ask myself watts the matter with my keyboard.

-Anonymous/Coward

Re: Apple's download page

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple have a "Mac OS X Software..." menu option in the Apple Menu, which takes you to this page:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/get

No need for stumbling onto Version Tracker.