Most likely the journalist was just repeating the claim from the manufacturer who found the cheapest electricity available and based hte claim on that. It would indeed be nice to know how much electricity this capacitor holds.
Does anyone know anything about OS X's kernel? First of all, its name is "XNU", not "Darwin" (Darwin is more analogous to GNU).
Now you are just nitpicking. I'm sorry that I didn't make the distinction clear. But I think it was obvious that i was talking about the kernel that Darwin uses. Forgive me for not mentioning it by name.
Secondly, XNU is a hybrid kernel; that is, it does some things monolithically (which is currently based on FreeBSD's kernel, but was originally based on 4.3BSD's kernel) and other things microkernel-y (which is based on Mach).
Like i said, a highly modified BSD kernel. I can't see why you see fit to "correct" me on this. Unless you simply mean to provide more detail. In which case you are going about it in a very rude way.
Hardware drivers are written for user space (microkernel stuff), so that's one improvement you'd likely notice if a driver crashed: the kernel doesn't panic like in Windows. More info at Wikipedia.
But in the real world, there is no improvement with the microkernel-y design of OS X. OS X systems crash/hang just as often as Windows in my experience. But if there is any improvement with OS X, it is much more likely to do with the limited number of hardware configuraitons that it has to run on. In the real world, there is little difference between just the user space driver crashing and a system panic. Either way, the interface often hangs and you have to reboot anyway. So I dont' really see the point. Theoretically you could restart a user space driver, but that is mostly just theory.
Just as dumbing down the x86 PC to the lowest common denominator allowed clone PCs to exist, and networking being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator enabled the internet to exist, doing the same OS services would create similar synergies. That's the benefit of standards.
The lowest common denomonator on PCs for a very long time was DOS. And DOS was a pathetic excuse of for OS. Fortunately we now have some real choice. We can run Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc. Standards is one thing, but making every OS function exactly the same and run eactly the same apps is just stupid. Nobody but you wants it. That is why Java failed to make much headway on the desktop.
You can achieve all of those things with well-designed and open APIs, communications protocols and formats. POSIX was an attempt at a standard API. LDAP, named pipes, CORBA, SOAP etc etc, are all efforts towards open and consistent application data sharing.
Oh, I'm all for open standards for sharing data between systems. But I don't see what thta has to do with making applications binary compatable between platforms. If Apple, for example, comes out with a cool new technology that applications can exploit, I don't want to wait for every other system to adopt it to be able to use it. Or worse, have the cool new feature dumbed down so that other systems can adopt it. Look at how slow internet standards move. Some people still don't think it is acceptable to require Javascript on a web page!
What we interact with on modern computers is not the operating system, but the shell that is running on that OS. The shell mostly provides us with our file-managing environment, with a few other utilities thrown in. Running your favorite shell on any OS/hardware combination, and running your favorite applications from within that shell shouldn't be impossible.
I don't think you realize the kind of sacrifces required to make such a thing possible. Or maybe you just don't care. I do.
I'm happy for you that you enjoy the Mac OSX shell. It sounds like it's a good fit for you, but frankly, I don't feel there's really much to differentiate any of the current major OSs. They all look and feel pretty similar to me, and I'd like more variety and more choice.
They all feel "smiliar" to me too. I mean, I am comfortable on any major platform because they have similarities. But I have an OS of choice (for desktop) for a reason. There is enough of a difference to make me prefer one over the other.
What you are suggesting is LESS variety. LESS innovation. You want to sandbag all systems to some universal standard so that there is *no* appreciable difference in one's OS of choice. You want the "variety" in computers to come down to a choice between HP and Dell. And that is no variety at all.
Speaking of hidden costs, M$ likes to keep breaking edge code for itself. I believe Quick Basic was written after the internet was out, but had no internet interface functions at all!
A "learning" language that was never meant to be a serious development environment didn'thave network functions? The shock!
I wrote my MMORPG almost to completion in 1994, but I stopped once I realized you can't be MMO without any internet functions.
How in the world could you write a MMORPG "almost to completion" without any internet functions? How did you test it? Were you just coding blind?
At that time, M$ wanted to monopolize the internet so they didn't have any internet friendly winsock code for any of their languages. It wasn't until the late 90's that internet aps could be made by the average joe coder.
WTF are you talking about? Anyone could code to winsock using C. It wasn't a great library by any stretch, but it certainly wasn't unavailable to "Joe Coder." By the late 90's there were all kinds of internet applications for Windows. Oh, wait, you were stuck using DOS. Maybe the problem was your stubbornness in letting go of an obsolete OS/language.
If you think you can't write an RPG in Quick Basic because of the memory limit, think again. You can use the harddrive to be like a virtual drive, while your code is actually a whole new language that runs off the harddrive.
I'm sure you *could* do it in quick basic. The question is, why they heck would you *want* to?
You're code won't be "lost." It'll just be redundant. Modern OSes provide a LOT of services and libraries for you... probably in a much better way than you did. Unless you really need to fiddle with hardware directly, there is really no reason to still use DOS at all other than stubbornness.
I dunno, I remember coding in DOS back in the day and I thought it sucked having to build my own library of code to do simple things like take mouse input, talk to a modem, or provide a simple user interface.
1. Kernel Mode Drivers - Once Linux actually gets drivers for something, support tends to be rock solid-- a fair bit better than XP. However, this is the one place BSD-type OSess really outshine Macro-Kernal OSes. Even though my home Windows and Linux PCs are far faster than my work Mac, sometimes I cry when trying to get odd hardware to work on them. Even if you have some crap pieces of hardware with a crap driver, you can axe the driver rather than the whole OS in OSX.
What do you mean by "BSD-type" OSes? All the *BSDs have a monolithic kernel (kernel space hardware drivers) just like Linux does. Darwin is the exception. It has a highly modified BSD kernel. And it certainly isn't any more stable than Linux or *BSD in practice. I use Macs all the time and I don't notice any benefit from the pseudo-microkernel design.
The operating system should be a fairly minor part of our computing experience
So says someone who has been tainted by too much exposure to Windows.:) Seriously, as a relatively recent Mac "convert" (from being a regular LInux user), I must say that I really appreciate what OS X brings to the computing experience. It is somethign that I generally enjoy interacting with. And I say that as both a sys admin and a user.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the OS shouldn't be a noticable part of the computing experience. That is, it shouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. The OS should provide services and functionality that intetegrate transparently with applications. But it should remain a very important part of the computing experience.
The kind of homogenization of software that you suggest is ultimtely bad for users. It means that every application must be dumbed down to the lowest common denomonator (of platform). Your applicaitons will only be as functional as the lesser of all the platforms it is designed to run on. Without tight integration with the OS, you don't get things like shared (between applications) addressbooks. You don't get to send documents to other applications. You can't embed objects from one application in another. You can't index all your files regardless of type for easy search (Spotlight). You can't effectively take advanges of unique hardware configurations such as high end printers or video rendering.
Computer users should be able to run their applications of choice on the OS of their choice, running on the hardware of their choice.
If the OS played such a minor role, as in your proposed scenerio, there would be no point in even having an OS of choice. They'd all be the same. The only reason we HAVE operating systems/platforms of choice is because they do play such a significant role in our overall computing experience. I *like* interacting with OS X. I like the way my OS X applications interact with the OS and each other. I hope that kind of integration never disappears.
Why not go through the points and show where the problems listed are not solved, as a general rule, on OS X? Note that I didn't say "all YOUR problems are solved on the Mac." I was specifically talking about the ones listed.
But as a developer, to have my problem solved, I would like to develop my application as I would do for a console application using a big config file for all options and such. A magic OS would reverse engineer my config file and analyse my IO and code at runtime to provide the best interface that follow the guidelines for it. A bit like they do in scifi movies: they "code" the interesting bit of the program and the computer do the rest.
Or you could just follow the guidelines for the platform you are developing for. Why must there be magic involved in order to make your application consistent an intuitive for the user? Even with a console app, you need to follow certain guidelines. Commandline options, for example, are generally expressed with - on a posix systems. And Windows developers can't even get THAT right. Sometimes it is '/', sometimes it is '-'.
What do you think the problem is on Windows? Too many different developers with different ideas of what is intuitive? Too many different development tools that encourage different application design? What is it? I know Windows developers aren't simply incompetant (though some are).
I hear this so often and I'm finally fed up with it. Doing that will not get rid of the mountain-sized piles of shit that are sitting in/Library and ~/Library. Yes, uninstalling in OS X involves more effort than in WinXP. No, that shit will not be a problem in the case of most apps, but for an app that makes use of any kind of database it can occupy half a GB or more. Please stop repeating this lie.
The majority of application, especially the small applications that you would be installing/uninstalling often, can be removed simply by deleting them from/Applications. That is not a lie. It is just that there are exceptions to the rule. Sometimes you want to clean out ~/Library. Big deal. It isn't like Windows where applications spew DLLs and registry entries all over the place.
Hell, a lot of OS X apps don't even need to be "installed" at all. Many, many times I have run apps right from the Desktop. If I like an app, it goes in/Applications. Or how about storing applications on a portable drive. How convenient is it to take your favorite utilities/apps around with you and not have to clutter the main system? You can even run MS Office from an external drive.
And BTW I do think the OS X setup is much, much better than Windows. That does not mean it's better in every way.
Did I say it was better in every way? No, I simply pointed out that it is better in every way that the grand parent seemed to be concerned about.
[in OS X] Application level functions like Preferences and Quit are in teh application menu.... except when they're not.
I can't think of one off hand that doesn't at least have Preferences and Quit in the application menu. Can you?
The article specifically talks about solar cells in space or some sort of electrical generation here, though burning up your coolant hydrogen in the electrical generator seems counterproductive. And how much energy does it take to supercool the hydrogen? Not sure it's a mileage win.
Solar cells??? We're talking about propelling a ship through space at enormous speeds, not take a leisurly sail across lake michigan.
Did anyone else feel that if everyone followed these rules, using the computer will become incredibly boring ?
What is boring about a consistent, intuitive interface? What is exciting about fumbing around for common function that isn't where you expect to find it? I have more interesting thigns to do with my time than try to figure out where Joe "make the interface exciting" Programmer decided to put the "Options" menu item this week.
Program uninstallers. Users access uninstallers through the Software Explorer control panel.
Program uninstallers? Oh, you mean drag the application from/Applications to the Trash.
Help files. Users access Help topics directly from your program
Duh.
Program options. Users access program options from the Options command, usually found on the Tools menu.
ALWAYS under application menu -> Preferences
Readme files.
Come in the.dmg image for you to browse before you install. If there is an installer package, you view them in the installer. They aren't stored on your system.
Web sites. Users access Web sites through appropriate links in your program. Exceptions are Microsoft Update and Windows Catalog.
Why should software updates be tied to a web browser at all? Does that even make any sense?
How I hate software that install all of that in their Start Menu entries. Or programs that insist they go into "C:\Program Files\My Stupid Software Company Inc\My Stupid Program".
On a Mac, only one place for program files AND the icons to start the programs:/Applications.
Talking about reform, I find the most illogical thing of user interfaces is the menubar.. how do you exit? Go to "File". Where are the options? Under "Tools".. why can't somebody offer a totally new way of making the menu. Start with "Program", where you have "Options" and "About" (maybe "Help" too), then "Document" or "File", and then "Edit", etc.. We're so used to File -> Exit that we stop thinking how illogical such a construct is... exit the file?
Again, solved on the Mac. Application level functions like Preferences and Quit are in teh application menu.
Was anyone else imagining scenes of guerilla penguin freedom fighters in air conditioned jump suits holding Indian children hostage demanding the release of politicl prisoners?
Hell, I didn't even know Works still EXISTED until a couple weeks ago when I read a Dell laptop spec sheet. Said it "includes MS Works 8 (does not include Word)". I did come across someone who was having trouble distributing a.wks file, but I thought it was some old document from the mid 90's or something. Nobody could read it.
Anyway, I think MS would be lucky to come up with a web based suite that could compete with Works. Forget about competing with Office. That isn't even possible unless they go extra heavy on the ActiveX. And by then you might as well just have a locally installed application...
Mounting filesystems for each app seems a little awkward to use and maintain. And potentially problematic. One thing I like about.app bundles is that they are just directories (although the directoryness is somewhat hidden by teh Finder). So it is trivial to go in an view/modify the resources for an app. I can open/edit.nib (GUI layout) files, replace icons, whatever. Not that I do this too often, of course, but it is nice to have such transparency to go along with the ease of use.
Also, I wonder what they'll do about the more basic problem in Linux of library incompatabilities or dependencies. What commercial vendors have traditionally done is just statically link binaries to avoid dependency problems. It can be kinda tricky to make a non-trivial Linux binary that will Just Work on any Linux system. I wonder how binary compatable KDE apps are between minor, or even major versions. Will developers be forced to include the KDE libs they require with every package? That would be very wasteful and inefficient.
"A desktop OS should be valued for how good the compiler is, and for how many configurations you can make. Not for the look, the experience and the applications."
I used to feel this way until I started using OS X full time. Sure, I still like to tinker with Linux and compile stuff from source, but there is nothing like downloading a binary and simply dropping it in/Applications to "install" it. Heck, you don't even have to put it in/Applications if you don't want. It'll run from anywhere. Want to test a beta of Firefox? Just rename the old version and drop in the new.app bundle (and backup your profile, of course). Done testing? Delete Firefox.app. There's no (or very little of) complex web of dependencies and hooks like in Linux or even Windows. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the thought that every package on my Linux system (Debian) is perfectly matched (and tested) with every other package, but there is something also very elegant from the user's perspective about drag 'n drop install. That is what I call an Experience. It isn't even about the specific apps.
screw CDs, anyone who is hot these days uses laptops or ipods instead. Very few people actually use records, simply cause of the sheer amount of equipment involved and the dangers present with records or even CDs if they are poorly kept or transported.
Really? I know like 5 DJ's in Chicago and they all use records, exclusively. I wasn't aware that you coudl use iPods to mix songs (match up the beats). What kind of DJs are you talking about?
I have some DJ friends who buy vinyl, but I thought that was merely a practical thing... the only way they can effectively syncronize songs in real-time and all that. I had no idea that lots of other people were buying vinyl because it is cool. I guess I need to get out more.
Slashdot Mirror
"Diese Seite wird momentan überarbeitet."
How about a really long retractable power cord?
Most likely the journalist was just repeating the claim from the manufacturer who found the cheapest electricity available and based hte claim on that. It would indeed be nice to know how much electricity this capacitor holds.
-matthew
Now you are just nitpicking. I'm sorry that I didn't make the distinction clear. But I think it was obvious that i was talking about the kernel that Darwin uses. Forgive me for not mentioning it by name.
Like i said, a highly modified BSD kernel. I can't see why you see fit to "correct" me on this. Unless you simply mean to provide more detail. In which case you are going about it in a very rude way.
But in the real world, there is no improvement with the microkernel-y design of OS X. OS X systems crash/hang just as often as Windows in my experience. But if there is any improvement with OS X, it is much more likely to do with the limited number of hardware configuraitons that it has to run on. In the real world, there is little difference between just the user space driver crashing and a system panic. Either way, the interface often hangs and you have to reboot anyway. So I dont' really see the point. Theoretically you could restart a user space driver, but that is mostly just theory.
-matthew
The lowest common denomonator on PCs for a very long time was DOS. And DOS was a pathetic excuse of for OS. Fortunately we now have some real choice. We can run Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc. Standards is one thing, but making every OS function exactly the same and run eactly the same apps is just stupid. Nobody but you wants it. That is why Java failed to make much headway on the desktop.
Oh, I'm all for open standards for sharing data between systems. But I don't see what thta has to do with making applications binary compatable between platforms. If Apple, for example, comes out with a cool new technology that applications can exploit, I don't want to wait for every other system to adopt it to be able to use it. Or worse, have the cool new feature dumbed down so that other systems can adopt it. Look at how slow internet standards move. Some people still don't think it is acceptable to require Javascript on a web page!
I don't think you realize the kind of sacrifces required to make such a thing possible. Or maybe you just don't care. I do.
They all feel "smiliar" to me too. I mean, I am comfortable on any major platform because they have similarities. But I have an OS of choice (for desktop) for a reason. There is enough of a difference to make me prefer one over the other.
What you are suggesting is LESS variety. LESS innovation. You want to sandbag all systems to some universal standard so that there is *no* appreciable difference in one's OS of choice. You want the "variety" in computers to come down to a choice between HP and Dell. And that is no variety at all.
-matthew
A "learning" language that was never meant to be a serious development environment didn'thave network functions? The shock!
How in the world could you write a MMORPG "almost to completion" without any internet functions? How did you test it? Were you just coding blind?
WTF are you talking about? Anyone could code to winsock using C. It wasn't a great library by any stretch, but it certainly wasn't unavailable to "Joe Coder." By the late 90's there were all kinds of internet applications for Windows. Oh, wait, you were stuck using DOS. Maybe the problem was your stubbornness in letting go of an obsolete OS/language.
I'm sure you *could* do it in quick basic. The question is, why they heck would you *want* to?
-matthew
You're code won't be "lost." It'll just be redundant. Modern OSes provide a LOT of services and libraries for you... probably in a much better way than you did. Unless you really need to fiddle with hardware directly, there is really no reason to still use DOS at all other than stubbornness.
I dunno, I remember coding in DOS back in the day and I thought it sucked having to build my own library of code to do simple things like take mouse input, talk to a modem, or provide a simple user interface.
-matthew
What do you mean by "BSD-type" OSes? All the *BSDs have a monolithic kernel (kernel space hardware drivers) just like Linux does. Darwin is the exception. It has a highly modified BSD kernel. And it certainly isn't any more stable than Linux or *BSD in practice. I use Macs all the time and I don't notice any benefit from the pseudo-microkernel design.
-matthew
So says someone who has been tainted by too much exposure to Windows.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the OS shouldn't be a noticable part of the computing experience. That is, it shouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. The OS should provide services and functionality that intetegrate transparently with applications. But it should remain a very important part of the computing experience.
The kind of homogenization of software that you suggest is ultimtely bad for users. It means that every application must be dumbed down to the lowest common denomonator (of platform). Your applicaitons will only be as functional as the lesser of all the platforms it is designed to run on. Without tight integration with the OS, you don't get things like shared (between applications) addressbooks. You don't get to send documents to other applications. You can't embed objects from one application in another. You can't index all your files regardless of type for easy search (Spotlight). You can't effectively take advanges of unique hardware configurations such as high end printers or video rendering.
If the OS played such a minor role, as in your proposed scenerio, there would be no point in even having an OS of choice. They'd all be the same. The only reason we HAVE operating systems/platforms of choice is because they do play such a significant role in our overall computing experience. I *like* interacting with OS X. I like the way my OS X applications interact with the OS and each other. I hope that kind of integration never disappears.
-matthew
Why not go through the points and show where the problems listed are not solved, as a general rule, on OS X? Note that I didn't say "all YOUR problems are solved on the Mac." I was specifically talking about the ones listed.
Or you could just follow the guidelines for the platform you are developing for. Why must there be magic involved in order to make your application consistent an intuitive for the user? Even with a console app, you need to follow certain guidelines. Commandline options, for example, are generally expressed with - on a posix systems. And Windows developers can't even get THAT right. Sometimes it is '/', sometimes it is '-'.
What do you think the problem is on Windows? Too many different developers with different ideas of what is intuitive? Too many different development tools that encourage different application design? What is it? I know Windows developers aren't simply incompetant (though some are).
-matthew
The majority of application, especially the small applications that you would be installing/uninstalling often, can be removed simply by deleting them from
Hell, a lot of OS X apps don't even need to be "installed" at all. Many, many times I have run apps right from the Desktop. If I like an app, it goes in
Did I say it was better in every way? No, I simply pointed out that it is better in every way that the grand parent seemed to be concerned about.
I can't think of one off hand that doesn't at least have Preferences and Quit in the application menu. Can you?
-matthew
And when it stalls in mid-air....?
Yes, it is 1,000 watts, why?
-matthew
Solar cells??? We're talking about propelling a ship through space at enormous speeds, not take a leisurly sail across lake michigan.
-matthew
What is boring about a consistent, intuitive interface? What is exciting about fumbing around for common function that isn't where you expect to find it? I have more interesting thigns to do with my time than try to figure out where Joe "make the interface exciting" Programmer decided to put the "Options" menu item this week.
-matthew
Program uninstallers? Oh, you mean drag the application from
Duh.
ALWAYS under application menu -> Preferences
Come in the
Why should software updates be tied to a web browser at all? Does that even make any sense?
On a Mac, only one place for program files AND the icons to start the programs:
Again, solved on the Mac. Application level functions like Preferences and Quit are in teh application menu.
-matthew
Um, I didn't read TFA, but wouldln't this require a power source? Specifically, eletricity? How does one generate that much wattage? Flux capacitor?
-matthew
Blast! You posted this like 1 minute ahead of me!
Was anyone else imagining scenes of guerilla penguin freedom fighters in air conditioned jump suits holding Indian children hostage demanding the release of politicl prisoners?
-matthew
Hell, I didn't even know Works still EXISTED until a couple weeks ago when I read a Dell laptop spec sheet. Said it "includes MS Works 8 (does not include Word)". I did come across someone who was having trouble distributing a .wks file, but I thought it was some old document from the mid 90's or something. Nobody could read it.
Anyway, I think MS would be lucky to come up with a web based suite that could compete with Works. Forget about competing with Office. That isn't even possible unless they go extra heavy on the ActiveX. And by then you might as well just have a locally installed application...
-matthew
Mounting filesystems for each app seems a little awkward to use and maintain. And potentially problematic. One thing I like about .app bundles is that they are just directories (although the directoryness is somewhat hidden by teh Finder). So it is trivial to go in an view/modify the resources for an app. I can open/edit .nib (GUI layout) files, replace icons, whatever. Not that I do this too often, of course, but it is nice to have such transparency to go along with the ease of use.
Also, I wonder what they'll do about the more basic problem in Linux of library incompatabilities or dependencies. What commercial vendors have traditionally done is just statically link binaries to avoid dependency problems. It can be kinda tricky to make a non-trivial Linux binary that will Just Work on any Linux system. I wonder how binary compatable KDE apps are between minor, or even major versions. Will developers be forced to include the KDE libs they require with every package? That would be very wasteful and inefficient.
-matthew
I used to feel this way until I started using OS X full time. Sure, I still like to tinker with Linux and compile stuff from source, but there is nothing like downloading a binary and simply dropping it in
-matthew
Really? I know like 5 DJ's in Chicago and they all use records, exclusively. I wasn't aware that you coudl use iPods to mix songs (match up the beats). What kind of DJs are you talking about?
-matthew
Sorry guys, this is all my fault. See, I block all ads. I'm antisocial. Forgive me?
I have some DJ friends who buy vinyl, but I thought that was merely a practical thing... the only way they can effectively syncronize songs in real-time and all that. I had no idea that lots of other people were buying vinyl because it is cool. I guess I need to get out more.
-matthew