Although it may "require" a sysadmin or root user, the beauty of OS X is that it sheilds that functionality from the user.
It'll be great for multi-user machines, but for the detatched, single-user Mac, the OS hides the complexity of the "multi-user" paradigm from the user. It may do everything in root mode, but the Users shouldn't have to care about that...
>If someone could come up with a "windows clone" that ran on a Linux Kernel and then kept many of the good features of it, then I think there is where it will start making inroads into normal users' homes. But that is just my $.02.
I believe I've heard something like this before... oh yes, that would be Mac OS X! =)
Seriously, this is why Mac OS X is going to take off. You get all the benefits of UNIX, but with the ease-of-use of the Mac.
The elite will always whine about their "private club" being taken and used by the masses.. I mean, we saw that when the web took over the internet (from gopher). We'll see it again when real users interfaces take over the unix kernal. Yes, there will be die-hards who deal with the system on a text level (just like there are those who think the beast way to surf the web on a fast connection is with lynx.. go figure), but the majority will use a *real* browser-- er, I mean interface.
KDE/Gnome aren't a real interface becuase it forces you to use text at one point or another (that's like Netscape forcing someone to make a port connection manually).
Microsoft... interface?? Ha! You're funny.
That leaves Apple, the only company that copuld conceiveably use a UNIX kernal that can be *completely* controlled graphically. No CLI needed (unless you *want* to). Folks.. this is the future of UNIX. Deal with it.
As usual, many people here missed the most important part of that whole article. Apple and Pixar with both be INDEPENDENT subsidaries of Disney. This means that the companies will probably operate much as they do today. Apple will stillbe doing the same things it always was and will still do business as "Apple Computer". Pixar and Disney are an obvious fit. The genius of Steve Jobs is that he sees that Disney and Apple are an obvious fit as well!
(If you can't see why Disney and Apple should be together, just wait a while. It'll come to you.)
Come on people! Now a days all sorts of companies are merging that have *nothing* to do with each other? Microsoft and Web TV? Hmm... what do they have to do with each other? GE and NBC? Proctor and Gamble isa the scariest company in the world as far as I'm concerned.
Remember that the Trash-can trick is just that... a trick! The "real" interface to ejecting volumes is by selecting the object and choosing "Eject Disk" from the Special Menu. Dragging a disk icon to the trash is a shortcut (not to be confused with Windows' shortcuts) for the action of removing something from the desktop.
When I'm training new users on how to use the Mac interface, I don't even tell them about dragging to the trash until the second week. Don't tell them shortcuts until they know what they're doing already. If they're not comfortable with dragging to the trash, tell them to use the menu. (Or keyboard if they're like that... or "Put Away" if they like that... or "Cmd-Shift-1", or "Cmd-Y"... don't you love the Mac's options?)
Please point me to the list of schools that are buying this, or use it.
Well, I can't speak for certain, but it looks very likely that we'll being using it in some form down here at San Diego State University. (Well, as soon as we finally get some G3's in here..)
I think the issue here is that there is nothing in the MacOS interface that requires a second or third mouse button. In Windows and UNIX environments, users MUST learn about all 3 buttons before being able to perform basic operations in the environment.
There is a difference between an interface and a shortcut. An interface is the primary means of accessing a function. A shortcut is a way for people to save time performing repetiitive tasks, or for them to perform a task in a way more suited to them. The One-Button mouse is part of the interface. Contextual menus are a shortcut for people to access commonly used functions. Assigning a mouse button to a "control-click" is a shortcut ontop of a shortcut. It works for you (and me, btw) but it's not the "standard" way of interfacing with the functions (at least, not on the Mac OS).
1) Webserving with decent speed. Has been done and is done all the time. Maybe the problem is with your definition of "decent." Webstar is fine for me. But then, I guess I'm not running your thousand-hits-a-minute website, then am I?
2) Hosting multiple users? Why would I want to do something like that with the MacOS? I don't want other people "logging into" my Mac. Oh wait, I forgot about the security savings there, didn't I?
3) Logging into a server via SSH? Oh, you must be thinking about that command-line thing.... Don't need that. I have Network Assistant (try it!)
4) Web-browsing is fine on my Mac. But frankly, if you're using a text-based browser and expect to be getting the "full experience" of the web, then something is wrong with you. On the assumption that you want the "full experience" of the web, Netscape runs just as well on my Mac as it does on the X-term sitting next to it.
5) Where's my grep? My top? My w? My uptime? These are extremely basic functions that macos only sort of supports.
They may be extremely basic for a COMMAND LINE interface, but they're not needed the same way in a GUI. I have find-by-content and other sorting utilities useful as needed. Uptime? It's called "ticks" and if you're concerned at all with uptime, you should know about AppleScript and how to find out "the ticks."
Frankly, you haven't proven or responded to the initial post. The Mac OS is designed from the ground up to be a Graphical Interface. It is not a kludge the way KDE/GNOME and Windows is. Every configurable element is accessable via a GUI or program. There is no CLI-only layer of accessability. Deal with it.
I think placing these two OS's in even the same sentance when discussing user interface is a serious error. The MacOS has a far more easy to use interface when dealing with: on-screen controls, menus, windows and the window concept, interface consistancy across apps, user interactivity (letting the user "explore" their environment), and forgiveness (try letting a user muck about with a UNIX config file or the registry... BAM errors up the wazzoo; you can put almost anything in the extensions folder without causing damage in the MacOS).
While I agree that more configuration is possible in UNIX systems, it is not made available in an access method to the "consumer" user. What good is configuration if the act of configuring is too complex for the avg. user?
I was refering only to the Mac OS interface vs. UNIX ones... I don't know why you're bringing up WinXX at all...
I thnk the author makes some very valid points here. Linux stands the best chance of chipping away at the Microsoft empire until Apple's modern OS gets out the door.
Apple's hands are pretty much tied until it has a viable competitor to both Linux and NT. Linux will never be "mainstream" until it has a decent, intuitive, and easy-to-configure interface attached to it. Gnome and KDE are NOT any of these... at least, not for consumer-level users. The Mac OS interface is.
As for the aesthetics being important, well frankly, I think they are! Steve Jobs definitely hit on something when he designed machines for consumers. Consumers are where the market growth is, not IT departments, not to geeks like us who've been using computers since the 70's, and not to businesses. It's "Joe Six-pack" (as Robert Morgan calls it) who will provide the future of the industry. GM learned this lesson in the 50's when they created a "consumer market" and car culture out of Ford's all black Model T's.
Looking at the responses to this thread so far, it looks like the reasons both for and against are highly emotional ("joke of an OS", etc...)
I'd wager that over 90% of the computing world has strongly feelings about the MacOS (or Apple) one way or another.
Apple has gone through several phases and transitions in its history. Unfortunately, no transition is possible without "die-hards" or other people getting burned. Some people are mad that Apple dropped support for Apple ]['s a decade ago (although way that bothers them still befuddles me), while some are mad that Apple has completely moved to its PowerPC-based RISC systems.
Frankly people like this need to grow up. Face it, change happens. It hurts, but there's no way around it. The Apple ][ was a great computer... 2 decades ago!
Also, Apple went through some quality problems between 1995-97. (Any Mac administrator can give you horror stories about Systems 7.5-7.5.3, or the infamous flaming 5300's). But able has made an amazing turnaround recently in virtually all aspects of its operations. Mac OS 8.5 has none of the quality problems (slow, crashing, unexplained errors) that plagued its predecessors. Many people who cite these "problems" with the Mac OS simply haven't used any recent hardware or the current OS rev.
Also, I'd be remiss if i didn't point out that much of the infrastructure of the computing industry is built around supporting and maintaining Windows-based computers. Any competitior to Windows (ie, Linux, Mac OS, BeOS, etc...) poses a direct threat to the livelihood of most IT departments out there. That can't be discounted as a barrier to acceptance of the Mac OS. (It's after my Job!)
The CHRP platform is not monopolized by Apple, at least not in the way MS does it.
Apple writes the only OS in widespread use, but it does not have a stranglehold on the market (ie, it doesn't punish companies for shipping CHRP systems with other OS's on it, a la MS) Apple ended it's OS license to the cloners not because they were shipping other OS's, but because it wanted to. Mot and IBM could have shipped the systems with Linux or god-knows-what-else, but they didn't because they didn't look far enough ahead.
The independant desktop PowerPC market exists, the only thing that doesn't exist (anymore) is the Mac OS-clone market.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it may "require" a sysadmin or root user, the beauty of OS X is that it sheilds that functionality from the user.
It'll be great for multi-user machines, but for the detatched, single-user Mac, the OS hides the complexity of the "multi-user" paradigm from the user. It may do everything in root mode, but the Users shouldn't have to care about that...
>If someone could come up with a "windows clone" that ran on a Linux Kernel and then kept many of the good features of it, then I think there is where it will start making inroads into normal users' homes. But that is just my $.02.
I believe I've heard something like this before... oh yes, that would be Mac OS X! =)
Seriously, this is why Mac OS X is going to take off. You get all the benefits of UNIX, but with the ease-of-use of the Mac.
The elite will always whine about their "private club" being taken and used by the masses.. I mean, we saw that when the web took over the internet (from gopher). We'll see it again when real users interfaces take over the unix kernal. Yes, there will be die-hards who deal with the system on a text level (just like there are those who think the beast way to surf the web on a fast connection is with lynx.. go figure), but the majority will use a *real* browser-- er, I mean interface.
KDE/Gnome aren't a real interface becuase it forces you to use text at one point or another (that's like Netscape forcing someone to make a port connection manually).
Microsoft... interface?? Ha! You're funny.
That leaves Apple, the only company that copuld conceiveably use a UNIX kernal that can be *completely* controlled graphically. No CLI needed (unless you *want* to). Folks.. this is the future of UNIX. Deal with it.
*sigh*
As usual, many people here missed the most important part of that whole article. Apple and Pixar with both be INDEPENDENT subsidaries of Disney. This means that the companies will probably operate much as they do today. Apple will stillbe doing the same things it always was and will still do business as "Apple Computer". Pixar and Disney are an obvious fit. The genius of Steve Jobs is that he sees that Disney and Apple are an obvious fit as well!
(If you can't see why Disney and Apple should be together, just wait a while. It'll come to you.)
Come on people! Now a days all sorts of companies are merging that have *nothing* to do with each other? Microsoft and Web TV? Hmm... what do they have to do with each other? GE and NBC? Proctor and Gamble isa the scariest company in the world as far as I'm concerned.
Only good things can come out of this all around.
Remember that the Trash-can trick is just that... a trick! The "real" interface to ejecting volumes is by selecting the object and choosing "Eject Disk" from the Special Menu. Dragging a disk icon to the trash is a shortcut (not to be confused with Windows' shortcuts) for the action of removing something from the desktop.
When I'm training new users on how to use the Mac interface, I don't even tell them about dragging to the trash until the second week. Don't tell them shortcuts until they know what they're doing already. If they're not comfortable with dragging to the trash, tell them to use the menu. (Or keyboard if they're like that... or "Put Away" if they like that... or "Cmd-Shift-1", or "Cmd-Y"... don't you love the Mac's options?)
Please point me to the list of schools that are buying this, or use it.
Well, I can't speak for certain, but it looks very likely that we'll being using it in some form down here at San Diego State University. (Well, as soon as we finally get some G3's in here..)
I think the issue here is that there is nothing in the MacOS interface that requires a second or third mouse button. In Windows and UNIX environments, users MUST learn about all 3 buttons before being able to perform basic operations in the environment.
There is a difference between an interface and a shortcut. An interface is the primary means of accessing a function. A shortcut is a way for people to save time performing repetiitive tasks, or for them to perform a task in a way more suited to them. The One-Button mouse is part of the interface. Contextual menus are a shortcut for people to access commonly used functions. Assigning a mouse button to a "control-click" is a shortcut ontop of a shortcut. It works for you (and me, btw) but it's not the "standard" way of interfacing with the functions (at least, not on the Mac OS).
1) Webserving with decent speed. Has been done and is done all the time. Maybe the problem is with your definition of "decent." Webstar is fine for me. But then, I guess I'm not running your thousand-hits-a-minute website, then am I?
2) Hosting multiple users? Why would I want to do something like that with the MacOS? I don't want other people "logging into" my Mac. Oh wait, I forgot about the security savings there, didn't I?
3) Logging into a server via SSH? Oh, you must be thinking about that command-line thing.... Don't need that. I have Network Assistant (try it!)
4) Web-browsing is fine on my Mac. But frankly, if you're using a text-based browser and expect to be getting the "full experience" of the web, then something is wrong with you. On the assumption that you want the "full experience" of the web, Netscape runs just as well on my Mac as it does on the X-term sitting next to it.
5) Where's my grep? My top? My w? My uptime? These are extremely basic functions that macos only sort of supports.
They may be extremely basic for a COMMAND LINE interface, but they're not needed the same way in a GUI. I have find-by-content and other sorting utilities useful as needed. Uptime? It's called "ticks" and if you're concerned at all with uptime, you should know about AppleScript and how to find out "the ticks."
Frankly, you haven't proven or responded to the initial post. The Mac OS is designed from the ground up to be a Graphical Interface. It is not a kludge the way KDE/GNOME and Windows is. Every configurable element is accessable via a GUI or program. There is no CLI-only layer of accessability. Deal with it.
-Japheth Cleaver
I think placing these two OS's in even the same sentance when discussing user interface is a serious error. The MacOS has a far more easy to use interface when dealing with: on-screen controls, menus, windows and the window concept, interface consistancy across apps, user interactivity (letting the user "explore" their environment), and forgiveness (try letting a user muck about with a UNIX config file or the registry... BAM errors up the wazzoo; you can put almost anything in the extensions folder without causing damage in the MacOS).
While I agree that more configuration is possible in UNIX systems, it is not made available in an access method to the "consumer" user. What good is configuration if the act of configuring is too complex for the avg. user?
I was refering only to the Mac OS interface vs. UNIX ones... I don't know why you're bringing up WinXX at all...
I thnk the author makes some very valid points here. Linux stands the best chance of chipping away at the Microsoft empire until Apple's modern OS gets out the door.
Apple's hands are pretty much tied until it has a viable competitor to both Linux and NT. Linux will never be "mainstream" until it has a decent, intuitive, and easy-to-configure interface attached to it. Gnome and KDE are NOT any of these... at least, not for consumer-level users. The Mac OS interface is.
As for the aesthetics being important, well frankly, I think they are! Steve Jobs definitely hit on something when he designed machines for consumers. Consumers are where the market growth is, not IT departments, not to geeks like us who've been using computers since the 70's, and not to businesses. It's "Joe Six-pack" (as Robert Morgan calls it) who will provide the future of the industry. GM learned this lesson in the 50's when they created a "consumer market" and car culture out of Ford's all black Model T's.
Look where it took them!
Looking at the responses to this thread so far, it looks like the reasons both for and against are highly emotional ("joke of an OS", etc...)
I'd wager that over 90% of the computing world has strongly feelings about the MacOS (or Apple) one way or another.
Apple has gone through several phases and transitions in its history. Unfortunately, no transition is possible without "die-hards" or other people getting burned. Some people are mad that Apple dropped support for Apple ]['s a decade ago (although way that bothers them still befuddles me), while some are mad that Apple has completely moved to its PowerPC-based RISC systems.
Frankly people like this need to grow up. Face it, change happens. It hurts, but there's no way around it. The Apple ][ was a great computer... 2 decades ago!
Also, Apple went through some quality problems between 1995-97. (Any Mac administrator can give you horror stories about Systems 7.5-7.5.3, or the infamous flaming 5300's). But able has made an amazing turnaround recently in virtually all aspects of its operations. Mac OS 8.5 has none of the quality problems (slow, crashing, unexplained errors) that plagued its predecessors. Many people who cite these "problems" with the Mac OS simply haven't used any recent hardware or the current OS rev.
Also, I'd be remiss if i didn't point out that much of the infrastructure of the computing industry is built around supporting and maintaining Windows-based computers. Any competitior to Windows (ie, Linux, Mac OS, BeOS, etc...) poses a direct threat to the livelihood of most IT departments out there. That can't be discounted as a barrier to acceptance of the Mac OS. (It's after my Job!)
The CHRP platform is not monopolized by Apple, at least not in the way MS does it.
Apple writes the only OS in widespread use, but it does not have a stranglehold on the market (ie, it doesn't punish companies for shipping CHRP systems with other OS's on it, a la MS) Apple ended it's OS license to the cloners not because they were shipping other OS's, but because it wanted to. Mot and IBM could have shipped the systems with Linux or god-knows-what-else, but they didn't because they didn't look far enough ahead.
The independant desktop PowerPC market exists, the only thing that doesn't exist (anymore) is the Mac OS-clone market.
Arrgh! Looks like the AC bug hit me, too. The above post (long) was by me... not some anonymous coward.
-JC
That's just wrong!
Try a starter language (Pascal?) or put 'em on BASIC at age 8.