AFAIK this has been theoretically possible since 7.5.1, thanks to OSA (what many folks refer to as AppleScript.)
AppleScript is more than a scripting language; it's also a framework for allowing scripting languages (tcl can be used; others can too, although I've not done this) to interface with apps.
Heh, I believe that the former production manager of the paper I work for has something set up similar to what you describe. Not from a Web browser, but he can be at his laptop anywhere and simply start fiddling around with our machines. Interesting possibility, though, of having all these things built into the system, rather than going with 3rd party software....
...maybe we'll see an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple then. Unfair bundling of Internet-based software.:^)
1. >Mac users do not want unix. They want a stable MacOS. (snip)
2. >They do not want to "log in" to their powerbook.
1. Mach is a kernel. BSD is a kernel. It's a vehicle for building an operating system. MacOS has a kernel, quite frankly. I've been told Win98 has a kernel, although it's a bit cobbled together.:^) While you may balk about the fact that the new system is based on Mach/BSD, and further based on OpenStep, there's a lot of room to work here. The finished system probably won't resemble UNIX. BeOS has some charateristics that make it vaguely resemble a UNIX system, beyond the POSIX-compliant libraries, even, but it's not a UNIX system.
The point is, a UNIX kernel != UNIX.
2. Who's "they"? Personally, I'd want this functionality--unless someone uses some sort of rescue boot disk, then one would have to log in to get this.
I don't know a damn thing about MacOS X, but if they have an inittab file, and if they use init scripts, I bet it'd be a laughably simple exercise on their part to make an account called "dumbuser" and have the rc.M file su as dumbuser, then start the GUI. It's possible to do this with X11R6 under Linux (although I've never done it; I like to have multiple accounts on my home machine. One for me, one for my wife.)
>You have to consider that they're practically building a new OS for the Mac from scratch (counting out the BSD core, of course).
You can count out a lot of the core of the OS, since it's also based on legacy code from MacOS AND OpenStep. If you want to see a Mac-intended OS that was built from scratch, take a look at BeOS (or don't, if you value stability in an OS.)
Perhaps the original poster wasn't the only one who posted something that was ill thought-out. =)
>Why do you think Carbon is legacy compatibility crap? Here's why *I* think it's crap...NeXT has been around since, what, 1988? There are a number of apps written for NeXT/NeXTStep/OpenStep that are great, and the API has been around for *years*. The fact that OpenStep at one time was around for WinNT doesn't hurt, either.:^)
In short, since MacOS X has BSD/Mach & OpenStep at its core, Apple should *insist* on rewrites of software, rather than breaking the OS with code which only adds to the system's instability.
One. The new look-'n-feel screams "eye candy". That's about it. It's based on OpenGL and Display PDF. Good for them. They get a cookie. What does it do other than look pretty and open the posibility of a bad PDF crashing the GUI? I dunno; most folks reviewing it seem to be concentrating on:
1. Display PDF 2. Pretty antialiasing and alpha channels 3. OpenGL
Second point. Repeat after me MacOSX==(BSD/Mach + OpenStep + MacOS treatment + Display PDF - Display PostScript). Innovation? Please; don't make me laugh. The main interface is OpenStep with DPS ripped out and DPDF thrown in. The floating menus have been replaced with the (blech) menu bar many of us (and I use Macs more than most Mac enthusiasts) have come to hate. Finder? Try Workspace.app, with some Mozilla-like buttons replacing the Shelf. Oh yeah, and the Dock is still there.
Innovation? Not here...BeOS was actual innovation (mostly new design, with some POSIX compliance thrown in for good measure), but Apple couldn't stand the thought of paying their former CEO for an OS. Now, Steve's back! Hi, Steve! Care to run the company into the ground one more time? Okay, howsabout running it into the ground with your delusions about the perfect computer again? And, just for giggles, let's make it the Mac again? Perfect!
Personally, I was jazzed when Jobs came back on board and the announcement was made that the next MacOS would be based on NeXT technology (ironic, isn't it.:^) Finally, a decent interface instead of that damn MacOS interface. Guess I was wrong...now it's the Mac/NeXT bastardization, with pretty eye candy, running on a *NIX kernel. Joy. So when's QuarkXPress being ported to Linux again?:^)
>Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers,
What the #$@! is a raytracing renderer? A 3D package raytraces, renders, or combines the two. I have never heard of a raytracing renderer.
A raytracer traces light rays from the viewer back to the light source to form an image of a scene. A renderer uses a series of (extremely clever) tricks to approximate the effects of lighting, texture, etc. to approximate similar effects.
Okay, here goes. Star Trek kindled several ideas in modern device design, interface design, and scientific endeavors.
Quite frankly there are folks who read Slashdot other than yourself (shocking, I know) and some of those folks actually have *interest* in the article. It's kind of interesting because, if it weren't for the silly "talking to the computer" back in the 60's on Star Trek, then there probably wouldn't have been quite as much interest in speech recognition research.
Quite frankly, the intended goal is to be able to say, "Computer, what is the status of the warp core?" and get the intended answer. Really. That's all. And to make it look as effortless as it is in the make-believe world of Star Trek.
Did you see the movie Galaxy Quest? What a lot of people honed in on was the intended inference that, hey, some folks just don't get it that Star Trek is all *fiction.* What most folks thought the intended target was was the hardcore fan. I say it was the kooky engineer type that's so brilliant that they *may* be able to cook up a working transporter in their garage, given the time for research, but just don't get it that Jimmy Doohan and Leonard Nimoy weren't engineers and scientists, just actors, and that the technology that was cooked up for the show was just plot devices, nothing more. I cracked up when Mathazar said, "the organ regeneration chamber is coming along nicely." Heh, we have communicators (flip-phones) hypospray (albiet painful, I'm told), tricorders (actually sold under that name) computers we can have semi-intelligent conversations with, and, I'm told, a good chance of having warp drive within the next 100 years. All from just one stupid show with NO scientific basis (in the beginning) whatsoever.
True, but thanks to the (rather loose) US patent law, someone could then patent a similar process (I'm sure there's more than one patent on a dithering pattern, for example) and then sue *your* pants off, even though you had prior art. However, IANAL.
Remember that recently Microsoft received a patent on software packaging systems. Ugh. Like that's not a case that SCREAMS prior art. *sighs*
>So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name >but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source" >product, rather than "commercial". There is a >difference.
Erm, and I must split the hair further.:^) Red Hat isn't really GPL. Red Hat isn't a commercial software product. It's a software distribution. They merely package groups of GPLed (and other licensed) "products." Yet again, there is a difference.:^)
Tim also states that Microsoft has done a great thing by standardizing printer drivers, graphics drivers, etc.
Well, that's true, to a point, but what they've done is create *more* of a mess. Not only do several devices have their own set of instructions/routines, but quite often they're not documented.
Printing? Well, if PostScript had been standardized on the *hardware* side, as I wish it were, there would be no need for a software-side abstraction level. If OpenGL were standardized, as well as VESA, then the need for software-level abstraction would be nil.
The point? Microsoft may have come up with their own standards on the software side ("Standards are great; let's make our own!") but they've made a royal mess of the PC hardware world.
Sorry, folks, I gotta feed the troll (shoulda been moderated down to -10, Arrogant Asshole)
It's also a *request* on the part of the X Window Consortium (which is now defunct, BTW...if you don't know what that means, then "It's dead, Jim" should suffice.:^)
Here's how I feel about their *requested* name choices: X -- synonym for pornography (woohoo!) X Window System (mouthful) X Version 11 (mouthfull, says jack shit about system) X Window System, Version 11 (Oh, please) X11 (too close to X10, the home automation system, which I believe predates X11)
I've been known at times to say X, despite the negative connotations. It *is* much shorter than X Windows, although I've been know to say that too. Why? It provides a short, if somewhat inaccurate, description that much of Western civilization can identify with.
BTW, that should be "compatible with", not "compatible to". If you're going to be so picky about naming conventions as to go so blatantly offtopic, you can at least learn to write English phrases.
I find that *keyboards* contribute to my problems...I can click away for hours at non-typing tasks with nary a twinge, yet if I type for more than 10 minutes, my hands go numb.
It may be your mouse placement. Me, I have my mouse up high enough (methinks) and it's usually bare centimeters from my keyboard.
If you try to suggest, also, that I use one of those damn IBM eraserheads to manipulate photos, you deserve to be shot. If I were to have to use one of these, I'd need to have a second pointing device. What does this mean? It means the primary pointing device sucks.
Personally, I'll stick with my Intellimouse, thank you very much.:^P
>As others have pointed out, a lot of the apps and >API's that are coming up seem to be chasing >Microsoft's tail.
>i.e. Outlook look-alikes >Start buttoms and menu bars
One thing that folks aren't fond of pointing out is that it's rather a circular tail--in other words, Microsoft generally tends to take other folks' great ideas, and turn them into good ideas.:^) The 95/98 interface borrows from a number of different interfaces, such as OpenStep, MacOS and even, to some extent, CDE, to name a few.
IE is a blatant example of ripoff; heck, Netscape was founded because folks like Andreesen(sp) couldn't sell Mosaic-aginst U of I's rules. Then, U of I sold it to Spyglass, who then sold it to Microsoft. Then Microsoft turned it into a half-assed Netscape clone with OS-specific extensions.
Imagine it, folks, being killed by your own product.
Let's face it, folks--the free-software world has been copying the commercial world for *years.* If it weren't for copying commercial software, the basic set of GNU utils wouldn't exist.
>Oh great, quit.net had this story six hours ago:)
Um, yeah, and I knew that?:^P What the hell is quit.net? I guess I'll have to check it out now...but until now, I would have guessed that quit.net was a domain-name squatter.
Gee, imagine if our asses were about to get wiped out by an asteroid, and 99% of us never knew because some small-ass podunk station in South Dakota carried the news, and news networks worldwide said, "Hey, we can't carry that; some podunk small-ass station in the middle of South Dakota already carried that. We'd look like morons!!!"
Get the point? How about a blunter response, like, "Shut the hell up!"
>Other graphics system for linux such as berlin aren't going to become the future due to their lack of software.
Erm...I remember someone saying once that the toolkit GTK would NEVER become popular because:
1) there were already a number of toolkits "out there" 2) there was only one app that used it (GIMP)
And now look.:^)
The moral: Berlin probably won't become popular because many folks will say, "Gee, why code for it? There aren't any apps yet." It's kinda like Catch-22: You can leave the army if you can prove you're crazy; however, if you can prove it, you must be sane.:^)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't want to read movie reviews?
Don't read them, then.
Damn.
if you didn't want plot spoilers, why did you read this review? Why did you read the comments?
Damn, you're dumb.
AFAIK this has been theoretically possible since 7.5.1, thanks to OSA (what many folks refer to as AppleScript.)
:^)
AppleScript is more than a scripting language; it's also a framework for allowing scripting languages (tcl can be used; others can too, although I've not done this) to interface with apps.
Heh, I believe that the former production manager of the paper I work for has something set up similar to what you describe. Not from a Web browser, but he can be at his laptop anywhere and simply start fiddling around with our machines. Interesting possibility, though, of having all these things built into the system, rather than going with 3rd party software....
...maybe we'll see an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple then. Unfair bundling of Internet-based software.
1.
:^) While you may balk about the fact that the new system is based on Mach/BSD, and further based on OpenStep, there's a lot of room to work here. The finished system probably won't resemble UNIX. BeOS has some charateristics that make it vaguely resemble a UNIX system, beyond the POSIX-compliant libraries, even, but it's not a UNIX system.
>Mac users do not want unix. They want a stable MacOS.
(snip)
2.
>They do not want to "log in" to their powerbook.
1. Mach is a kernel. BSD is a kernel. It's a vehicle for building an operating system. MacOS has a kernel, quite frankly. I've been told Win98 has a kernel, although it's a bit cobbled together.
The point is, a UNIX kernel != UNIX.
2. Who's "they"? Personally, I'd want this functionality--unless someone uses some sort of rescue boot disk, then one would have to log in to get this.
I don't know a damn thing about MacOS X, but if they have an inittab file, and if they use init scripts, I bet it'd be a laughably simple exercise on their part to make an account called "dumbuser" and have the rc.M file su as dumbuser, then start the GUI. It's possible to do this with X11R6 under Linux (although I've never done it; I like to have multiple accounts on my home machine. One for me, one for my wife.)
This got moderated *up*?
Too much meth?
Um...who the fuck cares other than you and two other anal-retentives?
>You have to consider that they're practically building a new OS for the Mac from scratch (counting out the BSD core, of course).
You can count out a lot of the core of the OS, since it's also based on legacy code from MacOS AND OpenStep. If you want to see a Mac-intended OS that was built from scratch, take a look at BeOS (or don't, if you value stability in an OS.)
Perhaps the original poster wasn't the only one who posted something that was ill thought-out. =)
>Why do you think Carbon is legacy compatibility crap? :^)
Here's why *I* think it's crap...NeXT has been around since, what, 1988? There are a number of apps written for NeXT/NeXTStep/OpenStep that are great, and the API has been around for *years*. The fact that OpenStep at one time was around for WinNT doesn't hurt, either.
In short, since MacOS X has BSD/Mach & OpenStep at its core, Apple should *insist* on rewrites of software, rather than breaking the OS with code which only adds to the system's instability.
I really have trouble seeing it as innovation.
:^) Finally, a decent interface instead of that damn MacOS interface. Guess I was wrong...now it's the Mac/NeXT bastardization, with pretty eye candy, running on a *NIX kernel. Joy. So when's QuarkXPress being ported to Linux again? :^)
One. The new look-'n-feel screams "eye candy". That's about it. It's based on OpenGL and Display PDF. Good for them. They get a cookie. What does it do other than look pretty and open the posibility of a bad PDF crashing the GUI? I dunno; most folks reviewing it seem to be concentrating on:
1. Display PDF
2. Pretty antialiasing and alpha channels
3. OpenGL
Second point. Repeat after me MacOSX==(BSD/Mach + OpenStep + MacOS treatment + Display PDF - Display PostScript). Innovation? Please; don't make me laugh. The main interface is OpenStep with DPS ripped out and DPDF thrown in. The floating menus have been replaced with the (blech) menu bar many of us (and I use Macs more than most Mac enthusiasts) have come to hate. Finder? Try Workspace.app, with some Mozilla-like buttons replacing the Shelf. Oh yeah, and the Dock is still there.
Innovation? Not here...BeOS was actual innovation (mostly new design, with some POSIX compliance thrown in for good measure), but Apple couldn't stand the thought of paying their former CEO for an OS. Now, Steve's back! Hi, Steve! Care to run the company into the ground one more time? Okay, howsabout running it into the ground with your delusions about the perfect computer again? And, just for giggles, let's make it the Mac again? Perfect!
Personally, I was jazzed when Jobs came back on board and the announcement was made that the next MacOS would be based on NeXT technology (ironic, isn't it.
>Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers,
What the #$@! is a raytracing renderer? A 3D package raytraces, renders, or combines the two. I have never heard of a raytracing renderer.
A raytracer traces light rays from the viewer back to the light source to form an image of a scene. A renderer uses a series of (extremely clever) tricks to approximate the effects of lighting, texture, etc. to approximate similar effects.
Okay, here goes. Star Trek kindled several ideas in modern device design, interface design, and scientific endeavors.
Quite frankly there are folks who read Slashdot other than yourself (shocking, I know) and some of those folks actually have *interest* in the article. It's kind of interesting because, if it weren't for the silly "talking to the computer" back in the 60's on Star Trek, then there probably wouldn't have been quite as much interest in speech recognition research.
Quite frankly, the intended goal is to be able to say, "Computer, what is the status of the warp core?" and get the intended answer. Really. That's all. And to make it look as effortless as it is in the make-believe world of Star Trek.
Did you see the movie Galaxy Quest? What a lot of people honed in on was the intended inference that, hey, some folks just don't get it that Star Trek is all *fiction.* What most folks thought the intended target was was the hardcore fan. I say it was the kooky engineer type that's so brilliant that they *may* be able to cook up a working transporter in their garage, given the time for research, but just don't get it that Jimmy Doohan and Leonard Nimoy weren't engineers and scientists, just actors, and that the technology that was cooked up for the show was just plot devices, nothing more. I cracked up when Mathazar said, "the organ regeneration chamber is coming along nicely." Heh, we have communicators (flip-phones) hypospray (albiet painful, I'm told), tricorders (actually sold under that name) computers we can have semi-intelligent conversations with, and, I'm told, a good chance of having warp drive within the next 100 years. All from just one stupid show with NO scientific basis (in the beginning) whatsoever.
And IBM ViaVoice can time every thing you say just par fetch. IBM ViaVoice is Hollie God at timing its own nude.
Voice-recognition interpretation:
/.. orgy.
Hell, target nets cape. Nets cape, go to sight
Perhaps reading the post first would help. :^)
It's not GNU that patented these; it's an individual. Read next time, rather than pouring hot grits in your ears. Thank you.
True, but thanks to the (rather loose) US patent law, someone could then patent a similar process (I'm sure there's more than one patent on a dithering pattern, for example) and then sue *your* pants off, even though you had prior art. However, IANAL.
Remember that recently Microsoft received a patent on software packaging systems. Ugh. Like that's not a case that SCREAMS prior art. *sighs*
>GPL can never be used in a commercial product
>So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name
>but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source"
>product, rather than "commercial". There is a
>difference.
Erm, and I must split the hair further.
Tim also states that Microsoft has done a great thing by standardizing printer drivers, graphics drivers, etc.
Well, that's true, to a point, but what they've done is create *more* of a mess. Not only do several devices have their own set of instructions/routines, but quite often they're not documented.
Printing? Well, if PostScript had been standardized on the *hardware* side, as I wish it were, there would be no need for a software-side abstraction level. If OpenGL were standardized, as well as VESA, then the need for software-level abstraction would be nil.
The point? Microsoft may have come up with their own standards on the software side ("Standards are great; let's make our own!") but they've made a royal mess of the PC hardware world.
Sorry, folks, I gotta feed the troll (shoulda been moderated down to -10, Arrogant Asshole)
:^)
It's also a *request* on the part of the X Window Consortium (which is now defunct, BTW...if you don't know what that means, then "It's dead, Jim" should suffice.
Here's how I feel about their *requested* name choices:
X -- synonym for pornography (woohoo!)
X Window System (mouthful)
X Version 11 (mouthfull, says jack shit about system)
X Window System, Version 11 (Oh, please)
X11 (too close to X10, the home automation system, which I believe predates X11)
I've been known at times to say X, despite the negative connotations. It *is* much shorter than X Windows, although I've been know to say that too. Why? It provides a short, if somewhat inaccurate, description that much of Western civilization can identify with.
BTW, that should be "compatible with", not "compatible to". If you're going to be so picky about naming conventions as to go so blatantly offtopic, you can at least learn to write English phrases.
I find that *keyboards* contribute to my problems...I can click away for hours at non-typing tasks with nary a twinge, yet if I type for more than 10 minutes, my hands go numb.
:^P
It may be your mouse placement. Me, I have my mouse up high enough (methinks) and it's usually bare centimeters from my keyboard.
If you try to suggest, also, that I use one of those damn IBM eraserheads to manipulate photos, you deserve to be shot. If I were to have to use one of these, I'd need to have a second pointing device. What does this mean? It means the primary pointing device sucks.
Personally, I'll stick with my Intellimouse, thank you very much.
>As others have pointed out, a lot of the apps and
:^) The 95/98 interface borrows from a number of different interfaces, such as OpenStep, MacOS and even, to some extent, CDE, to name a few.
>API's that are coming up seem to be chasing
>Microsoft's tail.
>i.e. Outlook look-alikes
>Start buttoms and menu bars
One thing that folks aren't fond of pointing out is that it's rather a circular tail--in other words, Microsoft generally tends to take other folks' great ideas, and turn them into good ideas.
IE is a blatant example of ripoff; heck, Netscape was founded because folks like Andreesen(sp) couldn't sell Mosaic-aginst U of I's rules. Then, U of I sold it to Spyglass, who then sold it to Microsoft. Then Microsoft turned it into a half-assed Netscape clone with OS-specific extensions.
Imagine it, folks, being killed by your own product.
Let's face it, folks--the free-software world has been copying the commercial world for *years.* If it weren't for copying commercial software, the basic set of GNU utils wouldn't exist.
>Oh great, quit.net had this story six hours ago :)
:^P What the hell is quit.net? I guess I'll have to check it out now...but until now, I would have guessed that quit.net was a domain-name squatter.
Um, yeah, and I knew that?
Gee, imagine if our asses were about to get wiped out by an asteroid, and 99% of us never knew because some small-ass podunk station in South Dakota carried the news, and news networks worldwide said, "Hey, we can't carry that; some podunk small-ass station in the middle of South Dakota already carried that. We'd look like morons!!!"
Get the point? How about a blunter response, like, "Shut the hell up!"
How is this news for nerds?
I mean, nerds play games, nerds have Palms, but I have neither...so what's it matter?
;^)
>Other graphics system for linux such as berlin aren't going to become the future due to their lack of software.
:^)
:^)
Erm...I remember someone saying once that the toolkit GTK would NEVER become popular because:
1) there were already a number of toolkits "out there"
2) there was only one app that used it (GIMP)
And now look.
The moral: Berlin probably won't become popular because many folks will say, "Gee, why code for it? There aren't any apps yet." It's kinda like Catch-22: You can leave the army if you can prove you're crazy; however, if you can prove it, you must be sane.
Not necessarily.
These could be implemented as extensions...although this would increase the bloat that we giddily know as X.
This all depends on what you mean when you say "acceptable."
Win98 produces acceptable performance, but my Linux install produces superior results to Win98.