Idiot. Did you miss the part of my post where I said Rendezvous is an open standard, and while new, can be implemented on any platform? That's the definition of cross-platform, no?
And you didn't swear in your post. Doesn't that mean you have to give up your nickname now?
I too bought a new machine, received it on Saturday. But even though I ran the Security Update 8-23-2002, my build number remains at 6C115. Why the difference?
No idea. Mine's a dual gigahertz machine, the "speed holes and chrome" model. When I choose "About This Mac" from the Apple menu and then click "More Info," Apple System Profiler pops up showing me the following:
System version: Mac OS X 10.2 (6C125) Kernel version: Darwin Kernel Version 6.0: Sat Jul 27 13:18:52 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
I haven't upgraded any of my other systems to the full Jaguar release yet, so I don't know exactly what the deal is.
Windows boxes on the same network should then also see each other as their names. Same with Mac OS.
You were correct until you got to this part. Until the advent of mDNS, it wasn't possible to make refer to other machines on a self-assigned IP net by name. You could only refer to the other machines by IP address, unless you wanted to set up host tables or DNS, which takes the "hoc" out of "ad hoc network." (Okay, not literally, but it's catchy nonetheless, and catchy trumps correct any day.)
So if you had two machines connected via a cable, they could both self-assign the IPs, then you could ask the other guy what his IP is, and talk to him that way. Not very elegant, but it works in a pinch.
I know this isn't the be-all solution you're looking for, but be aware that Rendezvous does this very thing in Mac OS X 10.2. Since Rendezvous (which is just Apple's trademark for ZeroConf) is an open standard, it could in theory be implemented on any OS.
The best part of Rendezvous, in my opinion, is the serverless name resolution for self-assigned IPs. For example, if your computer looks for a DHCP server and fails to find one, it assigns itself an IP address starting with 169.254. Every other computer is supposed to self-assign the same way. Normally, that's not useful, because you have to get IPs from every user before you can talk, but Rendezvous makes it possible to refer to those machines by name.
At that point, any TCP-based program will work. FTP is my favorite, of course, but AppleShare over IP works just as well going Mac to Mac. I'm not sure what the Windows to Windows options are.
Like I said, I know this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I think it could get you close.
I'm afraid it's going to take more than unsubstantiated claims like yours to convince me that events that I have personally witnessed didn't happen the way I think they happened.
No, no. It was the part about "requires zero configuration when configured correctly" or whatever. That's just nuts. Rendezvous requires zero configuration, period. If you try to do part of the work (say, assigning IP address) and you foul it up, that has nothing to do with Rendezvous.
The DNS-less stuff doesn't work either. It doesn't find any of my other machines.
Rendezvous can only find other machines on the LAN that also support Rendezvous. It won't help you find your OS/2 machine or your eComStation (wtf?) machine.
All I want is a nice simple host table . On Linux or OS/2 I could easily add all of my host table entries in under a minute.
You can do it on your Mac, too. Starting in 10.2, your host table works just like you'd expect. In 10.0 and 10.1, lookupd was configured to ignore/etc/hosts, but in 10.2 it's set up differently by default. You can confirm this by looking at the output of lookupd -configuration.
LookupOrder: Cache FF DNS NI DS _config_name: Host Configuration
(Among other stuff)
That means that lookupd will try to resolve host names by looking first in its own cache, then in the flat files (/etc/hosts, in this case), then in the DNS system, then in NetInfo. All this is documented in the man page.
All the other items in your list of complaints have similarly simple fixes. Except, of course, for that shit about OS/2 compatibility. What's that about?
What a load of crap. Go back and read your post again. I'll even make it easy for you. Here:
OS X would not be what it is if apple had not provided a migration path of legacy applications and apis. Linux will not be able to take over the PC desktop market untill developers start to provide a framework via WINE and Mingw/Cygwin to move applications off of win32 to Linux/GNOME/KDE.
What is needed? A common OpenSource Win32 Api, DirectX and COM/DCOM shared by WINE and Cygwin/Mingw. A common documentation system would that allows for easy import of ms-html help. Once this is done it should easy to rebuild todays MS_VC applications with Mingw/Cygwin and then work to a total Linux rewrite.
You mentioned the name "Apple" once, and you didn't even have the courtesy to capitalize it. The rest of your post was about Linux blah-blah. Your observations may or may not be correct, valid, or insightful; I have no opinion, because they are off topic here. I'm still grouchy.
I guess my language was confusing, but no, I only meant that the shared printer couldn't be seen by a client with the incorrect subnet mask (the discovery part you mentioned).
Okay, after, like, five solid minutes of reading, rereading, and interpreting, I've finally figured out what I think you meant. That's not good, Pudge. If you're going to write something and call it a "review," you might want to put a little more effort into expressing your observations clearly. Otherwise, you just spread misinformation.
We've talked about this before. Every company is the sole provider of its own products. This does not make it a monopoly. I can only buy Beetles from Volkswagen. That doesn't mean Volkswagen has a monopoly on Beetles. "Monopoly" isn't a word you'd use in that situation.
Similarly, Apple makes Macs. Nobody else makes Macs. That's because a Mac is a product, not a class of products. If Apple were the only company that made personal computers, they'd have a monopoly on the personal computer market. But that's not the case. So no, Apple doesn't have any kind of a monopoly, over anything.
God forbid this conversation on apple.slashdot.org should actually be about Apple's operating system. No, no, can't have that. Have to co-opt this conversation for the Linux crowd.
Only on Slashdot would four people have found this comment "insightful" while no one modded it "off-topic." Bah. Complain, complain.
Yeah. And it also makes it pretty clear that Pudge doesn't understand Rendezvous. And the whole "printer sharing with Rendezvous" thing sounds fishy to me. Methinks he's actually talking about AppleTalk, not Rendezvous.
In the interest of clearing things up for the layman-- web resources on Rendezvous and ZeroConf are pretty obtuse-- here's the briefest possible explanation. I don't guarantee it's 100% right, but I think it's pretty close.
Rendezvous comes in two parts: hostname-to-IP mapping and service advertisement and discovery. With Rendezvous, you can make two machine talk to each other by name without host tables or DNS servers. When I'm on one machine-- felix-- I can address the other machine-- oscar-- by name by using the FQDN "oscar.local." For example, I type "FTP oscar.local." All the Rendezvous-equipped machines on my LAN are listening to a special link-local multicast address for DNS-style queries. When oscar receives my machine's query asking about "oscar.local," it replies with its IP address. This works for any combination of IP addresses, but it works best with self-assigned ones. You know, the 169.254 addresses your computer comes up with when no DHCP server responds. This works perfectly now between two Macs with Jaguar. I've been using it every day for months, on developer program pre-release builds. There were some problems with mDNSResponder running amuck, but that has apparently gone away in built 6C125, which is what I'm running now.
The other part of Rendezvous is service advertisement and discovery. That's not implemented in very many apps yet, but one that has it is iChat. When iChat starts up (if Rendezvous chat is enabled) it sends out a query looking for all machines on the local net that support the service "so-n-so." (I don't remember what the iChat service is called.) All the iChatty machines out there respond, and among themselves they set up a sort of ad hoc peer-to-peer network where one machine can message any other machine directly.
iTunes will have this functionality someday, but it doesn't yet. We've all seen the demo where Steve browsed Phil's library over the network. That was a concept demo, not a real feature demo. That's not finished yet.
So Rendezvous is confusing at first.
Partially this is Apple's fault, but in all fairness, how would you market multicast DNS as an operating system feature? It's fucking cool, so you want people to know about it, but exactly how would you describe it?
The end result? Everybody's excited about Rendezvous, but hardly anybody gets it.
Of course, that's not true. You can clone a Windows system from one machine to another just as easily as you can a Linux machine. In both cases, the trick is in taking care of your drivers.
But this is completely irrelevant in the context of the original discussion. As I said up-thread, if I'd had a system that was already configured the way I needed it, then I wouldn't have needed a new one.
This page shows you the ADC-DVI adapter, which you then adapt to VGA with this. The ADC-DVI adapter is $39, and the DVI-VGA adapter is $19, or it comes free with some of the new machines. (My new G4 came with one.)
Going the other way (from a non-Apple computer to an ADC Apple monitor) is harder, because you have to put power onto the ADC cable. That takes this adapter, a $149 device that gets power off the wall, takes USB and DVI inputs and sends ADC to the monitor.
I'd really like ADC to become a standard beyond just Apple. My new machine looks like this: mouse plugs into keyboard via USB. Keyboard plugs into monitor via USB. Monitor plugs into computer via ADC. Computer plugs into wall for power. That's it. No other cables at all, since I'm using AirPort. It's great, and makes for a really neat under-desk area.
You don't understand. It may take ten minutes to make a copy of a previously installed Linux system. But how long does it take to install it the first time? See, because I don't need two Linux machines. I only need one. So installing it once, making a copy, and then patting myself on the back because of all the time I saved makes, like, zero sense.
OTOH if you want to make a stand against them sending that link out usually works preety well.
Make a stand on your own time. At my company, we use the tools we need to get the job done, regardless of RMS's political opinions on them. (Is how I would respond to any coworker who suggested the same thing that you suggested.)
You are on a Mac what are you going to do when they send you access files?
Depends. If it's junk, it's junk, and I throw it away. If it's important, then I damn well get my hands on a PC with a copy of Access on it.
In the business world, there is no room for dissent on this issue. If you want to draw a line in the sand and say, "I will not read Word or Powerpoint attachments," that's your concern. But if you pull that kind of crap in a business context, you'd better be prepared to lose a customer. Customers send my company RFPs in every format known to man. You know what we do? We read 'em. Every one, cover to cover. I don't care if it shows up on our doorstep in cuneiform engraved on clay tablets; we find a way to read it. Because those documents are where our money comes from.
I can confirm that. I bought a brand new machine yesterday during the Apple Store's "midnight madness" sale. Brought it home and fired it up literally about 90 minutes after Jaguar was officially available for sale. (Well, not counting time zones.) First thing that happened was Software Update popping up and asking if it was okay to download the security update. The download took mere seconds, even on my lowly 768 Kbps DSL line. All in all, pretty professional.
Since they are coworkers and not clients you could probably get away with sending it back with a link to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments. html
In my experience, you can never get away with sending anybody a link to anything with the word "philosophy" in it, particularly if it has anything to do with Gnu. If the recipient has never heard of Gnu, they're going to wonder who the hell these people think they are. And if they have heard of Gnu, well, then you've got a whole other problem to deal with.
Word and PowerPoint are useful tools. They're not perfect, and there is a trend toward using them for purposes to which they're not suited. But they're useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiot. Did you miss the part of my post where I said Rendezvous is an open standard, and while new, can be implemented on any platform? That's the definition of cross-platform, no?
And you didn't swear in your post. Doesn't that mean you have to give up your nickname now?
I too bought a new machine, received it on Saturday. But even though I ran the Security Update 8-23-2002, my build number remains at 6C115. Why the difference?
No idea. Mine's a dual gigahertz machine, the "speed holes and chrome" model. When I choose "About This Mac" from the Apple menu and then click "More Info," Apple System Profiler pops up showing me the following:
System version: Mac OS X 10.2 (6C125)
Kernel version: Darwin Kernel Version 6.0: Sat Jul 27 13:18:52 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
I haven't upgraded any of my other systems to the full Jaguar release yet, so I don't know exactly what the deal is.
Windows boxes on the same network should then also see each other as their names. Same with Mac OS.
You were correct until you got to this part. Until the advent of mDNS, it wasn't possible to make refer to other machines on a self-assigned IP net by name. You could only refer to the other machines by IP address, unless you wanted to set up host tables or DNS, which takes the "hoc" out of "ad hoc network." (Okay, not literally, but it's catchy nonetheless, and catchy trumps correct any day.)
So if you had two machines connected via a cable, they could both self-assign the IPs, then you could ask the other guy what his IP is, and talk to him that way. Not very elegant, but it works in a pinch.
I know this isn't the be-all solution you're looking for, but be aware that Rendezvous does this very thing in Mac OS X 10.2. Since Rendezvous (which is just Apple's trademark for ZeroConf) is an open standard, it could in theory be implemented on any OS.
The best part of Rendezvous, in my opinion, is the serverless name resolution for self-assigned IPs. For example, if your computer looks for a DHCP server and fails to find one, it assigns itself an IP address starting with 169.254. Every other computer is supposed to self-assign the same way. Normally, that's not useful, because you have to get IPs from every user before you can talk, but Rendezvous makes it possible to refer to those machines by name.
At that point, any TCP-based program will work. FTP is my favorite, of course, but AppleShare over IP works just as well going Mac to Mac. I'm not sure what the Windows to Windows options are.
Like I said, I know this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I think it could get you close.
I'm afraid it's going to take more than unsubstantiated claims like yours to convince me that events that I have personally witnessed didn't happen the way I think they happened.
Your average slashdotter is probably above average.
Pfeh. Anybody with a UID as low as yours ought to know better.
Stare into the night
Sun is setting on your sys
Apple Comp. is dead
You never learned how
to write a haiku without
abbreviations?
Build 6C125? More info plz?
Bought a new machine on Friday. Updated it with the security update. New build number is 6C125. That's all there is to it.
No, no. It was the part about "requires zero configuration when configured correctly" or whatever. That's just nuts. Rendezvous requires zero configuration, period. If you try to do part of the work (say, assigning IP address) and you foul it up, that has nothing to do with Rendezvous.
The DNS-less stuff doesn't work either. It doesn't find any of my other machines.
/etc/hosts, but in 10.2 it's set up differently by default. You can confirm this by looking at the output of lookupd -configuration.
Rendezvous can only find other machines on the LAN that also support Rendezvous. It won't help you find your OS/2 machine or your eComStation (wtf?) machine.
All I want is a nice simple host table . On Linux or OS/2 I could easily add all of my host table entries in under a minute.
You can do it on your Mac, too. Starting in 10.2, your host table works just like you'd expect. In 10.0 and 10.1, lookupd was configured to ignore
LookupOrder: Cache FF DNS NI DS
_config_name: Host Configuration
(Among other stuff)
That means that lookupd will try to resolve host names by looking first in its own cache, then in the flat files (/etc/hosts, in this case), then in the DNS system, then in NetInfo. All this is documented in the man page.
All the other items in your list of complaints have similarly simple fixes. Except, of course, for that shit about OS/2 compatibility. What's that about?
What a load of crap. Go back and read your post again. I'll even make it easy for you. Here:
OS X would not be what it is if apple had not provided a migration path of legacy applications and apis. Linux will not be able to take over the PC desktop market untill developers start to provide a framework via WINE and Mingw/Cygwin to move applications off of win32 to Linux/GNOME/KDE.
What is needed? A common OpenSource Win32 Api, DirectX and COM/DCOM shared by WINE and Cygwin/Mingw. A common documentation system would that allows for easy import of ms-html help. Once this is done it should easy to rebuild todays MS_VC applications with Mingw/Cygwin and then work to a total Linux rewrite.
You mentioned the name "Apple" once, and you didn't even have the courtesy to capitalize it. The rest of your post was about Linux blah-blah. Your observations may or may not be correct, valid, or insightful; I have no opinion, because they are off topic here. I'm still grouchy.
I guess my language was confusing, but no, I only meant that the shared printer couldn't be seen by a client with the incorrect subnet mask (the discovery part you mentioned).
Okay, after, like, five solid minutes of reading, rereading, and interpreting, I've finally figured out what I think you meant. That's not good, Pudge. If you're going to write something and call it a "review," you might want to put a little more effort into expressing your observations clearly. Otherwise, you just spread misinformation.
Not a flame. Just a suggestion.
Apple is also a monopoly in PowerPC machines.
We've talked about this before. Every company is the sole provider of its own products. This does not make it a monopoly. I can only buy Beetles from Volkswagen. That doesn't mean Volkswagen has a monopoly on Beetles. "Monopoly" isn't a word you'd use in that situation.
Similarly, Apple makes Macs. Nobody else makes Macs. That's because a Mac is a product, not a class of products. If Apple were the only company that made personal computers, they'd have a monopoly on the personal computer market. But that's not the case. So no, Apple doesn't have any kind of a monopoly, over anything.
What good is it in downsizing a monopoly, and replacing it with a monopoly run by two companies?
I don't know where to begin telling you what's wrong with that sentence.
God forbid this conversation on apple.slashdot.org should actually be about Apple's operating system. No, no, can't have that. Have to co-opt this conversation for the Linux crowd.
Only on Slashdot would four people have found this comment "insightful" while no one modded it "off-topic." Bah. Complain, complain.
Yeah. And it also makes it pretty clear that Pudge doesn't understand Rendezvous. And the whole "printer sharing with Rendezvous" thing sounds fishy to me. Methinks he's actually talking about AppleTalk, not Rendezvous.
In the interest of clearing things up for the layman-- web resources on Rendezvous and ZeroConf are pretty obtuse-- here's the briefest possible explanation. I don't guarantee it's 100% right, but I think it's pretty close.
Rendezvous comes in two parts: hostname-to-IP mapping and service advertisement and discovery. With Rendezvous, you can make two machine talk to each other by name without host tables or DNS servers. When I'm on one machine-- felix-- I can address the other machine-- oscar-- by name by using the FQDN "oscar.local." For example, I type "FTP oscar.local." All the Rendezvous-equipped machines on my LAN are listening to a special link-local multicast address for DNS-style queries. When oscar receives my machine's query asking about "oscar.local," it replies with its IP address. This works for any combination of IP addresses, but it works best with self-assigned ones. You know, the 169.254 addresses your computer comes up with when no DHCP server responds. This works perfectly now between two Macs with Jaguar. I've been using it every day for months, on developer program pre-release builds. There were some problems with mDNSResponder running amuck, but that has apparently gone away in built 6C125, which is what I'm running now.
The other part of Rendezvous is service advertisement and discovery. That's not implemented in very many apps yet, but one that has it is iChat. When iChat starts up (if Rendezvous chat is enabled) it sends out a query looking for all machines on the local net that support the service "so-n-so." (I don't remember what the iChat service is called.) All the iChatty machines out there respond, and among themselves they set up a sort of ad hoc peer-to-peer network where one machine can message any other machine directly.
iTunes will have this functionality someday, but it doesn't yet. We've all seen the demo where Steve browsed Phil's library over the network. That was a concept demo, not a real feature demo. That's not finished yet.
So Rendezvous is confusing at first.
Partially this is Apple's fault, but in all fairness, how would you market multicast DNS as an operating system feature? It's fucking cool, so you want people to know about it, but exactly how would you describe it?
The end result? Everybody's excited about Rendezvous, but hardly anybody gets it.
Of course, that's not true. You can clone a Windows system from one machine to another just as easily as you can a Linux machine. In both cases, the trick is in taking care of your drivers.
But this is completely irrelevant in the context of the original discussion. As I said up-thread, if I'd had a system that was already configured the way I needed it, then I wouldn't have needed a new one.
This page shows you the ADC-DVI adapter, which you then adapt to VGA with this. The ADC-DVI adapter is $39, and the DVI-VGA adapter is $19, or it comes free with some of the new machines. (My new G4 came with one.)
Going the other way (from a non-Apple computer to an ADC Apple monitor) is harder, because you have to put power onto the ADC cable. That takes this adapter, a $149 device that gets power off the wall, takes USB and DVI inputs and sends ADC to the monitor.
I'd really like ADC to become a standard beyond just Apple. My new machine looks like this: mouse plugs into keyboard via USB. Keyboard plugs into monitor via USB. Monitor plugs into computer via ADC. Computer plugs into wall for power. That's it. No other cables at all, since I'm using AirPort. It's great, and makes for a really neat under-desk area.
Really? I thought 768 Kbps was pretty much the ass end of broadband.
You don't understand. It may take ten minutes to make a copy of a previously installed Linux system. But how long does it take to install it the first time? See, because I don't need two Linux machines. I only need one. So installing it once, making a copy, and then patting myself on the back because of all the time I saved makes, like, zero sense.
OTOH if you want to make a stand against them sending that link out usually works preety well.
Make a stand on your own time. At my company, we use the tools we need to get the job done, regardless of RMS's political opinions on them. (Is how I would respond to any coworker who suggested the same thing that you suggested.)
You are on a Mac what are you going to do when they send you access files?
Depends. If it's junk, it's junk, and I throw it away. If it's important, then I damn well get my hands on a PC with a copy of Access on it.
In the business world, there is no room for dissent on this issue. If you want to draw a line in the sand and say, "I will not read Word or Powerpoint attachments," that's your concern. But if you pull that kind of crap in a business context, you'd better be prepared to lose a customer. Customers send my company RFPs in every format known to man. You know what we do? We read 'em. Every one, cover to cover. I don't care if it shows up on our doorstep in cuneiform engraved on clay tablets; we find a way to read it. Because those documents are where our money comes from.
I can confirm that. I bought a brand new machine yesterday during the Apple Store's "midnight madness" sale. Brought it home and fired it up literally about 90 minutes after Jaguar was officially available for sale. (Well, not counting time zones.) First thing that happened was Software Update popping up and asking if it was okay to download the security update. The download took mere seconds, even on my lowly 768 Kbps DSL line. All in all, pretty professional.
Since they are coworkers and not clients you could probably get away with sending it back with a link to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments. html
In my experience, you can never get away with sending anybody a link to anything with the word "philosophy" in it, particularly if it has anything to do with Gnu. If the recipient has never heard of Gnu, they're going to wonder who the hell these people think they are. And if they have heard of Gnu, well, then you've got a whole other problem to deal with.
Word and PowerPoint are useful tools. They're not perfect, and there is a trend toward using them for purposes to which they're not suited. But they're useful.
You don't need a fresh install, you can copy from a ready to go system through the net....
Uh... if I had a system that was all set up to do what I wanted to do, I wouldn't need to install a new one.