The config files are ugly. (My thinking is that the whole mess in/etc could be condensed into a dozen well planned files.)
I think Apple actually has a good approach to this in OSX. It is transitioning the config files into XML, with a specialized XML editor as the front end. And since it's XML (and not some file format made up at 3am), other replacement editors could easily do the same job.
Yes, which is why people are working on things like Nautilus. These features are gradually appearing.
Problem is, the "gradual" appearance of such features will compound UI inconsistency problems.
Graphical programs that allow you to manipulate init scripts in a more sensible way exist
Dunno about you, but I've had some pretty bad experiences with such GUI tools attempting to modify my config files. In general, they don't seem very robust.
Sure stuff like ActiveDesktop or Win98 Explorer (with the integrated preview) are not absolutely necessary, but they're nice to have
I have to admit I've never really heard anyone rave about ActiveDesktop other than Microsoft. I've used it, and didn't think it was that great. Not sure why my desktop wants or needs to be a web page. Ther former seems considerably more task-oriented than the latter.
Hmmm... my coworker tried for a few days to get an USB Espon color printer installed under Windows 2000, and eventually just gave up. Downloaded the newest drivers, etc.
Neither do I (did I say anything like that?). But the comparison by the author was not between Linux and MacOS X, the comparison was between UNIX and MacOS X. UNIX (meaning, what the systems research lab at Bell Labs developed) was consistent, well designed, and clean.
Point taken. My mistake.
UNIX started from scratch and developed a few novel paradigms that worked well for its user base at the time. If only Apple had done the same with their next generation OS.
They tried that with Copland (and Pink, with IBM), but that didn't really end up working.
Instead, Apple did what they have always done: get a bunch of technology from other companies and market the hell out of it.
Have you ever heard of "not invented here?" For a long time, Apple only shipped technology developed internally. Only recently has it started this practice of incorporating industry standards and external technology like USB, AGP, the new codec in QuickTime 3/4, and tons of other stuff that I'm forgetting.
Yes, it is still better than Windows NT, but that doesn't make it much less disappointing. For true innovation, we'll apparently have to look elsewhere.
I think you may be judging too swiftly, prematurely and harshly.
Most PC users are looking to upgrade after six months to a year while Mac users use their machines for a few years as is and then buy a new one. I bought my first Mac three years ago for desktop publishing three years ago, [...] and I just bought a 500mhz powerbook a few month's ago that will last me another 3-4 years.
Another interesting point to make here --
While Apple's marketshare generally hovers around 5%, the installed base is much larger than the marketshare would suggest. Case in point -- Microsoft makes quite a bit of money off Mac Office, even in comparison to the rest of the company's applications income. The reason? Installed base.
Now the flipside of this is that wall street would rather see Apple making more money off their customers. So Apple has sort of split the difference -- giving more compelling reasons to upgrade. Dual G4s, FireWire, AirPort, new case designs, Mac OS 9-specific features (like iTools).
This is all a very watered-down version of this situation, but it is something to keep in mind.
Nothing, which is why I'm currently working on a linux distribution that incorporates essential ideas of mac interface design. [...] Then I'll throw it all into a nice distribution your grandmother can use
That's a step in the right direction. However, I think the weak link will be the apps and support utils. It's good that you're making a Mac-like (or at least the good parts) distro, but I don't know how many other software developers have the same goal.
You know what would be really cool? If somebody wrote a Quartz-like display layer for FreeBSD (replacing X.) With that and a little work on the GNUStep project, we'd have our own little (probably faster) version of OS X on Intel
A solid idea, but I think there's a bit more to Mac OS X than OpenStep APIs and a display layer.;)
I believe Aqua is the closest equivalency to X-windows. If not I am looking for said closest equivalent.
Aqua is really just a theme, for the most part. It's the appearance. I suppose the special effects are technically part of Aqua as well. The closet thing to X-Windows would be the window server. I don't think it has any special name.
Anyway, in terms of remote control, the other poster covered many facets of this nicely. However, in terms of out-of-the-box, native remote GUI control, I'm pretty sure OpenStep had this, but I think I heard it was not part of Mac OS X -- yet. Of course, I could be wrong in both cases, but this is the knowledge I've been working with.
You said it's not really necessary as binaries are the normal way of distributing software. So what are the cons?
I think you may have interpretted my posting differently than I meant it. Here's the meaning I intended:
If compilers are included, some developers (particularly long-time *nix developers) may expect users to just build their own software, and deal with any builder errors that come up. This would not be a good user experience. This is the main con. However, leave the compilers out (as Windows does), and more likely than not, all Mac OS X software will come in binary form, saving users a ton of hassle. And the type of software I'm chiefly concerned with, by the way, is non-GUI server software like Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc. All of these things come in binary form for Windows, largely because there are no compilers included.
The developer endures very little hassle by comparison. At the very least the "hassle" is placed a very small group of people versus the entire Mac OS X population. Developers can either grab the compilers from Darwin (for free), or download them from ADC next month (also for free). Or, you can also pay a few hundred dollars and get all sorts of developer tools mailed to you each month on CD, as well as getting OS updates before everyone else.
As for the other cons -- they are minor like extra hard disk space being consumed, more files to deal with during searches and backups, etc.
Apple's Darwin team sort of answers this in the Darwin FAQ.
Apple wants to regain their hold on anyone using mac hardware, instead of having ppl using ported linux distributions, as *everyone* knows BSD now natively runs linux apps and is far more secure than linux.
I don't think Linux on PPC was a big factor. I don't think Linux was even really Linux actively used on PPC back in 1997 (when Apple bought NeXT).
Also they are hoping to gain a larger user base as many people who use *NIX will be wanting to give their new user friendly OS which is actually unix a try..
Certainly a factor.
now as they have ported everything to BSD does this mean BSD will now be able to run their apps?
probably not, you will need their own gui
It's much more than the GUI. There's also QuickTime (intergral part of Mac OS), Aqua, Quartz, Carbon, Cocoa. I think the only thing out of that list that might work on BSD is Cocoa via GNUStep.
this means you have no hope in running X apps on that
There are several efforts underway for this, as other posters have mentioned. You could probably get xclock running today if you wanted.
This would please me as their are a lot of mac apps out there which i would love to use on linux especially quick time.
QuickTime is much more than an "app." It's an entire multimedia infrastructure.
the MacOS is not the driving force behind Apple's sales.
I think that's a bit presumptious. I know the classic slashdot opinion is that the machines just sell because they're fancy colors, and while that may be a factor, it's not the only motivator -- particularly with long-time Mac fans.
Today, people buy a mac because it looks so damn cool.
That's nice and all, but that's know why I buy them. I buy them because it's the best tool for the work I do.
If the iMac (or cube, tower, etc) were running windows, people would buy it.
I disagree. In fact, one might look at the experimental industrial designs put out by other PC manufacturers (Compaq, Dell) that have failed.
This is why Darwin exists. Apple hopes that the OSS process will apply to its darwin and individual developers will scratch their respective itches and bring breadth to darwin's hardware support.
It's not just getting the drivers running on Darwin. Windows, in theory, has better driver support than anything else, but it still has tons of hardware/software compatibility problems. Apple would not be immune from this, and it would damage the brand name.
I think the entry-level iMac is a good deal. However, I must correct you. The entry-level iMac does not come with FireWire nor is it "AirPort-ready". You'd need the $999 iMac DV for those features.
Not as much effort as Intel and Microsoft have put into backward compatibility. (Lotus 1-2-3 R2 and Word 2.0 on Windows 2000 work great, despite the fact nobody uses them.)
That's good and all, but Duke Nukem doesn't run on W2K.:)
Office will only run in the Classic environment (RAM-hungry emulator running Mac OS 9) for about another year before Microsoft updates Office 2001 to be Carbon-compliant.
Actually, I think they are skipping Carbon compliance and going straight for Cocoa. I could have misread, so don't quote me.
Anyway, a good point to make is that even though Office will run in the Classic environment, it will probably still run significantly better and be more integrated than running Office 2000 on Solaris or Linux via a Win32 emulator. Plus, it doesn't have to run in a separate window.
Or did you actually think for a second that $800 for the lowest end of the entry level is cheap?
I didn't say "cheap," but I think "reasonable" is a good word. Also, unlike many sub-$1000 machines, this price is not contigent on signing up for three years of ISP service. The iMac also has built-in ethernet, speakers and FireWire, and ability to upgrade to wirless networking for $100. Find me another $800 machine with those features.
Macs went themeing many years ago with Kagi Software's Kaleidoscope
Actually, Mac OS 8.5 and higher has built in theming. Apple just never publicized how to make themes (or released any on its own). Some people did some reverse engineering magic and figured it out, though.
The hardware is better
Oh, no. I sense a flameware coming. Let's preempt this and say that Apple hardware has some great advantages, but x86 is probably a bit cheaper on average and better for hacking around with.
Slashdot Mirror
Your original iMac will be able to run MacOS X very reasonably. Why do you think it wouldn't?
The article told him so.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
If BeOS can run on my machine, so can MacOS X
I'm sorry, but Mac OS X is so vastly different from BeOS that this just doesn't make sense.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
The config files are ugly. (My thinking is that the whole mess in /etc could be condensed into a dozen well planned files.)
I think Apple actually has a good approach to this in OSX. It is transitioning the config files into XML, with a specialized XML editor as the front end. And since it's XML (and not some file format made up at 3am), other replacement editors could easily do the same job.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Yes, which is why people are working on things like Nautilus. These features are gradually appearing.
Problem is, the "gradual" appearance of such features will compound UI inconsistency problems.
Graphical programs that allow you to manipulate init scripts in a more sensible way exist
Dunno about you, but I've had some pretty bad experiences with such GUI tools attempting to modify my config files. In general, they don't seem very robust.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Sure stuff like ActiveDesktop or Win98 Explorer (with the integrated preview) are not absolutely necessary, but they're nice to have
I have to admit I've never really heard anyone rave about ActiveDesktop other than Microsoft. I've used it, and didn't think it was that great. Not sure why my desktop wants or needs to be a web page. Ther former seems considerably more task-oriented than the latter.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I hope it is more like USB in Windows 2000
Hmmm... my coworker tried for a few days to get an USB Espon color printer installed under Windows 2000, and eventually just gave up. Downloaded the newest drivers, etc.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Neither do I (did I say anything like that?). But the comparison by the author was not between Linux and MacOS X, the comparison was between UNIX and MacOS X. UNIX (meaning, what the systems research lab at Bell Labs developed) was consistent, well designed, and clean.
Point taken. My mistake.
UNIX started from scratch and developed a few novel paradigms that worked well for its user base at the time. If only Apple had done the same with their next generation OS.
They tried that with Copland (and Pink, with IBM), but that didn't really end up working.
Instead, Apple did what they have always done: get a bunch of technology from other companies and market the hell out of it.
Have you ever heard of "not invented here?" For a long time, Apple only shipped technology developed internally. Only recently has it started this practice of incorporating industry standards and external technology like USB, AGP, the new codec in QuickTime 3/4, and tons of other stuff that I'm forgetting.
Yes, it is still better than Windows NT, but that doesn't make it much less disappointing. For true innovation, we'll apparently have to look elsewhere.
I think you may be judging too swiftly, prematurely and harshly.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Most PC users are looking to upgrade after six months to a year while Mac users use their machines for a few years as is and then buy a new one. I bought my first Mac three years ago for desktop publishing three years ago, [...] and I just bought a 500mhz powerbook a few month's ago that will last me another 3-4 years.
Another interesting point to make here --
While Apple's marketshare generally hovers around 5%, the installed base is much larger than the marketshare would suggest. Case in point -- Microsoft makes quite a bit of money off Mac Office, even in comparison to the rest of the company's applications income. The reason? Installed base.
Now the flipside of this is that wall street would rather see Apple making more money off their customers. So Apple has sort of split the difference -- giving more compelling reasons to upgrade. Dual G4s, FireWire, AirPort, new case designs, Mac OS 9-specific features (like iTools).
This is all a very watered-down version of this situation, but it is something to keep in mind.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Nothing, which is why I'm currently working on a linux distribution that incorporates essential ideas of mac interface design. [...] Then I'll throw it all into a nice distribution your grandmother can use
That's a step in the right direction. However, I think the weak link will be the apps and support utils. It's good that you're making a Mac-like (or at least the good parts) distro, but I don't know how many other software developers have the same goal.
It's a start, though.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
You know what would be really cool? If somebody wrote a Quartz-like display layer for FreeBSD (replacing X.) With that and a little work on the GNUStep project, we'd have our own little (probably faster) version of OS X on Intel
;)
A solid idea, but I think there's a bit more to Mac OS X than OpenStep APIs and a display layer.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I believe Aqua is the closest equivalency to X-windows. If not I am looking for said closest equivalent.
Aqua is really just a theme, for the most part. It's the appearance. I suppose the special effects are technically part of Aqua as well. The closet thing to X-Windows would be the window server. I don't think it has any special name.
Anyway, in terms of remote control, the other poster covered many facets of this nicely. However, in terms of out-of-the-box, native remote GUI control, I'm pretty sure OpenStep had this, but I think I heard it was not part of Mac OS X -- yet. Of course, I could be wrong in both cases, but this is the knowledge I've been working with.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
You said it's not really necessary as binaries are the normal way of distributing software. So what are the cons?
I think you may have interpretted my posting differently than I meant it. Here's the meaning I intended:
If compilers are included, some developers (particularly long-time *nix developers) may expect users to just build their own software, and deal with any builder errors that come up. This would not be a good user experience. This is the main con. However, leave the compilers out (as Windows does), and more likely than not, all Mac OS X software will come in binary form, saving users a ton of hassle. And the type of software I'm chiefly concerned with, by the way, is non-GUI server software like Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc. All of these things come in binary form for Windows, largely because there are no compilers included.
The developer endures very little hassle by comparison. At the very least the "hassle" is placed a very small group of people versus the entire Mac OS X population. Developers can either grab the compilers from Darwin (for free), or download them from ADC next month (also for free). Or, you can also pay a few hundred dollars and get all sorts of developer tools mailed to you each month on CD, as well as getting OS updates before everyone else.
As for the other cons -- they are minor like extra hard disk space being consumed, more files to deal with during searches and backups, etc.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Any X that winds up in there will be by the grace of Carmack.
There are others doing this, including a commercial effort from Tenon, which is famous for providing Unix compatibility on the Mac.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
The reason Apple has based MAC OS X on UNIX
Apple's Darwin team sort of answers this in the Darwin FAQ.
Apple wants to regain their hold on anyone using mac hardware, instead of having ppl using ported linux distributions, as *everyone* knows BSD now natively runs linux apps and is far more secure than linux.
I don't think Linux on PPC was a big factor. I don't think Linux was even really Linux actively used on PPC back in 1997 (when Apple bought NeXT).
Also they are hoping to gain a larger user base as many people who use *NIX will be wanting to give their new user friendly OS which is actually unix a try..
Certainly a factor.
now as they have ported everything to BSD does this mean BSD will now be able to run their apps?
probably not, you will need their own gui
It's much more than the GUI. There's also QuickTime (intergral part of Mac OS), Aqua, Quartz, Carbon, Cocoa. I think the only thing out of that list that might work on BSD is Cocoa via GNUStep.
this means you have no hope in running X apps on that
There are several efforts underway for this, as other posters have mentioned. You could probably get xclock running today if you wanted.
This would please me as their are a lot of mac apps out there which i would love to use on linux especially quick time.
QuickTime is much more than an "app." It's an entire multimedia infrastructure.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
The part about the MAC ( pre os x i assume ) being a sport roadster and unix box being the pug-ugly workhorse
I think the author was referring more to the end-user experience than the kernel.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
the MacOS is not the driving force behind Apple's sales.
I think that's a bit presumptious. I know the classic slashdot opinion is that the machines just sell because they're fancy colors, and while that may be a factor, it's not the only motivator -- particularly with long-time Mac fans.
Today, people buy a mac because it looks so damn cool.
That's nice and all, but that's know why I buy them. I buy them because it's the best tool for the work I do.
If the iMac (or cube, tower, etc) were running windows, people would buy it.
I disagree. In fact, one might look at the experimental industrial designs put out by other PC manufacturers (Compaq, Dell) that have failed.
This is why Darwin exists. Apple hopes that the OSS process will apply to its darwin and individual developers will scratch their respective itches and bring breadth to darwin's hardware support.
It's not just getting the drivers running on Darwin. Windows, in theory, has better driver support than anything else, but it still has tons of hardware/software compatibility problems. Apple would not be immune from this, and it would damage the brand name.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
So what are the cons?
I believe I covered that in the original post.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I think the entry-level iMac is a good deal. However, I must correct you. The entry-level iMac does not come with FireWire nor is it "AirPort-ready". You'd need the $999 iMac DV for those features.
You're right. My mistake.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
But it's all about 10 years too late as NeXT did it all back then
Ah, but this time, the revolution doesn't cost $10,000.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Not as much effort as Intel and Microsoft have put into backward compatibility. (Lotus 1-2-3 R2 and Word 2.0 on Windows 2000 work great, despite the fact nobody uses them.)
:)
That's good and all, but Duke Nukem doesn't run on W2K.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
The default is HFS+ (4K block size) which has a 32 char per node name maximum
I think you're thinking of HFS (without the plus). HFS+ is capable of much longer filenames, but Mac OS 9 just doesn't utilize them.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Perl is included in OS X, so the application could just use that as the scripting language.
Or, if you're so inclined, AppleScript.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Office will only run in the Classic environment (RAM-hungry emulator running Mac OS 9) for about another year before Microsoft updates Office 2001 to be Carbon-compliant.
Actually, I think they are skipping Carbon compliance and going straight for Cocoa. I could have misread, so don't quote me.
Anyway, a good point to make is that even though Office will run in the Classic environment, it will probably still run significantly better and be more integrated than running Office 2000 on Solaris or Linux via a Win32 emulator. Plus, it doesn't have to run in a separate window.
Emulation is never optimal, however.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Or did you actually think for a second that $800 for the lowest end of the entry level is cheap?
I didn't say "cheap," but I think "reasonable" is a good word. Also, unlike many sub-$1000 machines, this price is not contigent on signing up for three years of ISP service. The iMac also has built-in ethernet, speakers and FireWire, and ability to upgrade to wirless networking for $100. Find me another $800 machine with those features.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Macs went themeing many years ago with Kagi Software's Kaleidoscope
Actually, Mac OS 8.5 and higher has built in theming. Apple just never publicized how to make themes (or released any on its own). Some people did some reverse engineering magic and figured it out, though.
The hardware is better
Oh, no. I sense a flameware coming. Let's preempt this and say that Apple hardware has some great advantages, but x86 is probably a bit cheaper on average and better for hacking around with.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson