X11 implementations exist that run in less than 1Mbyte of RAM. Applications for X11 run on 16bit embedded systems and can be implemented in binaries a few kilobytes large.
Yes, I meant PC-based systems.
Look at the processes on your Mac to see how huge even the simplest applications are. Terminal on X11 uses 1/6th the memory and is 80 times faster at displaying text than Terminal.app on my Mac (1GHz Athlon vs. 600MHz PPC), and that's true for many other applications as well.
Um... what's that got to do with anything? You said the X11 implementation on Mac OS X stinks, and then you compare X11 on an Athlon to non-X11 on a Mac, neither of which has anything to do with X11 on a Mac.
When a user installs X11, there are no links to X11 applications anywhere to be found in the Finder.
When a user runs X11, there are links to X11 applications right in front of them, in the menu.
When they manage to find the "xterm" executable (or almost any other X11 executable), it doesn't run when they double click on it.
Neither does this happen in many other X11 environments.
If they switch to the shell and try to run it from the command line, it won't run either because they need to set a DISPLAY environment variable.
Not if they execute it within xterm, which opens automatically on running XDarwin.
Maybe they figure out how to install OroborusX, but that's a limited set of applications, not usually what the user wants to run.
So, as with every other OS, they type its name on the command line if they don't see it there. Remember, we are talking about smart people here, the ones you say are smart enough to use MATLAB, but somehow not smart enough to type the name of a program to run.
The main point here is that a. anyone who wants X11 can figure it out easily, and b. almost no one wants X11. If Apple bundled it, that wouldn't change. People don't want X11 because X11 sucks. People only use it when they have to use it, to get at specialized software. People would rather use an inferior IRC client in Cocoa or Carbon than a better one in X11, even if X11 is installed and configured, because X11 inherently sucks a lot more.
Too bad it doesn't run most of the scienctific and engineering software people use. Heck, it doesn't even run Matlab--for that you need X11.
Yes, of course you need X11 for certain things. No kidding.
Yup, a gearhead like you would snicker. Most people find the idea of downloading a 53Mbyte package, installing it, setting it up to auto-start at startup, figuring out DISPLAY settings, and all that daunting.
There is no need to set DISPLAY settings, and there is no need for it to start automatically. And no one who can install MATLAB could possibly find installing XFree86 for Mac OS X to be difficult or "daunting." You are just making stuff up.
And when you are done, you end up with a flickering, sluggish, and bloated implementation of X11.
Like every other implementation of X11, you mean. So?
If Apple wants to make MacOSX an easy-to-use UNIX workstation alternative, they need to make X11 applications as easy to start up as double-clicking on an icon--just like Carbon or Cocoa apps--with nothing to download, install, or configure.
This is just stupid. It is as easy to download and install as any other software program. It's easier to configure than X11 on any other platform, except for machines that come with it already configured, which isn't the case with most Linux and BSD machines, as already shown. And anyone can make an X11 app that will just start on double-clicking its icon. It's not difficult.
And that makes the Mac a minor player when it comes to the UNIX workstation market. Apple should stop marketing it as such until they actually support a standard suite of workstation software out of the box.
They do. You making stuff up about it not won't change anything.
To be supported is not the same as to be included.
To me it is.... Redefining terms doesn't change the fact.
I am not the one redefining terms.:)
If a scientific or engineering user can't download XFree86 and click "Install"
It's not that simple.
You're right, it's not. You have to type in your password (one would hope one would know this), select a language (one would really hope one would know this), then click Next a few times, before clicking Install. My bad. Excuse me while I snicker.
Even if it were that simple, it's a headache.
... ? If X11 were included, it would be on the Developer Tools CD. This is no more difficult than installing from the Developer Tools CD. I'd say it's even easier, because the installer is smaller and faster.
And heck, it is less painful to get it running on Mac OS X than any Linux box I've ever used. Even though it's part of the default install, Xconfigurator by itself always takes a lot more pain than XFree86 does on Mac OS X, which is merely clicking a few buttons. No configuration required.
I don't have to download and install the window system for my UNIX or Linux workstation--why should I have to do it for my premium-priced Mac?
Because the premium-priced Mac already comes with a far superior windowing system, and very few people will ever use X11 on a Mac.
Altogether, my MacOSX machines are a lot more work to maintain than my Linux machines.
Altogether, I think you are a troll. That statement makes no sense, and you've not done anything to back it up. You said a lot of incorrect things about X11 not being supported, and being difficult to install. Even if you want to redefine "supported" to mean "included," it still doesn't come out to "a lot more work" because it is so easy to install. Anyone who knows their own password and what language they speak can do it. I am not sure if that includes you, or not, but none of the rest of us seem to have headaches installing it.
And not for nothing, but your spelling could use some work. There's no such thing as UNIX or MacOSX, it's Unix and Mac OS X. That's not a spelling flame, just a helpful tip.
Just about every "fact" you state in your posts is incorrect.
To be supported is not the same as to be included. X11 is supported on Mac OS X. Mac OS X does have X11 support. To say otherwise is incorrect. Apple itself does not offer X11 support, but X11 runs just fine on Mac OS X.
X11 did not break in 10.2, only a few programs that run in XFree86 broke. The only one I am aware of is xterm, and you don't need to reinstall X11, you just need to install a small fix for xterm.
There IS NO lack of availability of X11 on Mac OS X. If a developer is discouraged by something that isn't true, that's his problem, I guess. You can keep saying it, but it isn't remotely true.
No one has to download X11 source, fink, or any development environment to use X11 on Mac OS X. You download the XFree86 installer (plus the updater for your Mac OS X version). You double-click it. You click a few buttons. You're done.
If a scientific or engineering user can't download XFree86 and click "Install", then perhaps they shouldn't be using computers. It's not at all difficult to install or set up. Matlab is also not included with Mac OS X, and I don't hear people complaining about that. Matlab is certainly no easier to install than XFree86 is.
I didn't post it because of Pepper itself, but because of what the developer had to say. I personally think he has an interesting perspective, and I think others would agree. Perhaps the article title should have been different in light of that; c'est la vie.
Why doesn't pudge review Yellow Dog Linux, or Mandrake for PPC?
Two big reasons. 1. Fewer people care. 2. I don't use those OSes, and to use them enough to write a reaonable review would take an unstifiable amount of my time (see reason 1).
Well, it does have to do with Rendezvous, in that while all my other services worked with the borked subnet mask, Rendezvous discovery did not. It has nothing to do with Rendezvous configuration, but I was very clear about that in the review: that the configuration error was with my network, and that once that was fixed, Rendezvous worked fine. So I fail to see what the problem is. Oh well.
A copy of 10.0 or 10.0 only allows *one* client. Apple has increased your options by allowing a relatively inexpensive five-client license. Mac OS X 10.2 is not more restrictive in how many copies you can run, it is less restrictive.
I tried that. It didn't work. And the Receipt only existed for the Remote Desktop 10.2 update (1.1), not the others (1.0 and 1.0.1), so I couldn't uninstall them.
I finally got ARD to run after deleting a pref file.
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.
Yes, if you mess up part of the configuration, then zeroconf may not work. That is precisely what I said. Thanks, I guess...
LOL. It's not that hard. When I said "printer sharing... via Rendezvous," I meant "making available, and finding, a shared printer via Rendezvous." Most people seemed to get it. You didn't. I could have been slightly more clear; but surely you could have understood.
What I did was modify the AppleScript application that does this (assuming there has been an ssh-agent started, and that its info was available in the environment):
try
do shell script "/usr/bin/ssh-add" end try
to this:
try
do shell script "/usr/bin/ssh-agent -s | grep -v echo > ~/.bashenv; source.bashenv;/usr/bin/ssh-add" end try
Then I added "source.bashenv" to my.bash_profile. It doesn't provide ssh-agent to GUI apps, but I rarely need that, I primarily want it for the Terminal.:-)
No, it wasn't AppleTalk. AppleTalk is turned off on all my machines. Heck, it sounds like you don't understand AppleTalk, because changing subnet masks would have nothing to do with AppleTalk, which doesn't rely on TCP/IP.:-)
I don't know why you think what I said is problematic; oh, maybe you thought from my language I meant that there is some special protocol to print over. 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).
Jaguar Printer Sharing is completely incompatible with OS 9 Printer Sharing, in both directions.
Not quite true. A shared printer on Jaguar can, theoretically, be accessed as an lpr printer, and then printed to using the generic printer description and the LaserWriter printer driver on Mac OS 9. Yeah, it sucks, but it is better than nothing. Maybe.
I don't know what Apple Europe produced, but Apple produced the GeoPort telephony stuff. It didn't work great, but some people used it. Some people probably still do.
You had it ".htm" instead of ".html", dumbass.;-) I fixed it originally when I edited it, but then started over and forget to re-fix it. Then when I later saw the error, I fixed it again.
I wrote aoliza_ripoff.plx one week after this patent was applied for, basing it on AOLiza (in purpose, not code, as I didn't have the AOLiza code) which was written (or, at least, in use) a few weeks before the patent was applied for.
Then there's Net::AIM, which includes this text, from over a year before the patent was applied for:
# This script is a simple script that creates an aimbot # shamelessly adapted from Net::IRC
Oops.
And yeah, I figured that AOL had to have bots running for many years on AOL chats and AIM. That's a no-brainer.
Integrated track balls were great, but were the source of too many hardware problems. They constantly needed cleaning and the mechanisms were fairly fragile.
The hotels are a concern, but the fact that it was split between two sites is not. The next one won't be, that's the point.
As to public transit, Boston's is far better than NYC's in my opinion. It's not as easy to get a cab, but far easier and less crowded to ride the subway, which goes almost everywhere, within a few blocks.
As to the sites and restaurants in NYC, I think most of them suck, and I am certainly not alone. New York culture sucks. I could use a stronger word, but I am trying to be as polite as possible. The fact that it has "world-wide cachet" just means the world has no taste.
And Boston is the #2 financial city in the country, not that it matters.
So you're saying that the early adopters set their hopes too high and then kept telling people it sucked even when it was very good? OK, I'll buy that, I'll just blame you instead.
If you have a directory of MP3s that 1. is an album and 2. are in order, then you can use a program in the MP3::Info module distribution to do this. I've used it many times. Meng Weng Wong wrote the program, I wrote the module, and it's on the CPAN.
I think by default the program doesn't actually write the ID3 info to the MP3 file, but it's a simple edit to make that happen. You also need the CDDB module from the CPAN.
Slashdot Mirror
X11 implementations exist that run in less than 1Mbyte of RAM. Applications for X11 run on 16bit embedded systems and can be implemented in binaries a few kilobytes large.
... what's that got to do with anything? You said the X11 implementation on Mac OS X stinks, and then you compare X11 on an Athlon to non-X11 on a Mac, neither of which has anything to do with X11 on a Mac.
Yes, I meant PC-based systems.
Look at the processes on your Mac to see how huge even the simplest applications are. Terminal on X11 uses 1/6th the memory and is 80 times faster at displaying text than Terminal.app on my Mac (1GHz Athlon vs. 600MHz PPC), and that's true for many other applications as well.
Um
When a user installs X11, there are no links to X11 applications anywhere to be found in the Finder.
When a user runs X11, there are links to X11 applications right in front of them, in the menu.
When they manage to find the "xterm" executable (or almost any other X11 executable), it doesn't run when they double click on it.
Neither does this happen in many other X11 environments.
If they switch to the shell and try to run it from the command line, it won't run either because they need to set a DISPLAY environment variable.
Not if they execute it within xterm, which opens automatically on running XDarwin.
Maybe they figure out how to install OroborusX, but that's a limited set of applications, not usually what the user wants to run.
So, as with every other OS, they type its name on the command line if they don't see it there. Remember, we are talking about smart people here, the ones you say are smart enough to use MATLAB, but somehow not smart enough to type the name of a program to run.
The main point here is that a. anyone who wants X11 can figure it out easily, and b. almost no one wants X11. If Apple bundled it, that wouldn't change. People don't want X11 because X11 sucks. People only use it when they have to use it, to get at specialized software. People would rather use an inferior IRC client in Cocoa or Carbon than a better one in X11, even if X11 is installed and configured, because X11 inherently sucks a lot more.
Too bad it doesn't run most of the scienctific and engineering software people use. Heck, it doesn't even run Matlab--for that you need X11.
Yes, of course you need X11 for certain things. No kidding.
Yup, a gearhead like you would snicker. Most people find the idea of downloading a 53Mbyte package, installing it, setting it up to auto-start at startup, figuring out DISPLAY settings, and all that daunting.
There is no need to set DISPLAY settings, and there is no need for it to start automatically. And no one who can install MATLAB could possibly find installing XFree86 for Mac OS X to be difficult or "daunting." You are just making stuff up.
And when you are done, you end up with a flickering, sluggish, and bloated implementation of X11.
Like every other implementation of X11, you mean. So?
If Apple wants to make MacOSX an easy-to-use UNIX workstation alternative, they need to make X11 applications as easy to start up as double-clicking on an icon--just like Carbon or Cocoa apps--with nothing to download, install, or configure.
This is just stupid. It is as easy to download and install as any other software program. It's easier to configure than X11 on any other platform, except for machines that come with it already configured, which isn't the case with most Linux and BSD machines, as already shown. And anyone can make an X11 app that will just start on double-clicking its icon. It's not difficult.
And that makes the Mac a minor player when it comes to the UNIX workstation market. Apple should stop marketing it as such until they actually support a standard suite of workstation software out of the box.
They do. You making stuff up about it not won't change anything.
To me it is. ... Redefining terms doesn't change the fact.
I am not the one redefining terms. :)
It's not that simple.
You're right, it's not. You have to type in your password (one would hope one would know this), select a language (one would really hope one would know this), then click Next a few times, before clicking Install. My bad. Excuse me while I snicker.
Even if it were that simple, it's a headache.
... ? If X11 were included, it would be on the Developer Tools CD. This is no more difficult than installing from the Developer Tools CD. I'd say it's even easier, because the installer is smaller and faster.
And heck, it is less painful to get it running on Mac OS X than any Linux box I've ever used. Even though it's part of the default install, Xconfigurator by itself always takes a lot more pain than XFree86 does on Mac OS X, which is merely clicking a few buttons. No configuration required.
I don't have to download and install the window system for my UNIX or Linux workstation--why should I have to do it for my premium-priced Mac?
Because the premium-priced Mac already comes with a far superior windowing system, and very few people will ever use X11 on a Mac.
Altogether, my MacOSX machines are a lot more work to maintain than my Linux machines.
Altogether, I think you are a troll. That statement makes no sense, and you've not done anything to back it up. You said a lot of incorrect things about X11 not being supported, and being difficult to install. Even if you want to redefine "supported" to mean "included," it still doesn't come out to "a lot more work" because it is so easy to install. Anyone who knows their own password and what language they speak can do it. I am not sure if that includes you, or not, but none of the rest of us seem to have headaches installing it.
And not for nothing, but your spelling could use some work. There's no such thing as UNIX or MacOSX, it's Unix and Mac OS X. That's not a spelling flame, just a helpful tip.
I didn't post it because of Pepper itself, but because of what the developer had to say. I personally think he has an interesting perspective, and I think others would agree. Perhaps the article title should have been different in light of that; c'est la vie.
Why doesn't pudge review Yellow Dog Linux, or Mandrake for PPC?
Two big reasons. 1. Fewer people care. 2. I don't use those OSes, and to use them enough to write a reaonable review would take an unstifiable amount of my time (see reason 1).
Well, it does have to do with Rendezvous, in that while all my other services worked with the borked subnet mask, Rendezvous discovery did not. It has nothing to do with Rendezvous configuration, but I was very clear about that in the review: that the configuration error was with my network, and that once that was fixed, Rendezvous worked fine. So I fail to see what the problem is. Oh well.
A copy of 10.0 or 10.0 only allows *one* client. Apple has increased your options by allowing a relatively inexpensive five-client license. Mac OS X 10.2 is not more restrictive in how many copies you can run, it is less restrictive.
I tried that. It didn't work. And the Receipt only existed for the Remote Desktop 10.2 update (1.1), not the others (1.0 and 1.0.1), so I couldn't uninstall them.
I finally got ARD to run after deleting a pref file.
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.
...
Yes, if you mess up part of the configuration, then zeroconf may not work. That is precisely what I said. Thanks, I guess
LOL. It's not that hard. When I said "printer sharing ... via Rendezvous," I meant "making available, and finding, a shared printer via Rendezvous." Most people seemed to get it. You didn't. I could have been slightly more clear; but surely you could have understood.
No, it wasn't AppleTalk. AppleTalk is turned off on all my machines. Heck, it sounds like you don't understand AppleTalk, because changing subnet masks would have nothing to do with AppleTalk, which doesn't rely on TCP/IP. :-)
I don't know why you think what I said is problematic; oh, maybe you thought from my language I meant that there is some special protocol to print over. 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).
Jaguar Printer Sharing is completely incompatible with OS 9 Printer Sharing, in both directions.
Not quite true. A shared printer on Jaguar can, theoretically, be accessed as an lpr printer, and then printed to using the generic printer description and the LaserWriter printer driver on Mac OS 9. Yeah, it sucks, but it is better than nothing. Maybe.
I ran into the same problem with SharePoints and eventually had to move the entire pile of folders to my public folder to share. BAH
I can't do that; the files I want to share are on an external FireWire drive.
Yeah, I see no reason for Apple to make their own, rather than partnering.
I don't know what Apple Europe produced, but Apple produced the GeoPort telephony stuff. It didn't work great, but some people used it. Some people probably still do.
You had it ".htm" instead of ".html", dumbass. ;-) I fixed it originally when I edited it, but then started over and forget to re-fix it. Then when I later saw the error, I fixed it again.
Then there's Net::AIM, which includes this text, from over a year before the patent was applied for:Oops.
And yeah, I figured that AOL had to have bots running for many years on AOL chats and AIM. That's a no-brainer.
Integrated track balls were great, but were the source of too many hardware problems. They constantly needed cleaning and the mechanisms were fairly fragile.
business-wise, Boston is third-tier
That make little sense. My only response is the quote from This Is Spinal Tap that you reminded me of.
"The Boston gig's been cancelled... I wouldn't worry about it, though. It's not a big college town."
The hotels are a concern, but the fact that it was split between two sites is not. The next one won't be, that's the point.
As to public transit, Boston's is far better than NYC's in my opinion. It's not as easy to get a cab, but far easier and less crowded to ride the subway, which goes almost everywhere, within a few blocks.
As to the sites and restaurants in NYC, I think most of them suck, and I am certainly not alone. New York culture sucks. I could use a stronger word, but I am trying to be as polite as possible. The fact that it has "world-wide cachet" just means the world has no taste.
And Boston is the #2 financial city in the country, not that it matters.
So you're saying that the early adopters set their hopes too high and then kept telling people it sucked even when it was very good? OK, I'll buy that, I'll just blame you instead.
Yeah, I've now seen copies that do have the rebate for 10.2. The one I saw previously did not.
If you have a directory of MP3s that 1. is an album and 2. are in order, then you can use a program in the MP3::Info module distribution to do this. I've used it many times. Meng Weng Wong wrote the program, I wrote the module, and it's on the CPAN.
I think by default the program doesn't actually write the ID3 info to the MP3 file, but it's a simple edit to make that happen. You also need the CDDB module from the CPAN.