AT&T Broadband is the cable company here. I understand they also own Media One (so Media One is basically just another name for AT&T). Excite@Home is the ISP - you wouldn't pay them directly, but they provide your e-mail account and 'Net connection.
There it is! You now have MSIE 5 under linux. The mysterious hidden MS internet experience we all hear of (but no one can quite point to) can now be had under Linux. If it's like that dog for unix, it loads most of DOS with it. Linux to run Mac to run DOS, ahhhh! infinite regresion!
MSIE for Mac really has nothing to do with MSIE for Windows. MSIE for Mac is a decent, well-behaved Mac app, following basic Mac rules. Parts of the rendering engine may be derived from MSIE/Win source code, but most of the app was rewritten from scratch by Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit in California. It's one of the most standards-compliant browsers available (much moreso than MSIE/Win).
A few differences:
Preferences at the bottom of the Edit menu, nice and organized, not hiding under Tools with convoluted tabs and buttons
MSIE/Mac lets you manage cookies; you can see all stored cookies in a list, show their values, delete them, etc. You can also choose which domains to accept and deny cookies from.
MSIE/Mac has its own Download Manager. All downloads are listed in one window, and they remain listed there (as a history) after downloading.
MSIE/Mac is MUCH prettier than MSIE/Win. It also includes multiple color schemes for the buttons and stuff.
Of course, it supports Internet Config, ColorSync, Location Manager and other Mac OS goodies.
It's easy to install (download and mount a disk image, drag the folder to your hard drive, launch the app) and easy to uninstall (drag the folder to the trash). To be thorough, trash some libraries in the Extensions folder, and the cache and other stuff in Preferences. MSIE/Win thinks it's part of the OS and can't be installed.
Basic features like right-clicking a graphic and selecting "Open Image In New Window" are missing from MSIE/Win. If you do open a graphic, MSIE/Mac shows you the dimensions in the title bar, like Netscape does; MSIE/Win does not. These two features come in very handy when doing Web design.
View Source shows a decent source window, in the same app (instead of launching Notepad), and it marks HTML tags in blue and comments in red. Much more readable.
Oh yeah, and it still works with Netscape plug-ins.
1) Older PowerPCs that won't run OSX can still run Linux
2) Some Linux apps haven't been ported to OSX yet (although some, like StarOffice, don't run on PPC at all AFAIK). Compiling stuff on OSX is a nightmare, particularly desktop stuff. I haven't been able to compile GTK+ (although I know others have gotten GTK+ to compile just fine), and haven't been able to compile KDE (using TrollTech's Qt/Mac demo).
3) Some people like the Linux From Scratch idea; you can't really do that with OSX.
I'm shocked that there isn't a small ad banner in the IE toolbar already.
Microsoft made the mistake of giving the option to disable the Channel Bar, so everyone did, and now they no longer push it, because in this market, the advertising revenues aren't worth the annoyance and frustration it causes customers. Especially when annoying the customers (especially IT staff) gives them yet another reason to move to Linux or Mac OS X.
Not anymore. Have you used Mac OS X? In OS X, you *need* to either use a multi-button mouse or control-click, because contextual menus are an indispensible part of the UI.
I have used Mac OS X, and I have not noticed this to be true. Can you give me a specific example?
Even the dimmest users are going to find using extra mouse buttons easier than key-button combinations.
This is arguable, but you may be right. Obviously, users with previous experience will find the control-click to be awkward and strange.
Besides, every piece of modern technology has a multi-button interface. The average car today has dozens of buttons for various purposes, microwave ovens have multiple buttons, televisions, radios, etc.
Absolutely not the same thing at all. A microwave or remote control uses multiple buttons like a keyboard, not like a mouse. Apple's usability testing from the early 80s showed that the brain considers the mouse to be an extension of your arm - you're not positioning the mouse and pressing a button, you're just pointing to something, as far as the brain is concerned. It takes a few minutes of getting used to, but once you've mastered it, that's how the brain deals with it - and expecting people to point to something with different fingers to mean different things is unnatural. The original Mac philosophy was that the computer should adjust to fit the way people work, not make people adjust to fit the way computers work.
Obviously, people can adjust, and have. For these people, a multi-button mouse is acceptible, and can indeed be very convenient and time-saving. However, it should not be a requirement for new users.
I don't know much about how this bill would be interpreted were it to come to law, but it seems to me that making security bugs known to the general public could be construed as giving advice to a hacker since, well, it alerts the general public to security problems.
Security sites often post code that can be used to exploit a particular hole, so that the hole can be better understood and more easily patched.
Does 2600 magazine qualify as an organization that gives advice to hackers, and would therefore be classified as a terrorist organization under this new bill?
The problem is that contextual menus play a large role in the OS X interface, so these people are going to have to learn how to access them sooner or later. You can either provide additional buttons, or you can resort to chording. Which do you think people are going to have an easier time with?
I haven't really noticed this. Can you give me some specific examples of how contextual menus are used more in OSX than in OS9?
The old Netscape click-and-hold idea is still used by the Dock, and I think it works rather well. I use a right-click myself, of course (it's faster). If I only had a single button, I'd use a control-click most of the time, but click-and-hold if I was feeling lazy.
He (or his UI design team) have made good decisions and some absolutely fucking stupid decisions.
Couldn't agree more.
The biggest and most annoying thing they've done is to persist in promoting the 1-button mouse. This is no longer a usability feature but a millstone around the Mac's neck.
The only thing they could possibly do better here is offer a multi-button mouse as an OPTION from their online store, and support it better in their OS*. I would be rather upset if they started shipping multi-button mice by default. You have no idea how many computer users are idiots - I've spent too many years in tech support to be able to recommend multi-button mice to anyone who isn't willing to go out of their way to get one.
Remember that the Mac OS is specifically designed to only require a single mouse button. Windows is designed for two, and X is designed for three. The Mac OS emulates a right-click with a control-click, so even with a single button, you can still get the same functionality, just not quite the same convenience.
Apple's Human Interface Guidelines (which the vast majority of Mac developers actually follow) specifically state that everything that can be done with a control-click should be doable another way - you should never be required to control-click (or right-click). This philosophy does not hold true for any other OS.
By the way, shortly after buying my iMac, I bought a Logitech Wingman Gaming Mouse, which has three buttons. I bought it for Unreal Tournament, but use it for everything. The original Apple mouse is in a drawer somewhere. I should probably sell it on eBay; I'm sure there's someone out there with a hockey puck mouse that would prefer the Apple Pro optical mouse.
* Apple's OS needs to recognize that some of us have multiple mouse buttons. Applications should be able to check for a right-click, instead of checking for a control-click. The OS should take a control-click and make it behave as a right-click as far as the app is concerned, instead of taking a right-click and making it emulate a control-click.
As someone else pointed out, Apple doesn't put FireWire on the PCI bus, and the current G4 systems have 64-bit 33MHz PCI slots. This is exactly why Ultra160 SCSI was available for Macs before PCs - Apple had a 64-bit PCI slot, where PCs didn't.
Fewer and fewer people are so unfamiliar with computers that multiple mouse buttons confuse them.
"Fewer" is still a HELL of a lot of people. I've been doing tech support for several years, and I am constantly amazed by Windows users who STILL can't figure out the difference between a single-right-click and a double-left-click. Apple's one-button mice are a godsend to tech support reps everywhere.
First, let me congratulate the dedicated people behind this. Yes well done. You have taken an free OS to port it to another free OS.
No, they took a feature of a free OS, and ported it to another free OS that didn't have that feature.
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
The people you heard that from were probably idiots. I can't think of another explanation offhand.
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
It allows Linux users to use the FreeBSD ports system to install software. If you don't know what that does or how it works, just say so.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
I'd say porting anything is not innovative, just by definition. They obviously haven't invented anything new here. That doesn't mean it's useless, though - I'm sure once it becomes more mainstream, many people will find it very useful.
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
Who are you to say what the "collective Linux brains" should be doing? These are people with free time who want to do something useful that they'll use themselves, not employees in a company doing what their boss tells them. Your sentence didn't make sense anyway.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
You're obviously not as smart as you think you are. The whole point of the ports system is to make things simpler than they otherwise would be, so average people can use it.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Somehow I don't think you'd know one way or the other.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
...which is exactly why they ported the BSD Ports system (which is a new feature to Linux, and is simple) to that Linux architecture you seem to like.
it's been a while since I've needed to run a gui app on unix, so I haven't yet played with using "ssh". I'm told ssh will automatically redirect the display so I don't have to remember how to "setenv";-)
Yes, that's correct. With OpenSSH, the capability is disabled by default; you have to edit sshd_config and ssh_config on the server and the client. It works very well. I've even done this:
xinit (gives an xterm on a blank screen with no window manager)
ssh remotehost
startkde
Not recommended for speed reasons, but it's neat that you CAN.
Don't get me wrong, X sucks ass, but do you really think Microsoft will do it significantly better?
Apple might have a better chance; they're still working on it at the moment but they'll be sending DisplayPDF commands instead of just bitmapped stuff, so things like dropshadows will be rendered on the client side (err, server side - that always throws me off).
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Broadband is the cable company here. I understand they also own Media One (so Media One is basically just another name for AT&T). Excite@Home is the ISP - you wouldn't pay them directly, but they provide your e-mail account and 'Net connection.
It's MacPaint, not McPaint. And if your Mac is that old, MOL is not gonna work for you. Thanks for trolling.
There it is! You now have MSIE 5 under linux. The mysterious hidden MS internet experience we all hear of (but no one can quite point to) can now be had under Linux. If it's like that dog for unix, it loads most of DOS with it. Linux to run Mac to run DOS, ahhhh! infinite regresion!
MSIE for Mac really has nothing to do with MSIE for Windows. MSIE for Mac is a decent, well-behaved Mac app, following basic Mac rules. Parts of the rendering engine may be derived from MSIE/Win source code, but most of the app was rewritten from scratch by Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit in California. It's one of the most standards-compliant browsers available (much moreso than MSIE/Win).
A few differences:
Preferences at the bottom of the Edit menu, nice and organized, not hiding under Tools with convoluted tabs and buttons
MSIE/Mac lets you manage cookies; you can see all stored cookies in a list, show their values, delete them, etc. You can also choose which domains to accept and deny cookies from.
MSIE/Mac has its own Download Manager. All downloads are listed in one window, and they remain listed there (as a history) after downloading.
MSIE/Mac is MUCH prettier than MSIE/Win. It also includes multiple color schemes for the buttons and stuff.
Of course, it supports Internet Config, ColorSync, Location Manager and other Mac OS goodies.
It's easy to install (download and mount a disk image, drag the folder to your hard drive, launch the app) and easy to uninstall (drag the folder to the trash). To be thorough, trash some libraries in the Extensions folder, and the cache and other stuff in Preferences. MSIE/Win thinks it's part of the OS and can't be installed.
Basic features like right-clicking a graphic and selecting "Open Image In New Window" are missing from MSIE/Win. If you do open a graphic, MSIE/Mac shows you the dimensions in the title bar, like Netscape does; MSIE/Win does not. These two features come in very handy when doing Web design.
View Source shows a decent source window, in the same app (instead of launching Notepad), and it marks HTML tags in blue and comments in red. Much more readable.
Oh yeah, and it still works with Netscape plug-ins.
</RANT>
1) Older PowerPCs that won't run OSX can still run Linux
2) Some Linux apps haven't been ported to OSX yet (although some, like StarOffice, don't run on PPC at all AFAIK). Compiling stuff on OSX is a nightmare, particularly desktop stuff. I haven't been able to compile GTK+ (although I know others have gotten GTK+ to compile just fine), and haven't been able to compile KDE (using TrollTech's Qt/Mac demo).
3) Some people like the Linux From Scratch idea; you can't really do that with OSX.
Here's mine.
...stupid lameness filter.
Exactly what I was wondering. Please clarify.
I'm shocked that there isn't a small ad banner in the IE toolbar already.
Microsoft made the mistake of giving the option to disable the Channel Bar, so everyone did, and now they no longer push it, because in this market, the advertising revenues aren't worth the annoyance and frustration it causes customers. Especially when annoying the customers (especially IT staff) gives them yet another reason to move to Linux or Mac OS X.
I was watching at a friend's house, and her parents came home at exactly the same moment they walked into the bar with the pole dancers. Bleh.
Add some background characters.
One word: Morn.
(the funny looking alien with the huge mouth always sitting at Quark's bar on DS9, whose name suspiciously resembles Norm from Cheers)
Not anymore. Have you used Mac OS X? In OS X, you *need* to either use a multi-button mouse or control-click, because contextual menus are an indispensible part of the UI.
I have used Mac OS X, and I have not noticed this to be true. Can you give me a specific example?
Even the dimmest users are going to find using extra mouse buttons easier than key-button combinations.
This is arguable, but you may be right. Obviously, users with previous experience will find the control-click to be awkward and strange.
Besides, every piece of modern technology has a multi-button interface. The average car today has dozens of buttons for various purposes, microwave ovens have multiple buttons, televisions, radios, etc.
Absolutely not the same thing at all. A microwave or remote control uses multiple buttons like a keyboard, not like a mouse. Apple's usability testing from the early 80s showed that the brain considers the mouse to be an extension of your arm - you're not positioning the mouse and pressing a button, you're just pointing to something, as far as the brain is concerned. It takes a few minutes of getting used to, but once you've mastered it, that's how the brain deals with it - and expecting people to point to something with different fingers to mean different things is unnatural. The original Mac philosophy was that the computer should adjust to fit the way people work, not make people adjust to fit the way computers work.
Obviously, people can adjust, and have. For these people, a multi-button mouse is acceptible, and can indeed be very convenient and time-saving. However, it should not be a requirement for new users.
I don't know much about how this bill would be interpreted were it to come to law, but it seems to me that making security bugs known to the general public could be construed as giving advice to a hacker since, well, it alerts the general public to security problems.
Security sites often post code that can be used to exploit a particular hole, so that the hole can be better understood and more easily patched.
What about tools like L0phtcrack?
Does 2600 magazine qualify as an organization that gives advice to hackers, and would therefore be classified as a terrorist organization under this new bill?
The problem is that contextual menus play a large role in the OS X interface, so these people are going to have to learn how to access them sooner or later. You can either provide additional buttons, or you can resort to chording. Which do you think people are going to have an easier time with?
I haven't really noticed this. Can you give me some specific examples of how contextual menus are used more in OSX than in OS9?
The old Netscape click-and-hold idea is still used by the Dock, and I think it works rather well. I use a right-click myself, of course (it's faster). If I only had a single button, I'd use a control-click most of the time, but click-and-hold if I was feeling lazy.
He (or his UI design team) have made good decisions and some absolutely fucking stupid decisions.
Couldn't agree more.
The biggest and most annoying thing they've done is to persist in promoting the 1-button mouse. This is no longer a usability feature but a millstone around the Mac's neck.
The only thing they could possibly do better here is offer a multi-button mouse as an OPTION from their online store, and support it better in their OS*. I would be rather upset if they started shipping multi-button mice by default. You have no idea how many computer users are idiots - I've spent too many years in tech support to be able to recommend multi-button mice to anyone who isn't willing to go out of their way to get one.
Remember that the Mac OS is specifically designed to only require a single mouse button. Windows is designed for two, and X is designed for three. The Mac OS emulates a right-click with a control-click, so even with a single button, you can still get the same functionality, just not quite the same convenience.
Apple's Human Interface Guidelines (which the vast majority of Mac developers actually follow) specifically state that everything that can be done with a control-click should be doable another way - you should never be required to control-click (or right-click). This philosophy does not hold true for any other OS.
By the way, shortly after buying my iMac, I bought a Logitech Wingman Gaming Mouse, which has three buttons. I bought it for Unreal Tournament, but use it for everything. The original Apple mouse is in a drawer somewhere. I should probably sell it on eBay; I'm sure there's someone out there with a hockey puck mouse that would prefer the Apple Pro optical mouse.
* Apple's OS needs to recognize that some of us have multiple mouse buttons. Applications should be able to check for a right-click, instead of checking for a control-click. The OS should take a control-click and make it behave as a right-click as far as the app is concerned, instead of taking a right-click and making it emulate a control-click.
As someone else pointed out, Apple doesn't put FireWire on the PCI bus, and the current G4 systems have 64-bit 33MHz PCI slots. This is exactly why Ultra160 SCSI was available for Macs before PCs - Apple had a 64-bit PCI slot, where PCs didn't.
Nobody thought the G4 would ship as early as it did.
It didn't, Apple just announced it as "shipping" before it was ready.
Actually, it will be nice to have the speed for video editing on external harddrives without having to use a firewire one.
You, sir, are an idiot.
USB 2.0 is crap, and using it for a hard drive - ESPECIALLY for video editing - is retarded.
Fewer and fewer people are so unfamiliar with computers that multiple mouse buttons confuse them.
"Fewer" is still a HELL of a lot of people. I've been doing tech support for several years, and I am constantly amazed by Windows users who STILL can't figure out the difference between a single-right-click and a double-left-click. Apple's one-button mice are a godsend to tech support reps everywhere.
Damn I'm bored.
First, let me congratulate the dedicated people behind this. Yes well done. You have taken an free OS to port it to another free OS.
No, they took a feature of a free OS, and ported it to another free OS that didn't have that feature.
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
The people you heard that from were probably idiots. I can't think of another explanation offhand.
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
It allows Linux users to use the FreeBSD ports system to install software. If you don't know what that does or how it works, just say so.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
I'd say porting anything is not innovative, just by definition. They obviously haven't invented anything new here. That doesn't mean it's useless, though - I'm sure once it becomes more mainstream, many people will find it very useful.
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
Who are you to say what the "collective Linux brains" should be doing? These are people with free time who want to do something useful that they'll use themselves, not employees in a company doing what their boss tells them. Your sentence didn't make sense anyway.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
You're obviously not as smart as you think you are. The whole point of the ports system is to make things simpler than they otherwise would be, so average people can use it.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Somehow I don't think you'd know one way or the other.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
...which is exactly why they ported the BSD Ports system (which is a new feature to Linux, and is simple) to that Linux architecture you seem to like.
Thanks for trolling, have a nice day.
Perhaps they built their Web server out of some of their own toys?
it's been a while since I've needed to run a gui app on unix, so I haven't yet played with using "ssh". I'm told ssh will automatically redirect the display so I don't have to remember how to "setenv" ;-)
Yes, that's correct. With OpenSSH, the capability is disabled by default; you have to edit sshd_config and ssh_config on the server and the client. It works very well. I've even done this:
xinit (gives an xterm on a blank screen with no window manager)
ssh remotehost
startkde
Not recommended for speed reasons, but it's neat that you CAN.
Don't get me wrong, X sucks ass, but do you really think Microsoft will do it significantly better?
Apple might have a better chance; they're still working on it at the moment but they'll be sending DisplayPDF commands instead of just bitmapped stuff, so things like dropshadows will be rendered on the client side (err, server side - that always throws me off).
This isn't about him; he has a Gulfstream V he would have used to fly to the expo.
Is the FAA allowing private flights yet? They were only allowing commercial flights for awhile...
After all, they don't have many left as it is...
That's right, and they certainly can't afford to give away ONE MILLION DOLLARS and a truckload of laptop computers.
Mac OS 10.1 should be released independently of expos and conferences and such; it will be released when it's ready. Should be within about two weeks.