Well, a lot of these things are optional. For example, the icon size and window style issues are all options. The dock is admittedly new, though.
The way the new control panel functions is actually a throwback to old-school MacOS, where the control panel actually was a single app with a list of items in it.
I'd personally like to see the Apple menu come back. It is so heavily ingrained in the Mac user psyche, it should stick.
As for the drive icons on the desktop, I believe that's going to be 'fixed' in the final. I kind of hope so, in this case. It fits the desktop metaphor much better.
Actually, many of us ('us' being Mac users) do wish for great customizability.
However, we don't want to come at the cost of usability, nor do we want to have to edit a text file for the privilege. It's a hard line to walk for Apple.
That said, I think Kaleidoscope-like theme capability will go a long way. That's pretty much a given though.
My guess is that 'themes' will make it into MacOS X. At least, under the scenes.
Themes are alive and well in MacOS 9 - Apple simply decided to refrain from bundling any, and has not encouraged developers to make their own (you can download some from a few sites, however). Jobs is really big on 'total user experience' - since themes didn't replicate very well across all apps, rumor was that Jobs cut it out at the last moment.
By the time OSX ships, theme capability will have been in some variant of the MacOS since v8.5 - over 2 years earlier. Developers have been slowly getting their act together as far as Appearance Manager compliance goes, so things may go smoother now.
Also, recent builds of OSX have been shipped with the old dark platinum appearance - only since yesterday has Apple been public with their new UI. It would appear that there is some sort of plug-in theme enabler to make the switch so easy and transparent (even Microsoft hadn't seen it, supposedly - I can understand why:>).
The operative term is 'reasserts'. To Mac fans at least, Apple has always had the lead in usable operating systems (the foundation is another matter - I don't think anyone is seriously contesting that). Back in the early 80's people were playing catch-up with Apple, in the early 90's Windows took the lead. Not by doing anything particularly interesting, but it was 'good enough' to justify the cost. Now, Apple is attempting to wow the audiences again and shoot well past Windows.
Don't take it too seriously though, it's just marketting-speak. There's more than a kernel of truth to it, though.
I think the fact that it only runs on PowerPC iron is going to kill Apple's chances of destroying Linux. If they went cross-platform, things might get very scary indeed (for Microsoft in particular - Linux might be immune to some degree due to its userbase).
Right now, it makes no sense from a business perspective for Apple to offer it to X86. They make their profits on hardware, and the R&D required to support the wild world of drivers in that area wouldn't be worth it. I guess that's where Darwin could come in, though.
I'd like to see Apple open up cloning again. Keep better control over it (sorry folks, pulling an IBM is - rightfully so - not in Apple's interests), but don't kill it outright. This won't happen for a while yet, but it's something to think about in the future.
While recent developments have helped (with Gnome in particular), they have more or less been stuck to copying Windows' faults along with its benefits.
Apple is reinventing itself, with a nod to its NeXT and MacOS roots. Outside of Apple and maybe Be, there just isn't much going on in the UI arena.
Actually, they're not useless. Apple has for a long time offered hooks to make multiple buttons work universally. They've simply been careful to ensure that more than one button isn't required.
If you get a good multi-button mouse, the right button should work. The middle button may perform no function, but you could always assign a macro of some sort to it (ie. map it to command-C, which copies text).
Bullshit. Mac users are notorious for criticizing the Mac. We have high standards, and Apple isn't immune to mistakes (you have seen the typical Mac user reaction to QuickTime 4's interface, right?).
We just don't appreciate the constant slurs on our intelligence. The whole 'dumb luser' stereotype has grown very thin.
I guess the general idea is that it's better to have 70-80% of the functions available using consistant key combinations than 100% with inconsistant key combinations.
Key combinations are worthless if they don't carry over from app to app. While the Mac doesn't cover some of the more obscure commands, most of the ones that are supported are very common in multiple apps.
Note that this is really a developer choice. Apple has just evangelized consistancy for so long, developers keep it in mind and users chew them out if they do poorly.
My guess is that they're waiting for Linux to cut a larger swath in the desktop market. If it can gain a few more percentage points, they might just do it.
I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, though. QuickTime isn't exactly trivial...
1. Apple uploads source code to everything to an FTP site.
2. Someone downloads source code.
3. Apple is sued by stockholders.
4. Apple goes out of business (for real).
Say what you will, but Apple isn't lying to anyone about their intentions and stipulations. Read the license, and it will all be clear. Why is Apple cheating? Nobody. Don't like the license? Don't contribute. It's all there on their site.
I can't believe people hold it _against_ a company simply because they won't give away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time. What is Apple going to do, sell support? Seems like a conflict of interest, as they're going to 'ease of use'.
Bitch about them not using the more restrictive GPL if you like, but it makes no difference. Unless you can figure out a way for them to stay in business (and - gasp! - prosper) under the GPL model, there's no way in hell they or anyone else is going to listen you.
Code doesn't deserve to be free. It's a nice gesture, and potentially rewarding for everyone if done right, but it's not a right in the same way people have a right to live outside of slavery.
Yep. And from I hear, it's not nearly as good as the Mac version.
(I haven't used it much on the Windows side of things)
If so, they need to ensure platform parity. Once the Windows version works fine, Linux would be the next logical step (just don't bother asking for the complete source code - it's not all theirs to give).
Apple should make it easy for command line conniseurs, but they also need to encourage developers not to get sloppy. If at all possible, all features should be available from a graphical interface.
I'd hate to see software being written that is configured by editing a text file. This is fine for Linux, but for the MacOS... Well, it's just plain wrong.
I'd still like complete command line support, GNU tools, Perl, etc. These things should come on the CD, as an optional install for 'power' users.
--- Don't they just end up meaning that the company in question gets to be the sole distro? Or is it more like they're the only ones who have the right to make a profit off of it? ---
Yeah, this is kind of how companies work.
People need to realize, Apple giving ANYTHING away is a benefit. Why? You don't have to choose it. What this provides to you is a choice - more choice is good.
In the Mac community, there has been a long history of developers going "Gee, I wish we had X feature" in the OS. Now, they are starting to have a place to make the changes necessary.
While Apple certainly isn't going to stop anyone, Darwin isn't necessarily focused on creating tons of different distros. It's aimed primarily at adding improvements to the core OS, with forking as an option.
Apple gets free development and bug testing, the community gets tens of thousands of hours worth of free code.
--- I don't see how that could really help the companies (esp. in the case of Mozilla, since Netscape will distribute Netscape 5 for free anyway, so there's no profit to protect). ---
The problem is that Netscape didn't want to worry about GPL-esque 'viral' code. They wanted to be able to combine the fruits of the open-sourced code with their own proprietary code. Netscape is doing this as well, as Netscape Communicator will have functionality not present in Mozilla.
Apple would be stupid to give away everything, esp. their UI code. Other than some hardware benefits, their UI is one of their biggest selling points.
As for a comparison, check ESR's site (as well as Bruce's, I think). RMS doesn't like it, but then again, RMS doesn't seem to like anything to himself and his license.
The real trick is providing a command line interface, and yet convincing 3rd party developers that they really should develop apps with GUI use in mind.
Assuming they can do that, and developers don't slack off, this will be a very good thing. Command line tools, while not perfect for many things and many people, have a few benefits: automation being one of them. I hope Apple provides a full suite of tools, superior to their counterparts, that interoperate with the OS.
Another thing: The thought of scripting the OS using Perl is a cause for salivation. As it is now, Applescript integration with the MacOS is VERY powerful in this regard - I'm partial to Perl, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a lot of these things are optional. For example, the icon size and window style issues are all options. The dock is admittedly new, though.
The way the new control panel functions is actually a throwback to old-school MacOS, where the control panel actually was a single app with a list of items in it.
I'd personally like to see the Apple menu come back. It is so heavily ingrained in the Mac user psyche, it should stick.
As for the drive icons on the desktop, I believe that's going to be 'fixed' in the final. I kind of hope so, in this case. It fits the desktop metaphor much better.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Summer, 2000.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, many of us ('us' being Mac users) do wish for great customizability.
However, we don't want to come at the cost of usability, nor do we want to have to edit a text file for the privilege. It's a hard line to walk for Apple.
That said, I think Kaleidoscope-like theme capability will go a long way. That's pretty much a given though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
My guess is that 'themes' will make it into MacOS X. At least, under the scenes.
:>).
Themes are alive and well in MacOS 9 - Apple simply decided to refrain from bundling any, and has not encouraged developers to make their own (you can download some from a few sites, however). Jobs is really big on 'total user experience' - since themes didn't replicate very well across all apps, rumor was that Jobs cut it out at the last moment.
By the time OSX ships, theme capability will have been in some variant of the MacOS since v8.5 - over 2 years earlier. Developers have been slowly getting their act together as far as Appearance Manager compliance goes, so things may go smoother now.
Also, recent builds of OSX have been shipped with the old dark platinum appearance - only since yesterday has Apple been public with their new UI. It would appear that there is some sort of plug-in theme enabler to make the switch so easy and transparent (even Microsoft hadn't seen it, supposedly - I can understand why
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Since when is NT Unix based?
I've heard it has some degree of POSIX compliance, but 'Unix-based' that does not make.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
The operative term is 'reasserts'. To Mac fans at least, Apple has always had the lead in usable operating systems (the foundation is another matter - I don't think anyone is seriously contesting that). Back in the early 80's people were playing catch-up with Apple, in the early 90's Windows took the lead. Not by doing anything particularly interesting, but it was 'good enough' to justify the cost. Now, Apple is attempting to wow the audiences again and shoot well past Windows.
Don't take it too seriously though, it's just marketting-speak. There's more than a kernel of truth to it, though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I think the fact that it only runs on PowerPC iron is going to kill Apple's chances of destroying Linux. If they went cross-platform, things might get very scary indeed (for Microsoft in particular - Linux might be immune to some degree due to its userbase).
Right now, it makes no sense from a business perspective for Apple to offer it to X86. They make their profits on hardware, and the R&D required to support the wild world of drivers in that area wouldn't be worth it. I guess that's where Darwin could come in, though.
I'd like to see Apple open up cloning again. Keep better control over it (sorry folks, pulling an IBM is - rightfully so - not in Apple's interests), but don't kill it outright. This won't happen for a while yet, but it's something to think about in the future.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
While recent developments have helped (with Gnome in particular), they have more or less been stuck to copying Windows' faults along with its benefits.
Apple is reinventing itself, with a nod to its NeXT and MacOS roots. Outside of Apple and maybe Be, there just isn't much going on in the UI arena.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
LinuxPPC (latest version) run fine on current Powerbooks (mine is a Lombard).
There are a few minor issues, but those are pretty minor. Check out the web site for more details:
http://www.linuxppc.org
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, they're not useless. Apple has for a long time offered hooks to make multiple buttons work universally. They've simply been careful to ensure that more than one button isn't required.
If you get a good multi-button mouse, the right button should work. The middle button may perform no function, but you could always assign a macro of some sort to it (ie. map it to command-C, which copies text).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Tim -
I'll agree. Alt-tab is one of the (few) things Windows got right. It is of definate use.
I personally prefer the BeOS implementation above all others, though. The 'twitcher' is pretty damned nice from a usability aspect, IMHO.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Bullshit. Mac users are notorious for criticizing the Mac. We have high standards, and Apple isn't immune to mistakes (you have seen the typical Mac user reaction to QuickTime 4's interface, right?).
We just don't appreciate the constant slurs on our intelligence. The whole 'dumb luser' stereotype has grown very thin.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I guess the general idea is that it's better to have 70-80% of the functions available using consistant key combinations than 100% with inconsistant key combinations.
Key combinations are worthless if they don't carry over from app to app. While the Mac doesn't cover some of the more obscure commands, most of the ones that are supported are very common in multiple apps.
Note that this is really a developer choice. Apple has just evangelized consistancy for so long, developers keep it in mind and users chew them out if they do poorly.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Where is the Linux marketshare in the desktop arena? That may take a couple years.
Companies don't just make silly decisions like open-sourcing their crown jewels without a reason, and a port takes a while.
Not to mention that vast portions of QuickTime don't even belong to Apple to port.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Read here for more info:
t ml
http://www.maccentral.com/news/0001/05.quake.sh
...sounds like his next project may be MacOS X _only_.
He has a history of liking NeXTStep, and today made his second MacWorld Expo appearance...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
My guess is that they're waiting for Linux to cut a larger swath in the desktop market. If it can gain a few more percentage points, they might just do it.
I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, though. QuickTime isn't exactly trivial...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
1. Apple uploads source code to everything to an FTP site.
2. Someone downloads source code.
3. Apple is sued by stockholders.
4. Apple goes out of business (for real).
Say what you will, but Apple isn't lying to anyone about their intentions and stipulations. Read the license, and it will all be clear. Why is Apple cheating? Nobody. Don't like the license? Don't contribute. It's all there on their site.
I can't believe people hold it _against_ a company simply because they won't give away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time. What is Apple going to do, sell support? Seems like a conflict of interest, as they're going to 'ease of use'.
Bitch about them not using the more restrictive GPL if you like, but it makes no difference. Unless you can figure out a way for them to stay in business (and - gasp! - prosper) under the GPL model, there's no way in hell they or anyone else is going to listen you.
Code doesn't deserve to be free. It's a nice gesture, and potentially rewarding for everyone if done right, but it's not a right in the same way people have a right to live outside of slavery.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yep. And from I hear, it's not nearly as good as the Mac version.
(I haven't used it much on the Windows side of things)
If so, they need to ensure platform parity. Once the Windows version works fine, Linux would be the next logical step (just don't bother asking for the complete source code - it's not all theirs to give).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Those developers you cite are now not only Apple developers, but comprise the head of Apple's development group (Avi Tevanian comes to mind).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Apple should make it easy for command line conniseurs, but they also need to encourage developers not to get sloppy. If at all possible, all features should be available from a graphical interface.
I'd hate to see software being written that is configured by editing a text file. This is fine for Linux, but for the MacOS... Well, it's just plain wrong.
I'd still like complete command line support, GNU tools, Perl, etc. These things should come on the CD, as an optional install for 'power' users.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
On a side note, Word 6 for the Mac was so bad, Microsoft had to start selling Word 5 again because Mac users hated it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Don't they just end up meaning that the company in question gets to be the sole distro? Or is it more like they're the only ones who have the right to make a profit off of it?
---
Yeah, this is kind of how companies work.
People need to realize, Apple giving ANYTHING away is a benefit. Why? You don't have to choose it. What this provides to you is a choice - more choice is good.
In the Mac community, there has been a long history of developers going "Gee, I wish we had X feature" in the OS. Now, they are starting to have a place to make the changes necessary.
While Apple certainly isn't going to stop anyone, Darwin isn't necessarily focused on creating tons of different distros. It's aimed primarily at adding improvements to the core OS, with forking as an option.
Apple gets free development and bug testing, the community gets tens of thousands of hours worth of free code.
---
I don't see how that could really help the companies (esp. in the case of Mozilla, since Netscape will distribute Netscape 5 for free anyway, so there's no profit to protect).
---
The problem is that Netscape didn't want to worry about GPL-esque 'viral' code. They wanted to be able to combine the fruits of the open-sourced code with their own proprietary code. Netscape is doing this as well, as Netscape Communicator will have functionality not present in Mozilla.
Apple would be stupid to give away everything, esp. their UI code. Other than some hardware benefits, their UI is one of their biggest selling points.
As for a comparison, check ESR's site (as well as Bruce's, I think). RMS doesn't like it, but then again, RMS doesn't seem to like anything to himself and his license.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
The real trick is providing a command line interface, and yet convincing 3rd party developers that they really should develop apps with GUI use in mind.
Assuming they can do that, and developers don't slack off, this will be a very good thing. Command line tools, while not perfect for many things and many people, have a few benefits: automation being one of them. I hope Apple provides a full suite of tools, superior to their counterparts, that interoperate with the OS.
Another thing: The thought of scripting the OS using Perl is a cause for salivation. As it is now, Applescript integration with the MacOS is VERY powerful in this regard - I'm partial to Perl, though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It's a very advanced toilet, for a new age in excrement disposal.
One word: 'scoop'
(eww)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Here's a diagram:
/\
/\
/\
/\
The 'top' is Wednesday - the 'hump'
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)