Re:well, for one thing it kinda sucked
on
What Happened to 5dwm?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Indigo Magic had one thing that no other UNIX desktop that I've seen was ever able to provide: ubiquitous drag-and-drop on a level rivaling what you get with a Mac. If you had two programs that were written with Indigo Magic desktop integration code in them-- admittedly, these were few and far between-- you could drag something (say, a picture) out of one app to the desktop, then drag the icon from the desktop to a folder, then from the folder to the other app. It worked really well. Indigo Magic was (is, I suppose) really light on the eye candy but seriously strong on application integration.
I've never nto donated to charity because they dont accept VISA.
Yeah, and that sentence was not unmeaningless.
"Indigo Magic" or "IRIS Interactive Desktop"
on
What Happened to 5dwm?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't mean to nitpick, but the correct names for the SGI desktop environment were either "Indigo Magic" (the older name) or "IRIS Interactive Desktop" (the circa-IRIX 6.5 name). Calling it "Magic Desktop" isn't technically right.
Then why did the Open Group say they didn't have a problem with Apple calling MacOS X UNIX?
I have no evidence that this ever happened. Sorry. All signs point to your being mistaken on this matter.
Whatever the case, the fact remains that Apple does not call Mac OS X "UNIX" (it is, in fact, "UNIX-based"), and that The Open Group does not include Mac OS X in their list of UNIX operating systems.
Sorry, you're wrong. The list you referred to is a list of "platform vendors supporting the single UNIX specification." That's not the same thing as platform vendors who release UNIX operating systems. Motorola doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. Acer doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. Sony doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. And... Apple doesn't ship a UNIX operating system.
If you look carefully at all of Apple's marketing and technical documentation for Mac OS X, you'll find that it clearly says OS X is "UNIX-based," and that "UNIX" is a trademark of The Open Group. Apple doesn't call Mac OS X "UNIX" because it hasn't secured the right to do so.
Now, realistically speaking, is Mac OS X UNIX? Obviously. But because the "UNIX" name is controlled by a certifying authority, you can't call OS X UNIX until it's been certified as such. And it hasn't.
You spend a great deal of time talking about kernels. Who cares about kernels? We were talking about the operating system user environment. Darwin's user environment is a superset of FreeBSD 4.4.
If I try to pay a CLEC instead, Bell South will make sure that my order is prioritized just slightly lower....
That's funny. I've had DSL service through a third-party ISP for going on three years now, at two different addresses. When I first got it, the phone company said it would take 3-6 weeks to fill my order. The third-party ISP got it done in 24 hours. Sounds like you're overgeneralizing here.
A bitmapped font designer can choose whatever x-height, stroke width, and serif size, he wants.
No, he can't. He's limited by the screen resolution for which the font is being designed. You can't make a readable font on an 8 x 14 pixel grid, sorry.
As for your 5 x 7 pixel font suggestions... no thanks. Your problem isn't with antialiased fonts, it's with fonts that are just too darned small. Use a type size on the screen that's large enough, antialias it, and your eye strain problems will disappear.
Nope. Here's the complete list of products certified under the UNIX 95 specification:
CALDERA: SCO UnixWare 7.0.1 and later for single and multiprocessor systems based on IA-32 and compatible processors and conforming to the PC architecture COMPAQ: Tru64(TM) UNIX® Version 5.0 or later, running on Compaq AlphaStations and AlphaServers FSC: Reliant UNIX V5.45 and higher running on RM Server Family, all Models of RM200/300/400/600 and SR2000 FSC: Reliant® UNIX Version 5.43 running on Reliant RM1000® Cluster Server FSC: Reliant UNIX V5.43 running on RM Server Family, all Models RM200/300/400/600 HP: HP-UX Release 11.11 or later (in both 32 and 64-bit configurations) on HP9000 Series (all models) HP: HP-UX Release 11.00 or later (in both 32 and 64-bit configurations) on HP9000 Series (all models) HP: HP-UX Release 10.2X and later on all HP9000 Series 700 and 800 IBM: OS/390 V2R4 or later with: OS/390 V2R4 or later Security Server and OS/390 V2R4 or later C/C++ Compiler on IBM System/390 Processors that support OS/390 Version 2 Release 4 or later IBM: IBM POWER, POWER2, and PowerPC(TM) Systems with IBM AIX® Version 4.2 or later and C for AIX® Version 3 or later NCR: NCR UNIX System V Release 4 MP-RAS Release 3.02 or later on NCR WorldMark Series & System 3000 Series NEC: UX/4800 R12.3 and later on UP4800 and EWS4800 Series SGI: IRIX 6.5 running on Silicon Graphics systems using MIPS R4000, R5000, R8000 and R10,000 family of processors SUN: Solaris 2.6 and on, on SPARC based systems SUN: Solaris 2.6 and on, on x86pc based systems
And here's the list of products certified under UNIX 98:
IBM: Systems using POWER(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX 5L(TM) for POWER V5.1 dated 9-2001 or later IBM: Systems using Power(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX® Version 4, Release 3 dated 10-2000 or later and IBM VAC Version 5.0.1 or later COMPAQ: Tru64(TM) UNIX® V5.1A or later running on Compaq AlphaStations and Compaq AlphaServers IBM: Systems using POWER(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX 5L(TM) for POWER V5.1 dated 9-2001 or later SUN: Solaris 9 and on (SPARC 32-bit and 64-bit Platform Editions) SUN: Solaris 8 (Intel platform edition) SUN: Solaris 8 (SPARC 32-bit platform edition) SUN: Solaris 8 (SPARC 64-bit platform edition) SUN: Solaris 7 and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems SUN: Solaris 7 and on, on X86 based systems
Mac OS X is not UNIX, by the Open Group's definition. Of course, all that means is that Apple hasn't paid to have the Open Group certify OS X.
As for the "UNIX-based" thing, you're right, and I apologize. "UNIX-based" does mean something different from UNIX. When I read your post, I didn't see the word "based" in there, because you failed to punctuate correctly. In the future, use "UNIX-based" instead of "UNIX based." It'll prevent a good deal of confusion.
It's hard to make money when you're obsolete, baby, yeah! Just ask the RIAA, your local dead tree newspaper, your favorite glossy magazine, even your local broadcast TV station.
Um... you're an idiot, aren't you? Music companies, newspapers, magazines, and broadcast television are all doing very well, thank you very much. You're pretty arrogant to call those sorts of outlets obsolete.
See, the thing is, I disagree with pretty much everything you said in your post. The original X11 bitmapped fonts are not very readable fonts. Readable fonts, as have been noted elsewhere time and time again, have just the right x-height, stroke width, serif size, and so on. Bitmapped computer fonts don't have any of those things. Ergo, they're not easy to read.
Now, at this point it's important for you to mind the distinction between fonts that are easy to read and fonts that you personally are accustomed to. If you sit in front of Bitstream Terminal 7 for fifteen years, it's probably going to be pretty easy to read for you. But that's not the same thing as being easy to read in general.
So what makes a font readable? A readable font is one in which the letters look like what you expect them to look like. Good serif fonts have glyphs that are easy for the eye to recognize at virtually any size from billboard down to postage stamp. Antialiasing helps make fonts more readable because it makes the glyphs look more like what you expect them to look like.
Some of the original work in antialiasing was done, if memory serves me right, with Japanese characters. Kanji characters, being much more intricate than Roman characters, are notoriously hard to render on a computer screen, particularly the low-resolution screens most common in the 1970's. Antialiasing, even at low resolution, makes kanji much easier to read. Antialiasing Roman type has the same effect: it makes type easier to read.
Of course, there's such a thing as bad antialiasing. I had a friend complain to me over the phone about how bad the antialiasing in Windows XP is. He said it made everything look fuzzy, and that he wished the type on his laptop could look as good as the type on my Apple LCD monitor. The next time I saw him I took a look at his laptop: it had an 800x600 screen! Of course antialiasing looks bad at 55 dots per inch! But on my 1280x1024 screen at home, type is well antialiased, properly kerned, and very easy on the eyes. So think twice before saying that antialiasing sucks.
Anyone can piss in a pool. The ability to taste it and say "Yuck!" does not alter the fact that you're swimming in piss.
I know this is off-topic and whatnot, but... wtf is this signature supposed to mean? Is it anything like the old saying, "A spoonful of shit added to a bucket of ice cream gives you a bucket of shit?"
No. False. In order to be called UNIX, an operating system has to undergo certification. If it hasn't been certified, it can't be called UNIX, no matter what it's derived from or how it works.
In some contexts, UNIX can be a vague and fuzzy thing, meaning any operating system that works kinda-sorta like Solaris, or like AIX, or like IRIX, or like HP-UX, or like Linux, or like Darwin. But that's not really an accurate description of the facts. UNIX means something very specific, and Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X aren't it.
You're probably one of those guys who says that Apple has a monopoly on Macs, too, aren't you?
The service is what we're talking about here. Not the details of how that service is delivered. Coca-Cola is the only company that sells cola-flavored soda in red cans. (Are they? Don't care. This is just for sake of argument.) That doesn't mean they have a monopoly. If you can get internet access from six different providers, then there's no monopoly.
Is it too bad that you can't get multi-megabit access for $12.95 a month? Yeah. But does that mean there's a monopoly on internet access? Of course not.
I don't mind if you complain. I just get annoyed when you complain about the wrong things.
Not every article has to include an element of advocacy. This article takes the position that there are some UNIX folks out there who are using OS X now-- this is true, of course-- and shares some tips that these folks may find useful.
For one, I really dig the way this article stayed away from advocacy.
So, is there any *REAL* serious reason?
Try it. If you like it, use it. If not, don't. If you're trying to pick a fight, try harder.
* Forget sudo and enable root access (I forget how, I don't have an OS X box in front of me), then use su.
Uhhh... why? If your suggestion resulted in some kind of improvement I might be convinced to go along, but why mess with things that don't need to be messed with? There's no reason at all to enable the root account on your OS X machine. If you absolutely, positively have to have a root shell, you can always use this little trick:
Are you positive about that? When I bought my last machine, it came with 10.2 installed, but the developer tools hadn't been installed at the factory. It had/usr/bin/bash on it.
it uses NetInfo instead of/etc/hosts,/etc/group and/etc/passwd.
I do feel compelled to point out that OS X actually uses lookupd for host name resolution, and lookupd can be configured to use any number of sources for name-to-address mappings. Under 10.2 and later, lookupd is configured to look in/etc/hosts first by default. So unless you're using 10.0 or 10.1,/etc/hosts will work just the way you think it should.
Slashdot Mirror
Indigo Magic had one thing that no other UNIX desktop that I've seen was ever able to provide: ubiquitous drag-and-drop on a level rivaling what you get with a Mac. If you had two programs that were written with Indigo Magic desktop integration code in them-- admittedly, these were few and far between-- you could drag something (say, a picture) out of one app to the desktop, then drag the icon from the desktop to a folder, then from the folder to the other app. It worked really well. Indigo Magic was (is, I suppose) really light on the eye candy but seriously strong on application integration.
I've never nto donated to charity because they dont accept VISA.
Yeah, and that sentence was not unmeaningless.
I don't mean to nitpick, but the correct names for the SGI desktop environment were either "Indigo Magic" (the older name) or "IRIS Interactive Desktop" (the circa-IRIX 6.5 name). Calling it "Magic Desktop" isn't technically right.
Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
Then why did the Open Group say they didn't have a problem with Apple calling MacOS X UNIX?
I have no evidence that this ever happened. Sorry. All signs point to your being mistaken on this matter.
Whatever the case, the fact remains that Apple does not call Mac OS X "UNIX" (it is, in fact, "UNIX-based"), and that The Open Group does not include Mac OS X in their list of UNIX operating systems.
Sorry, you're wrong. The list you referred to is a list of "platform vendors supporting the single UNIX specification." That's not the same thing as platform vendors who release UNIX operating systems. Motorola doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. Acer doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. Sony doesn't ship a UNIX operating system. And... Apple doesn't ship a UNIX operating system.
If you look carefully at all of Apple's marketing and technical documentation for Mac OS X, you'll find that it clearly says OS X is "UNIX-based," and that "UNIX" is a trademark of The Open Group. Apple doesn't call Mac OS X "UNIX" because it hasn't secured the right to do so.
Now, realistically speaking, is Mac OS X UNIX? Obviously. But because the "UNIX" name is controlled by a certifying authority, you can't call OS X UNIX until it's been certified as such. And it hasn't.
You spend a great deal of time talking about kernels. Who cares about kernels? We were talking about the operating system user environment. Darwin's user environment is a superset of FreeBSD 4.4.
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
People get turned on by the weirdest things.
Geez, dude, if the rampant goatse.cx links didn't get the "caveat clickor" idea through to you by now, nothing will.
Check the status line before you click, or suffer the consequences.
If I try to pay a CLEC instead, Bell South will make sure that my order is prioritized just slightly lower....
That's funny. I've had DSL service through a third-party ISP for going on three years now, at two different addresses. When I first got it, the phone company said it would take 3-6 weeks to fill my order. The third-party ISP got it done in 24 hours. Sounds like you're overgeneralizing here.
A bitmapped font designer can choose whatever x-height, stroke width, and serif size, he wants.
No, he can't. He's limited by the screen resolution for which the font is being designed. You can't make a readable font on an 8 x 14 pixel grid, sorry.
As for your 5 x 7 pixel font suggestions... no thanks. Your problem isn't with antialiased fonts, it's with fonts that are just too darned small. Use a type size on the screen that's large enough, antialias it, and your eye strain problems will disappear.
um the Open Group says MacOS X is UNIX.
Nope. Here's the complete list of products certified under the UNIX 95 specification:
CALDERA: SCO UnixWare 7.0.1 and later for single and multiprocessor systems based on IA-32 and compatible processors and conforming to the PC architecture
COMPAQ: Tru64(TM) UNIX® Version 5.0 or later, running on Compaq AlphaStations and AlphaServers
FSC: Reliant UNIX V5.45 and higher running on RM Server Family, all Models of RM200/300/400/600 and SR2000
FSC: Reliant® UNIX Version 5.43 running on Reliant RM1000® Cluster Server
FSC: Reliant UNIX V5.43 running on RM Server Family, all Models RM200/300/400/600
HP: HP-UX Release 11.11 or later (in both 32 and 64-bit configurations) on HP9000 Series (all models)
HP: HP-UX Release 11.00 or later (in both 32 and 64-bit configurations) on HP9000 Series (all models)
HP: HP-UX Release 10.2X and later on all HP9000 Series 700 and 800
IBM: OS/390 V2R4 or later with: OS/390 V2R4 or later Security Server and OS/390 V2R4 or later C/C++ Compiler on IBM System/390 Processors that support OS/390 Version 2 Release 4 or later
IBM: IBM POWER, POWER2, and PowerPC(TM) Systems with IBM AIX® Version 4.2 or later and C for AIX® Version 3 or later
NCR: NCR UNIX System V Release 4 MP-RAS Release 3.02 or later on NCR WorldMark Series & System 3000 Series
NEC: UX/4800 R12.3 and later on UP4800 and EWS4800 Series
SGI: IRIX 6.5 running on Silicon Graphics systems using MIPS R4000, R5000, R8000 and R10,000 family of processors
SUN: Solaris 2.6 and on, on SPARC based systems SUN: Solaris 2.6 and on, on x86pc based systems
And here's the list of products certified under UNIX 98:
IBM: Systems using POWER(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX 5L(TM) for POWER V5.1 dated 9-2001 or later
IBM: Systems using Power(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX® Version 4, Release 3 dated 10-2000 or later and IBM VAC Version 5.0.1 or later
COMPAQ: Tru64(TM) UNIX® V5.1A or later running on Compaq AlphaStations and Compaq AlphaServers
IBM: Systems using POWER(TM) or PowerPC(TM) architecture based processors with AIX 5L(TM) for POWER V5.1 dated 9-2001 or later
SUN: Solaris 9 and on (SPARC 32-bit and 64-bit Platform Editions)
SUN: Solaris 8 (Intel platform edition)
SUN: Solaris 8 (SPARC 32-bit platform edition)
SUN: Solaris 8 (SPARC 64-bit platform edition)
SUN: Solaris 7 and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems
SUN: Solaris 7 and on, on X86 based systems
Mac OS X is not UNIX, by the Open Group's definition. Of course, all that means is that Apple hasn't paid to have the Open Group certify OS X.
As for the "UNIX-based" thing, you're right, and I apologize. "UNIX-based" does mean something different from UNIX. When I read your post, I didn't see the word "based" in there, because you failed to punctuate correctly. In the future, use "UNIX-based" instead of "UNIX based." It'll prevent a good deal of confusion.
(Insert why don't you subscribe joke here)
Actually, I'll insert the de rigeur "haven't seen an ad on Slashdot since I started using OmniWeb" remark instead, if that's okay with you.
It's hard to make money when you're obsolete, baby, yeah! Just ask the RIAA, your local dead tree newspaper, your favorite glossy magazine, even your local broadcast TV station.
Um... you're an idiot, aren't you? Music companies, newspapers, magazines, and broadcast television are all doing very well, thank you very much. You're pretty arrogant to call those sorts of outlets obsolete.
Yawn. That's all. Just yawn.
Then again... I don't remember what it's like to use 800x600
Here's what it's like: "That image is 100 pixels high. One, two, three, four...."
See, the thing is, I disagree with pretty much everything you said in your post. The original X11 bitmapped fonts are not very readable fonts. Readable fonts, as have been noted elsewhere time and time again, have just the right x-height, stroke width, serif size, and so on. Bitmapped computer fonts don't have any of those things. Ergo, they're not easy to read.
Now, at this point it's important for you to mind the distinction between fonts that are easy to read and fonts that you personally are accustomed to. If you sit in front of Bitstream Terminal 7 for fifteen years, it's probably going to be pretty easy to read for you. But that's not the same thing as being easy to read in general.
So what makes a font readable? A readable font is one in which the letters look like what you expect them to look like. Good serif fonts have glyphs that are easy for the eye to recognize at virtually any size from billboard down to postage stamp. Antialiasing helps make fonts more readable because it makes the glyphs look more like what you expect them to look like.
Some of the original work in antialiasing was done, if memory serves me right, with Japanese characters. Kanji characters, being much more intricate than Roman characters, are notoriously hard to render on a computer screen, particularly the low-resolution screens most common in the 1970's. Antialiasing, even at low resolution, makes kanji much easier to read. Antialiasing Roman type has the same effect: it makes type easier to read.
Of course, there's such a thing as bad antialiasing. I had a friend complain to me over the phone about how bad the antialiasing in Windows XP is. He said it made everything look fuzzy, and that he wished the type on his laptop could look as good as the type on my Apple LCD monitor. The next time I saw him I took a look at his laptop: it had an 800x600 screen! Of course antialiasing looks bad at 55 dots per inch! But on my 1280x1024 screen at home, type is well antialiased, properly kerned, and very easy on the eyes. So think twice before saying that antialiasing sucks.
Anyone can piss in a pool. The ability to taste it and say "Yuck!" does not alter the fact that you're swimming in piss.
I know this is off-topic and whatnot, but... wtf is this signature supposed to mean? Is it anything like the old saying, "A spoonful of shit added to a bucket of ice cream gives you a bucket of shit?"
Did anyone say anything about "a national government" ?
Some things are obvious from context, friend.
No. False. In order to be called UNIX, an operating system has to undergo certification. If it hasn't been certified, it can't be called UNIX, no matter what it's derived from or how it works.
In some contexts, UNIX can be a vague and fuzzy thing, meaning any operating system that works kinda-sorta like Solaris, or like AIX, or like IRIX, or like HP-UX, or like Linux, or like Darwin. But that's not really an accurate description of the facts. UNIX means something very specific, and Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X aren't it.
And where exactly do we get the majority of our oil from?
Alaska. Oh, you mean where do we get the majority of our imported oil from? Canada.
I'm really not seeing your point, here.
You're probably one of those guys who says that Apple has a monopoly on Macs, too, aren't you?
The service is what we're talking about here. Not the details of how that service is delivered. Coca-Cola is the only company that sells cola-flavored soda in red cans. (Are they? Don't care. This is just for sake of argument.) That doesn't mean they have a monopoly. If you can get internet access from six different providers, then there's no monopoly.
Is it too bad that you can't get multi-megabit access for $12.95 a month? Yeah. But does that mean there's a monopoly on internet access? Of course not.
I don't mind if you complain. I just get annoyed when you complain about the wrong things.
But what if you define "high-speed Internet access" as blah blah blah blah
Then you've reduced this discussion to a whine-fest. "I can't find an ISP who'll give me what I want. Waaaa."
Not interested. Sorry.
Not every article has to include an element of advocacy. This article takes the position that there are some UNIX folks out there who are using OS X now-- this is true, of course-- and shares some tips that these folks may find useful.
For one, I really dig the way this article stayed away from advocacy.
So, is there any *REAL* serious reason?
Try it. If you like it, use it. If not, don't. If you're trying to pick a fight, try harder.
* Forget sudo and enable root access (I forget how, I don't have an OS X box in front of me), then use su.
Uhhh... why? If your suggestion resulted in some kind of improvement I might be convinced to go along, but why mess with things that don't need to be messed with? There's no reason at all to enable the root account on your OS X machine. If you absolutely, positively have to have a root shell, you can always use this little trick:
% sudo su -
Password:
#
Are you positive about that? When I bought my last machine, it came with 10.2 installed, but the developer tools hadn't been installed at the factory. It had /usr/bin/bash on it.
it uses NetInfo instead of /etc/hosts, /etc/group and /etc/passwd.
/etc/hosts first by default. So unless you're using 10.0 or 10.1, /etc/hosts will work just the way you think it should.
I do feel compelled to point out that OS X actually uses lookupd for host name resolution, and lookupd can be configured to use any number of sources for name-to-address mappings. Under 10.2 and later, lookupd is configured to look in
More info can be found in the lookupd man page.