If they understand the tab concept and they're using it, they're also well aware of which pages they've visited, and in roughly what order they opened new tabs.
Then what's the point of representing different views as tabs? The point of tabs is to show you all the window titles at once. If you don't need to see the titles, then you're better off using windows.
As an experiment, I have opened a Chimera window to my normal browsing width, and created one tab for each window that I current have open. (I'm working on a project, so I've got some documentation windows open, and some random web sites that I've been reading when I take breaks.)
Quick! Which one of those tabs refers to the NSTextField documentation page, which one refers to the NSTableView page, and which one refers to NSToolbarItem?
This is not a contrived example. This is fairly typical for me. Tabs, in a word, suck.
What hoops? I open another window without opening a new tab, and put them next to each other. Am I missing something?
Yes. You're missing the whole point of this discussion. You're arguing that you can do things with tabs. That's fine and good, but it's not the point. The point is that Safari is everyman's browser. If you want to use Obscure Browser #77, which lets you sort all the links on a page in descending order of number of syllables or what-the-hell-ever, you're free to do that. Safari should not include those sorts of features, however. Tabs bring nothing to the party, and require lots of compromises. They should, therefore, not be included in Safari.
The series of images can then be looked at sequentially, and when you're done, you're back at your starting location.
Just like windows, huh? Or like using the SnapBack feature, for that matter.
Tabs are random access; windows are serial access.
Cycling through windows is not the only way of dealing with them. There's also the window menu-- all the advantages of labeled tabs without the truncation problem-- and the dock menu. You can also minimize windows to the dock directly and manage them that way. I would like to see a "minimize others" feature added to Application Kit, similar to the "hide others" feature.
Just because YOU don't have a certain problem doesn't mean others do not.
Sure, Windows has a huge window management problem: the task bar. XP improved the situation quite a bit, but it's still not perfect. And because most of your UI's for UNIX include a task bar, they share Windows's problems. But the Mac simply does not have the window management problems that tabbed browsing was implemented to solve.
even in Safari, opening a new window is slower and more resource intensive, as well as more distracting, than opening a new tab.
That's not really true at all. Opening a new window in Safari requires just barely more allocation than opening a new tab or tab-like structure would. You have to allocate and initialize the view and then render the contents in either case; opening a new window merely requires a some drawing to the screen, which on all modern Macs is offloaded entirely to the graphics hardware. So the trade-off of speed for functionality is just not necessary. We're back to that "a problem we don't have" thing again.
but please, whatever other arguments you may make about the abstract shortcomings of tabbed browsing, please try to remember that millions of people find them a useful method of organizing their webpages.
I absolutely do not believe you. I think if you took everybody who has ever even heard of tabbed browsing and put them in the Rose Bowl, you'd have room left over for a medium-sized football game. You've got to remember that there are 5 million OS X users today, and that the number is increasing very quickly. So the fraction of OS X users who would benefit from Chimera-style tabs is tiny.
Apple has the choice of not implementing MDI in Safari at all; implementing it badly, a la Mozilla; or implementing it well. Given that a bad implementation would be worse than none at all, and that a good implementation would require a great deal of effort for miniscule gains, the only reasonable course of action is to avoid implementing MDI in Safari at all. The time and effort to do so would be better spent on other things.
Those who absolutely must have MDI in their browsers are free to use Chimera, or to use WebKit (when released) to roll their own WebCore-based one.
It would be interesting to know the ratio of tab-browsing freaks to those who run the browser full-screen, no?
Now that is an interesting thought. I can honestly say that I have never opened a browser window full-screen. My screen is way too big and the wrong aspect ratio for a single browser window. It fits three or four abreast very nicely, though. So for me, tabs are a terrible idea. For somebody who runs his browser window at full-screen, on a 768x1024 screen or something, they might make more sense. Maybe.
I think we're starting to talk about this in terms of the window manager rather than the application, and I think that's good. It would really piss me off if Apple decided to implement functionality that belongs in the window manager in the application. That's just not the Mac way, you know?
Back in the days of Netscape 4, more than four windows at a time was a pain...
Right. These are not the days of Netscape 4. Opening new Safari windows is not a time-consuming operation. Switching between them is not a time-consuming operation. As I've said, like, a billion times now, tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have.
It'll take 2-3 clicks or a click&drag (worse) to switch windows and then switch back
Wrong. Command-`. If you have 4-5 windows open, you can rotate through all of them in about one second.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not good.
I never said that. I said, and continue to say, that what makes tabs no good is the fact that they're no good. It's not really an opinion thing; it's pretty objective. Of course, different people interpret and weigh the facts in different ways.
The bottom line is this: when viewed in terms of the big picture, tabs create more problems than they solve.
Well, then have a a couple windows with multiple tabs each. Never did see why people around here see it as a one or the other thing.
I have two open windows. I want one of the windows to be a "tab" contained inside another window. How do I get it there?
(Select URL, copy, New Tab, click address box, paste, enter.)
I have one open window with two "tabs," and I want to see them side-by-side. How do I do that?
(Click other tab, control-click, "Move tab to new window")
These operations are not intuitive, and they're not convenient. People see a tabbed interface as being one way or another-- either all "tabs" or all windows-- is because moving back and forth is such a royal pain in the ass. Could we make it easier? Sure. But to do so would require rethinking the whole architecture of the browser, and-- here's the important part-- we don't need to do that.
Tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have.
Oh, you mean like when Mr W says "We know that mr Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction, we just can't tell you where they are since that could compromise our sources" ?
Heh. I love it when people make snide political remarks that betray their utter ignorance of the subject at hand. Just shut up for a minute and Google "Khidir Hamza," okay?
Here's an idea for u devolpers - Try making a theme editor for Safari that ISN'T JUST CHANGING THE COLOR!!!!!!!
Ugh. Here's an idea for you developers: give up on themes. If you want to work on something, make it something that contributes more to the world or to your own personal enrichment than simply making my screen uglier.
My opinion on tabs is well known. I'm not picking a fight here; just offering a counterpoint. I'm well aware that lots of people disagree with me, so don't bother posting just to say that you're one of 'em. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is welcome.
Because at any given moment I have three to four different pages loaded.
You accidentally point out the biggest flaw of tabs here: they're self-limiting. Depending on window size, you can only fit between four and eight tabs across the window before they have to be truncated. If you can't read the titles, the advantage of tabs evaporates.
With multiple windows, on the other hand, you can have as many pages loaded at once as you want. Multiple windows are not self-limiting.
Tabs make it very easy for me to switch back and forth without have to go up to a menu to see what is even open.
While the usability advantages of a menu over a row of tabs have been discussed thoroughly, it's hard to beat the ease of use of command-` for cycling through an application's open windows. Tabs are useful for up to 4-8 open pages; they are not useful for more than that. Similarly, command-` is useful for about the same number of open windows.
It keeps my screen cleaner which is nice.
On the other hand, it prevents you from looking at two pages side-by-side without jumping through hoops. (Choose the tab, control-click, choose "open page in new window.) Multiple windows can be used in a clean-desktop way (command-M for minimize), but let you arrange your pages however you want.
Oh and the relationship between tabs is that they are both 'documents' the browser has/is rendering. That is it.
That's not really good enough, in my opinion. For example, if tabs were implemented in some way that dealt with #1 problem (truncation), you really ought to be able to drag a tab from one window to another. That's a complicated thing; you have to implement your NSView subclasses as application instances instead of directly associating each NSView subclass with an NSWindow subclass. The current implementation, in which a tab is tied not to an NSView but to an NSWindow forever, kinda sucks. It would make more sense on a large scale for "tabs" (that name is becoming less and less appropriate) to be global network session objects, and for any window to be able to display the output from any "tab." But that poses huge usability problems; how does one instantiate a new "tab?" Should the application manage it for you, creating an autorelease pool of tabs automatically every time you open a new site (by clicking a bookmark or typing a URL or clicking a link that takes you to a new site)? Trying to implement "tabs" right opens more questions than it closes.
But basically my opinion can be summed up in what I've been saying all along: "tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have."
Fire is an editor. Flame is for effects. Jashaka was originally intended to be a Flame clone. Whether it stuck to that goal or whether they went the editor route is a question best left for somebody who gives a rats ass about Jahshaka.;-)
And in case you're wondering, the reason why we still have separate tools for editing (like Fire, or Media/Film Composer, or Final Cut Pro) and effects (like Flame, or Shake, or Combustion, or After Effects) is because the field of battle is littered with the bodies of programs that tried to do both and failed. Anybody remember Cyborg?:shudder:
Use iMovie, outgrow it, then invest in Final Cut Express for $500.
Final Cut Express is only $299. Pretty much the only important difference between FCE and FCP is that FCE only works with DV25 media, which is fine if you're using a DV camcorder to lens your footage and FireWire to import it.
The fact that it's not peer-reviewed is a better reason than simply citing the source.
No, dismissing certain opinions or reports because of their source is fine, too. The old saying goes, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that just any old junk can fall into it."
What difference does it make where the evidence is presented? Why don't you instead ask if the evidence is stong.
Because evidence that appears on its face to be strong yet comes from a completely incredible (i.e., not credible) source can usually dismissed without further examination. It's a time-saver.
We use this technique all the time here on Slashdot. Remember all those Microsoft press releases about how Windows is more secure than UNIX? Because Microsoft released them, or funded the company that released them, we don't even bother to try to refute them. They're obviously not objective. Same thing here. When a UFO nut says, "Satellite detects UFO!" it's not even worth reading the article.
Open source software which is featured on a/. story should link to the Freshmeat entry for the program. This would allow folks to find out what a program is...
If you don't know what FreeBSD is by now, no amount of Freshmeating will help you.
Actually I would have said that motherboards that have IRQ's, and therefore IRQ conflicts, are dead. But so many people see, for reasons that amaze me, to persist in using them. Weird.
Raise your hand if you recognize that software on a public FTP server that is not accompanied by a PGP-signed release announcement and checksum may be trojaned.
Some companies are already well aware of the benefits of the BSD license. The net result? One company is now the largest single producer of UNIX operating systems in the world, measured in terms of number of units shipped per year.
The BSD license is a beautiful thing. Software that carries the BSD license can really, seriously, no-shit change the world for the better.
Re:More than 1.1 billion pigs are killed each year
on
FreeBSD 5.0 Available
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
If whales are so intelligent, how come it took them so long to catch on to the "harpoons are pointy" idea? I mean, they've got the whole ocean to hide in! How hard is it to stay away from the little boats?
It seems that most people posting to this thread aren't even bothering to discuss the question in any serious fashion. It's nice to see that at least one person is staying out of the "M$ SUCKS!" "LUNIX SUCKS!" fray.
Now let's think about this for a second. When Apple went from OS 9 to OS X, they had a huge compatibility problem to deal with. Part of it was dealt with my completely reimplementing a large subset of the Macintosh Toolbox API's on the new OS-- that's what we call Carbon now. It still required most apps to be recompiled, but the changes to the API's were so small that most could be Carbonated very quickly and easily.
But Apple also provided what basically amounts to a VM: Classic, a.k.a. Blue Box. Inside Classic, old-style Mac apps can run without modification, and without having to be emulated. Classic provides the old apps with a shared address space and the basic infrastructure they need to run.
Why could Microsoft use one or both of these approaches? They could either implement Win32 and whatever else in a UNIX environment, or they could provide a VM that runs full-fledged Windows for compatibility.
alot of the little config wizards and such look so similar it isnt even funny
I use OS X all day, every day, and apart from the little tool that runs when you first turn on your computer, I can't think of anything in OS X that would qualify as a "little config wizard."
Is it possible-- not necessarily so, but just possible-- that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
How do you define "proprietary?" Mach started at CMU as a totally open-source project; NeXT used CMU's Mach kernel as the basis for NeXTstep, which evolved into OS X. Apple's fork of Mach (which really isn't Mach any more, in some important ways) is still open-source.
All too often, "proprietary" is a dirty word that's thrown around Slashdot to mean "not what I'm using."
I can download some GNU utilities and copy them to C:\WINNT, now is my OS based on GNU?
Well, considering that GNU is neither a kernel nor an operating system, but rather just a loosely associated collection of utilities, I'd say that no operating system is "based on" GNU.
Also, IIRC, Cringely is not one person but a pseudo-name used by a panel of writers.
Not exactly. Robert X. Cringely is kind of like the Dread Pirate Roberts: a serial pseudonym. The name was first used in InfoWorld magazine when Dvorak left-- and started losing his mind, if his last couple years' worth of columns are any evidence-- to replace the famous byline. The Robert X. Cringely we're all most familiar with is really Mark C. Stephens; he's the guy who wrote the books and hosted "Triumph of the Nerds" on PBS and who writes "I, Cringely." He was the third Robert X. Cringely to write for InfoWorld, and he wrote for them for 8 years. Since that Cringely's departure-- okay, firing-- from InfoWorld in '95, many others have written columns under that name for the magazine.
The real Robert X. Cringely has been retired for 15 years, and living like a king in Patagonia.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
If they understand the tab concept and they're using it, they're also well aware of which pages they've visited, and in roughly what order they opened new tabs.
NSS...
Then what's the point of representing different views as tabs? The point of tabs is to show you all the window titles at once. If you don't need to see the titles, then you're better off using windows.
As an experiment, I have opened a Chimera window to my normal browsing width, and created one tab for each window that I current have open. (I'm working on a project, so I've got some documentation windows open, and some random web sites that I've been reading when I take breaks.)
My tabs look like this:
App...
NST...
NST...
NST...
NSP...
NSS...
App...
Slas...
Goo...
Surf...
Quick! Which one of those tabs refers to the NSTextField documentation page, which one refers to the NSTableView page, and which one refers to NSToolbarItem?
This is not a contrived example. This is fairly typical for me. Tabs, in a word, suck.
What hoops? I open another window without opening a new tab, and put them next to each other. Am I missing something?
Yes. You're missing the whole point of this discussion. You're arguing that you can do things with tabs. That's fine and good, but it's not the point. The point is that Safari is everyman's browser. If you want to use Obscure Browser #77, which lets you sort all the links on a page in descending order of number of syllables or what-the-hell-ever, you're free to do that. Safari should not include those sorts of features, however. Tabs bring nothing to the party, and require lots of compromises. They should, therefore, not be included in Safari.
Are we on the same page now?
The series of images can then be looked at sequentially, and when you're done, you're back at your starting location.
Just like windows, huh? Or like using the SnapBack feature, for that matter.
Tabs are random access; windows are serial access.
Cycling through windows is not the only way of dealing with them. There's also the window menu-- all the advantages of labeled tabs without the truncation problem-- and the dock menu. You can also minimize windows to the dock directly and manage them that way. I would like to see a "minimize others" feature added to Application Kit, similar to the "hide others" feature.
Just because YOU don't have a certain problem doesn't mean others do not.
Sure, Windows has a huge window management problem: the task bar. XP improved the situation quite a bit, but it's still not perfect. And because most of your UI's for UNIX include a task bar, they share Windows's problems. But the Mac simply does not have the window management problems that tabbed browsing was implemented to solve.
even in Safari, opening a new window is slower and more resource intensive, as well as more distracting, than opening a new tab.
That's not really true at all. Opening a new window in Safari requires just barely more allocation than opening a new tab or tab-like structure would. You have to allocate and initialize the view and then render the contents in either case; opening a new window merely requires a some drawing to the screen, which on all modern Macs is offloaded entirely to the graphics hardware. So the trade-off of speed for functionality is just not necessary. We're back to that "a problem we don't have" thing again.
but please, whatever other arguments you may make about the abstract shortcomings of tabbed browsing, please try to remember that millions of people find them a useful method of organizing their webpages.
I absolutely do not believe you. I think if you took everybody who has ever even heard of tabbed browsing and put them in the Rose Bowl, you'd have room left over for a medium-sized football game. You've got to remember that there are 5 million OS X users today, and that the number is increasing very quickly. So the fraction of OS X users who would benefit from Chimera-style tabs is tiny.
Apple has the choice of not implementing MDI in Safari at all; implementing it badly, a la Mozilla; or implementing it well. Given that a bad implementation would be worse than none at all, and that a good implementation would require a great deal of effort for miniscule gains, the only reasonable course of action is to avoid implementing MDI in Safari at all. The time and effort to do so would be better spent on other things.
Those who absolutely must have MDI in their browsers are free to use Chimera, or to use WebKit (when released) to roll their own WebCore-based one.
It would be interesting to know the ratio of tab-browsing freaks to those who run the browser full-screen, no?
Now that is an interesting thought. I can honestly say that I have never opened a browser window full-screen. My screen is way too big and the wrong aspect ratio for a single browser window. It fits three or four abreast very nicely, though. So for me, tabs are a terrible idea. For somebody who runs his browser window at full-screen, on a 768x1024 screen or something, they might make more sense. Maybe.
I think we're starting to talk about this in terms of the window manager rather than the application, and I think that's good. It would really piss me off if Apple decided to implement functionality that belongs in the window manager in the application. That's just not the Mac way, you know?
Back in the days of Netscape 4, more than four windows at a time was a pain...
Right. These are not the days of Netscape 4. Opening new Safari windows is not a time-consuming operation. Switching between them is not a time-consuming operation. As I've said, like, a billion times now, tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have.
It'll take 2-3 clicks or a click&drag (worse) to switch windows and then switch back
Wrong. Command-`. If you have 4-5 windows open, you can rotate through all of them in about one second.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not good.
I never said that. I said, and continue to say, that what makes tabs no good is the fact that they're no good. It's not really an opinion thing; it's pretty objective. Of course, different people interpret and weigh the facts in different ways.
The bottom line is this: when viewed in terms of the big picture, tabs create more problems than they solve.
Well, then have a a couple windows with multiple tabs each. Never did see why people around here see it as a one or the other thing.
I have two open windows. I want one of the windows to be a "tab" contained inside another window. How do I get it there?
(Select URL, copy, New Tab, click address box, paste, enter.)
I have one open window with two "tabs," and I want to see them side-by-side. How do I do that?
(Click other tab, control-click, "Move tab to new window")
These operations are not intuitive, and they're not convenient. People see a tabbed interface as being one way or another-- either all "tabs" or all windows-- is because moving back and forth is such a royal pain in the ass. Could we make it easier? Sure. But to do so would require rethinking the whole architecture of the browser, and-- here's the important part-- we don't need to do that.
Tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have.
Oh, you mean like when Mr W says "We know that mr Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction, we just can't tell you where they are since that could compromise our sources" ?
Heh. I love it when people make snide political remarks that betray their utter ignorance of the subject at hand. Just shut up for a minute and Google "Khidir Hamza," okay?
Here's an idea for u devolpers - Try making a theme editor for Safari that ISN'T JUST CHANGING THE COLOR!!!!!!!
Ugh. Here's an idea for you developers: give up on themes. If you want to work on something, make it something that contributes more to the world or to your own personal enrichment than simply making my screen uglier.
My opinion on tabs is well known. I'm not picking a fight here; just offering a counterpoint. I'm well aware that lots of people disagree with me, so don't bother posting just to say that you're one of 'em. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is welcome.
Because at any given moment I have three to four different pages loaded.
You accidentally point out the biggest flaw of tabs here: they're self-limiting. Depending on window size, you can only fit between four and eight tabs across the window before they have to be truncated. If you can't read the titles, the advantage of tabs evaporates.
With multiple windows, on the other hand, you can have as many pages loaded at once as you want. Multiple windows are not self-limiting.
Tabs make it very easy for me to switch back and forth without have to go up to a menu to see what is even open.
While the usability advantages of a menu over a row of tabs have been discussed thoroughly, it's hard to beat the ease of use of command-` for cycling through an application's open windows. Tabs are useful for up to 4-8 open pages; they are not useful for more than that. Similarly, command-` is useful for about the same number of open windows.
It keeps my screen cleaner which is nice.
On the other hand, it prevents you from looking at two pages side-by-side without jumping through hoops. (Choose the tab, control-click, choose "open page in new window.) Multiple windows can be used in a clean-desktop way (command-M for minimize), but let you arrange your pages however you want.
Oh and the relationship between tabs is that they are both 'documents' the browser has/is rendering. That is it.
That's not really good enough, in my opinion. For example, if tabs were implemented in some way that dealt with #1 problem (truncation), you really ought to be able to drag a tab from one window to another. That's a complicated thing; you have to implement your NSView subclasses as application instances instead of directly associating each NSView subclass with an NSWindow subclass. The current implementation, in which a tab is tied not to an NSView but to an NSWindow forever, kinda sucks. It would make more sense on a large scale for "tabs" (that name is becoming less and less appropriate) to be global network session objects, and for any window to be able to display the output from any "tab." But that poses huge usability problems; how does one instantiate a new "tab?" Should the application manage it for you, creating an autorelease pool of tabs automatically every time you open a new site (by clicking a bookmark or typing a URL or clicking a link that takes you to a new site)? Trying to implement "tabs" right opens more questions than it closes.
But basically my opinion can be summed up in what I've been saying all along: "tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have."
Dave Hyatt's weblog, the Confessions of a Mozillian
If it tells you anything, he changed the name of his weblog to Surfin' Safari about a week ago.
They are emulating the feel of Discreet Fire
;-)
:shudder:
Fire is an editor. Flame is for effects. Jashaka was originally intended to be a Flame clone. Whether it stuck to that goal or whether they went the editor route is a question best left for somebody who gives a rats ass about Jahshaka.
And in case you're wondering, the reason why we still have separate tools for editing (like Fire, or Media/Film Composer, or Final Cut Pro) and effects (like Flame, or Shake, or Combustion, or After Effects) is because the field of battle is littered with the bodies of programs that tried to do both and failed. Anybody remember Cyborg?
Use iMovie, outgrow it, then invest in Final Cut Express for $500.
Final Cut Express is only $299. Pretty much the only important difference between FCE and FCP is that FCE only works with DV25 media, which is fine if you're using a DV camcorder to lens your footage and FireWire to import it.
The fact that it's not peer-reviewed is a better reason than simply citing the source.
No, dismissing certain opinions or reports because of their source is fine, too. The old saying goes, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that just any old junk can fall into it."
Verbing weirds language.
-- Calvin
What difference does it make where the evidence is presented? Why don't you instead ask if the evidence is stong.
Because evidence that appears on its face to be strong yet comes from a completely incredible (i.e., not credible) source can usually dismissed without further examination. It's a time-saver.
We use this technique all the time here on Slashdot. Remember all those Microsoft press releases about how Windows is more secure than UNIX? Because Microsoft released them, or funded the company that released them, we don't even bother to try to refute them. They're obviously not objective. Same thing here. When a UFO nut says, "Satellite detects UFO!" it's not even worth reading the article.
Open source software which is featured on a /. story should link to the Freshmeat entry for the program. This would allow folks to find out what a program is...
If you don't know what FreeBSD is by now, no amount of Freshmeating will help you.
This is, after all, bsd.slashdot.org.
Actually I would have said that motherboards that have IRQ's, and therefore IRQ conflicts, are dead. But so many people see, for reasons that amaze me, to persist in using them. Weird.
Raise your hand if you recognize that software on a public FTP server that is not accompanied by a PGP-signed release announcement and checksum may be trojaned.
Hmm. Nobody?
Some companies are already well aware of the benefits of the BSD license. The net result? One company is now the largest single producer of UNIX operating systems in the world, measured in terms of number of units shipped per year.
The BSD license is a beautiful thing. Software that carries the BSD license can really, seriously, no-shit change the world for the better.
It seems that most people posting to this thread aren't even bothering to discuss the question in any serious fashion. It's nice to see that at least one person is staying out of the "M$ SUCKS!" "LUNIX SUCKS!" fray.
Now let's think about this for a second. When Apple went from OS 9 to OS X, they had a huge compatibility problem to deal with. Part of it was dealt with my completely reimplementing a large subset of the Macintosh Toolbox API's on the new OS-- that's what we call Carbon now. It still required most apps to be recompiled, but the changes to the API's were so small that most could be Carbonated very quickly and easily.
But Apple also provided what basically amounts to a VM: Classic, a.k.a. Blue Box. Inside Classic, old-style Mac apps can run without modification, and without having to be emulated. Classic provides the old apps with a shared address space and the basic infrastructure they need to run.
Why could Microsoft use one or both of these approaches? They could either implement Win32 and whatever else in a UNIX environment, or they could provide a VM that runs full-fledged Windows for compatibility.
alot of the little config wizards and such look so similar it isnt even funny
I use OS X all day, every day, and apart from the little tool that runs when you first turn on your computer, I can't think of anything in OS X that would qualify as a "little config wizard."
Is it possible-- not necessarily so, but just possible-- that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
It's built with Apple's proprietary Mach kernel
How do you define "proprietary?" Mach started at CMU as a totally open-source project; NeXT used CMU's Mach kernel as the basis for NeXTstep, which evolved into OS X. Apple's fork of Mach (which really isn't Mach any more, in some important ways) is still open-source.
All too often, "proprietary" is a dirty word that's thrown around Slashdot to mean "not what I'm using."
I can download some GNU utilities and copy them to C:\WINNT, now is my OS based on GNU?
Well, considering that GNU is neither a kernel nor an operating system, but rather just a loosely associated collection of utilities, I'd say that no operating system is "based on" GNU.
Also, IIRC, Cringely is not one person but a pseudo-name used by a panel of writers.
;-)
Not exactly. Robert X. Cringely is kind of like the Dread Pirate Roberts: a serial pseudonym. The name was first used in InfoWorld magazine when Dvorak left-- and started losing his mind, if his last couple years' worth of columns are any evidence-- to replace the famous byline. The Robert X. Cringely we're all most familiar with is really Mark C. Stephens; he's the guy who wrote the books and hosted "Triumph of the Nerds" on PBS and who writes "I, Cringely." He was the third Robert X. Cringely to write for InfoWorld, and he wrote for them for 8 years. Since that Cringely's departure-- okay, firing-- from InfoWorld in '95, many others have written columns under that name for the magazine.
The real Robert X. Cringely has been retired for 15 years, and living like a king in Patagonia.
I think I speak for all of us here when I say... huh?