MacOSX's dock is a blatant rip off of the docks used on AmigaOS for quite some time. MacOSX is a freaking AmigaOS w/Scalos and Amidock clone.
Actually, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the OS X dock is a blatant rip off of anything. It's a derivative of the NeXTstep dock, which appeared around 1988, well before the Amiga ever had anything comparable.
Mac OS X is not a clone of either of those OSes, it's an evolution of NeXTstep/OpenStep, which was a very influential OS in it's day. It's far more likely that any similarities you see other than a menu bar at the top of the screen, are actually due to AmigaOS copying features from NeXTstep than the other way around.
On the Mac, as on Windows, the text window is an orphan. On linux, like all unixoid systems, the text/CLI approach is well developed, and is the best way to do most tasks. On OSX, although it is a kind of unix, most of the system only works from the GUI. This is a real disappointment, and relegates it to the "toy" classification for many purposes.
What utter bullshit. What exactly are you talking about when you say "most of the system", because I'm having trouble thinking of something that I can't do from the command line, besides moving and shrinking windows and that kind of mousey behaviour.
It sounds to me like you haven't bothered to actually learn anything about OS X's command line tools and now you're whining to all and sundry on the internet about it.
Feel free to enligten me as to exactly why you feel your post isn't bullshit.
The Opaqueness is in how everything is put together. Sure you can study darwin to figure it out. But the fact is that it's unix, but it's not unix. It's not system V, it has a hybrid init mechanism. Apple has also brought together many open source components, which is good, but it has done them in such a way that I can't just take the virgin code from, say, Samba, and compile. I can, however, get the code from apple. But now instead of being able to go to all the internet resources for help with a Samba 3.0 problem, I have to go to apple instead, since they have customized these components very heavily and the Samba developers can't make any real statement on a problem because fo that. It's just frustrating when there are problems. That's all. As with all proprietary operating systems, you really do tie yourself down to one vender. It's a calculated risk, one I'm not yet comfortable with (coming from an exclusive linux server setup) yet. Apple's tech support is very good, though. And the problems I've experienced will be resolved.
Firstly, system V init doesn't make something Unix, it's system V, as in there were IV Unix systems before that DIDN'T use that system. They didn't automatically become Un-ix because of that.
It seems like what you're really complaining about is that OS X isn't Linux. It's not FreeBSD either, nor is it Solaris, SCO, HP UX, AIX, QNX, OpenBSD, NetBSD or Minix. None of these systems are the same as each other. They're all still pretty Unix like, but not all of them are system V init, not all of them are able to compile every piece of open source software out there, but some of them are derivatives of actual system V Unix, you must be feeling pretty puzzled right now, given what you seem to think Unix is.
The reason I chose OS X for a desktop operating system is for exactly the opposite of the reasons you mention. Because it's not hard to grab ordinary open source code and compile it, because it is quite easy to see how the different components of the operating system fit together, and because if I have a really titilating issue, I can conceivably grab a new kernel whether Apple want me to or not.
I share your fears about proprietary vendors and technology tie-in, and it's one of the reasons I'd be reluctant to endorse OS X as a server OS. As a desktop OS however, I don't see any reason to fear any kind of vendor lock in, the only thing of this nature that I've found yet is iMovie, since no alternatives as simple and powerful exist in Windows or Linux yet.:)
No, at worst it would be ridiculous if it were the truth.
Belkin make a Mac compatible USB adaptor that uses the PrismII chipset, with some plist (XML) tweaking it will support any USB adaptor that uses the same chipset.
I carry around an Actiontec USB wireless adaptor with my laptop so that I can make an AdHoc network whereever I go, and I've used it on OS X using the Belkin driver and plist hack.
Ah yes, an abomination. Such an abomination that KDE for Linux and BSD uses a start button, MacOS has used a start button or a launch bar since 7.x, and neXt used it too.
Clearly, Xandros should have consulted you instead of "just copying the crap blindly" like four disparate OSs have done since the 1990s. Really.
Ever thought of researching things at least a little before you start espousing them as facts?
The start button began life as a clone of the Application menu from the Apple Menu in Classic Mac OS.
Mac OS has (up until OS X) always had an Applications Menu, it was abandoned in OS X presumably because of it's OpenStep lineage.
Which brings me to your claim that "neXt used it too". OpenStep/NeXTstep never had anything remotely resembling a start button. I can conclude from you claiming that, that you've never actually used a NextStep system.
Perhaps you're thinking of the task bar in windows, which many claim is a copy of the dock from NextStep. I don't believe it is though -the system tray would be the closest approximation in Windows, though it lacks the launch facilites of Dock tiles in NextStep.
The taskbar in Windows/KDE/GNOME is such a poor copy of the Dock that it represents in three different places what the dock could do in one. A single 32x32 tile on a NextStep dock could serve the purposes of a quick launch icon, a status icon and a windows taskbar segment, to put it into Windows terms.
The only thing you established in your rant is that we're already saddled with knock-offs of a low quality knock-off. Maybe the time has come to start trying new ideas.
I'm partially in agreement with you, though I can't say I agree that OS X is somehow inherently more usable than XP. (I'm typing on a PB G4 right now btw) I use both XP and OS X extensively, as well as Linux (KDE).
XP has relatively few interface issues that I can point out, it has issues with hiding preferences from users, and with inconsistent application of visual themes, but OS X's classic, and legacy carbon applications, and Unix's competing X11 desktop environments have similar issues.
Having said that, I'm constantly annoyed by the fact that people blindly copy the Windows interface over and over, (taskbar and start button) in the mistaken belief that if it looks and works a bit like Windows then it's easy to use.
Plane controls look at a glance like car controls, there's a wheel, and peddles, and a stick. But get in and try to operate a plane using the principles learned from driving a car, and you'll most likely end up colliding with the nearest object. If you can get it started, that is.
The same applies when using an operating system, lulling users into a false sense of security by providing them with familiar looking objects that don't quite work the same as the object they ape is a dirty trick, and one that infuriates people and interrupts their workflow.
It's time to stop copying other operating systems and start working on making the interface [y]our own. Flashy translucent docks or taskbars and start buttons are not the only way to do things, and they both have shortcomings when taxed. There MUST be a better way, and we're not going to find it by copying other people's work, be it OS X, NextStep or Windows.
I'm almost ready to become a zealot but I don't know whether to become a Mac, Linux, or BSD zealot.
Here's a thought, why not become a *nix zealot. That way you don't have to pick a team, because they're all from the same camp.
That way you get to watch with glee as the wagons assemble in a circle around windows, and you get the freedom to use the best unixy OS for the job at hand.
1. Make it lockable
2. When icons are dragged off the dock, instead of going *poof* they should be moved to the desktop, unless they are dragged into the trash (and of course, the trash can't be removed)
I think what the UI people who designed the Dock are trying to achieve is to make the Dock sort of 'ethereal'; something that doesn't exist on the same plane as any other item in the OS. It's different to windows, and different to icons....Like some kind of ghost, it hovers over all other items and is see through, things in the Dock aren't really there, they're just temporary, and if you try to put them somewhere else, they disappear in a puff of smoke. It all sounds pretty straightforward in that context, but it's not easy to communicate to the user what the Dock is or how it works.
It seems to be in need of a major rethink to either make it less jarringly inconsistent with the rest of the OS, as in the Windows taskbar (although the start button is a different story - don't even get me started on a multi-tier drag-and-droppable spring-loaded cascading menu that extends from a button), or make it even more obviously inconsistent in an intuitive way.
As the dock stands now, it plays dirty tricks on the user by using what appears to be icons, but which on closer inspection are actually ghostly non-entities that don't behave like icons. They don't respect the rules by which icons are bound in the rest of the OS; in that they can't be dragged, aren't spring loaded, and don't respect finder colours among other things.
I'm not as bitter about the Dock as Tog seems to be, but I do think it communicates poorly just exactly what it is supposed to be, and as such is confusing and annoying until the user builds up a working model of it's behaviour. I suppose the term for this is counter-intuitive, but that carries connotations that it continues to be difficult to use even once you know how it works, which is not the case.
A little of both. The iBook is the cheapest, lowest-margin laptop Apple has ever made, and it has had a high failure rate. On the other hand, even if the failure rate is half that of Dell, say, you'll here more about it because Apple users expect more. So the iBook does suck, quality-wise, for an Apple (I'm typing from one now), but it's still better than a PC. Also, Apple has been fixing the iBooks out of warrantee, if you ask nicely. I can't imagine Sony ever doing that.
Nice bit of Apple apologism there, but as the owner of a 667Mhz TiBook, I can safely that this has been the most unreliable computer I have ever owned, I have splotches on the screen that Apple won't fix, lost all the stoppers off the bottom and Apple won't replace them, had to have the top case replaced because of flaking paint, gone through a battery and four power supplies, had the plastic divider inside one of the USB ports snap off under normal use, and have had to be without it for a total of about 4 weeks because of a failure of the motherboard, followed by the charging system in the 'reconditioned' motherboard Apple sent out as a replacement for the original.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool NeXTStep/OpenStep/OS X fan, but I will not buy another Apple product until I see evidence that they are taking quality control seriously.
I might not be so annoyed if not for the fact that everyone I know who has bought an Apple laptop since 2000 has experienced a failure of one sort or another. We're talking five or six people and every single one has had power supply, battery and screen problems with their laptops. These are experienced computer owners who aren't just slinging their laptops in a bag with a whole bunch of books, but taking good care of them, and storing them in specialized bags etc.
It's all very nice for you to say that the iBook is cheap by Apple standards, but my PowerBook was not cheap by any measurement, at $7000NZ all up for the TiBook and extended warranty, I'd expect something a little better than a never-ending string of problems and little in the way of support from Apple, who as good as told me to fuck off when my battery gave up the ghost after 18 months, halfway through the extended warranty period.
It's pretty clear that you've never owned a laptop made by any other company (I've had 4 PC laptops and never had these kind of problems) if you think that Apple's piss-poor quality control is defensible, especially at the premium Apple are charging for their gear.
It never fails to amaze me how many former navy seals, marines, snipers, covert operatives, counter-terrorist agents and military officers frequent internet forums which are otherwise used mostly by nerds.
Apple isn't "on top" of much of anything that I can think of. small/midrage servers? That's Linux-dominated. Workstations? That's Windows-dominated. I suppose they have more users than the other BSD variants, for what that's worth.
Or more users than all of the other Unix systems put together if you're talking about the desktop.
Apple sell more Unix than any other vendor in the world at the moment, so they are on top in at least one respect.
This is utter nonsense, because cellphones keep a running log of all of the cells in transmission range, up to the maximum trackable by the telephone, and remain connected to all of them. This is the only way that it's possible to do a smooth handover from cell to cell.
In built up areas like city blocks, the providers use what are known as 'micro-cells' that are attached to the side of buildings or on lamp posts because a simple tower is not enough to reach all of the blind spots created by buildings.
In Auckland City, which is not exactly the most cosmopolitan of cities, there are over two hundred cell sites, and my old Nokia 5110 GSM phone would be connected to no less than six of them at any time. This would be easily enough information to track not only my latitude and longitude, but also my altitude down to less than one meter.
Slashdot Mirror
MacOSX's dock is a blatant rip off of the docks used on AmigaOS for quite some time. MacOSX is a freaking AmigaOS w/Scalos and Amidock clone.
Actually, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the OS X dock is a blatant rip off of anything. It's a derivative of the NeXTstep dock, which appeared around 1988, well before the Amiga ever had anything comparable.
Mac OS X is not a clone of either of those OSes, it's an evolution of NeXTstep/OpenStep, which was a very influential OS in it's day. It's far more likely that any similarities you see other than a menu bar at the top of the screen, are actually due to AmigaOS copying features from NeXTstep than the other way around.
On the Mac, as on Windows, the text window is an orphan. On linux, like all unixoid systems, the text/CLI approach is well developed, and is the best way to do most tasks. On OSX, although it is a kind of unix, most of the system only works from the GUI. This is a real disappointment, and relegates it to the "toy" classification for many purposes.
What utter bullshit. What exactly are you talking about when you say "most of the system", because I'm having trouble thinking of something that I can't do from the command line, besides moving and shrinking windows and that kind of mousey behaviour.
It sounds to me like you haven't bothered to actually learn anything about OS X's command line tools and now you're whining to all and sundry on the internet about it.
Feel free to enligten me as to exactly why you feel your post isn't bullshit.
The Opaqueness is in how everything is put together. Sure you can study darwin to figure it out. But the fact is that it's unix, but it's not unix. It's not system V, it has a hybrid init mechanism. Apple has also brought together many open source components, which is good, but it has done them in such a way that I can't just take the virgin code from, say, Samba, and compile. I can, however, get the code from apple. But now instead of being able to go to all the internet resources for help with a Samba 3.0 problem, I have to go to apple instead, since they have customized these components very heavily and the Samba developers can't make any real statement on a problem because fo that. It's just frustrating when there are problems. That's all. As with all proprietary operating systems, you really do tie yourself down to one vender. It's a calculated risk, one I'm not yet comfortable with (coming from an exclusive linux server setup) yet. Apple's tech support is very good, though. And the problems I've experienced will be resolved.
:)
Firstly, system V init doesn't make something Unix, it's system V, as in there were IV Unix systems before that DIDN'T use that system. They didn't automatically become Un-ix because of that.
It seems like what you're really complaining about is that OS X isn't Linux. It's not FreeBSD either, nor is it Solaris, SCO, HP UX, AIX, QNX, OpenBSD, NetBSD or Minix. None of these systems are the same as each other. They're all still pretty Unix like, but not all of them are system V init, not all of them are able to compile every piece of open source software out there, but some of them are derivatives of actual system V Unix, you must be feeling pretty puzzled right now, given what you seem to think Unix is.
The reason I chose OS X for a desktop operating system is for exactly the opposite of the reasons you mention. Because it's not hard to grab ordinary open source code and compile it, because it is quite easy to see how the different components of the operating system fit together, and because if I have a really titilating issue, I can conceivably grab a new kernel whether Apple want me to or not.
I share your fears about proprietary vendors and technology tie-in, and it's one of the reasons I'd be reluctant to endorse OS X as a server OS. As a desktop OS however, I don't see any reason to fear any kind of vendor lock in, the only thing of this nature that I've found yet is iMovie, since no alternatives as simple and powerful exist in Windows or Linux yet.
Uh, the limit of 16 bit addressing is actually 1Mb.
8 bit is 64Kb.
No, at worst it would be ridiculous if it were the truth.
Belkin make a Mac compatible USB adaptor that uses the PrismII chipset, with some plist (XML) tweaking it will support any USB adaptor that uses the same chipset.
I carry around an Actiontec USB wireless adaptor with my laptop so that I can make an AdHoc network whereever I go, and I've used it on OS X using the Belkin driver and plist hack.
Ah yes, an abomination. Such an abomination that KDE for Linux and BSD uses a start button, MacOS has used a start button or a launch bar since 7.x, and neXt used it too.
Clearly, Xandros should have consulted you instead of "just copying the crap blindly" like four disparate OSs have done since the 1990s. Really.
Ever thought of researching things at least a little before you start espousing them as facts?
The start button began life as a clone of the Application menu from the Apple Menu in Classic Mac OS.
Mac OS has (up until OS X) always had an Applications Menu, it was abandoned in OS X presumably because of it's OpenStep lineage.
Which brings me to your claim that "neXt used it too". OpenStep/NeXTstep never had anything remotely resembling a start button. I can conclude from you claiming that, that you've never actually used a NextStep system.
Perhaps you're thinking of the task bar in windows, which many claim is a copy of the dock from NextStep. I don't believe it is though -the system tray would be the closest approximation in Windows, though it lacks the launch facilites of Dock tiles in NextStep.
The taskbar in Windows/KDE/GNOME is such a poor copy of the Dock that it represents in three different places what the dock could do in one. A single 32x32 tile on a NextStep dock could serve the purposes of a quick launch icon, a status icon and a windows taskbar segment, to put it into Windows terms.
The only thing you established in your rant is that we're already saddled with knock-offs of a low quality knock-off. Maybe the time has come to start trying new ideas.
I'm partially in agreement with you, though I can't say I agree that OS X is somehow inherently more usable than XP. (I'm typing on a PB G4 right now btw) I use both XP and OS X extensively, as well as Linux (KDE).
XP has relatively few interface issues that I can point out, it has issues with hiding preferences from users, and with inconsistent application of visual themes, but OS X's classic, and legacy carbon applications, and Unix's competing X11 desktop environments have similar issues.
Having said that, I'm constantly annoyed by the fact that people blindly copy the Windows interface over and over, (taskbar and start button) in the mistaken belief that if it looks and works a bit like Windows then it's easy to use.
Plane controls look at a glance like car controls, there's a wheel, and peddles, and a stick. But get in and try to operate a plane using the principles learned from driving a car, and you'll most likely end up colliding with the nearest object. If you can get it started, that is.
The same applies when using an operating system, lulling users into a false sense of security by providing them with familiar looking objects that don't quite work the same as the object they ape is a dirty trick, and one that infuriates people and interrupts their workflow.
It's time to stop copying other operating systems and start working on making the interface [y]our own. Flashy translucent docks or taskbars and start buttons are not the only way to do things, and they both have shortcomings when taxed. There MUST be a better way, and we're not going to find it by copying other people's work, be it OS X, NextStep or Windows.
Dude, this review is about Xandros, the parent poster mentioned MEPIS, and you're talking about fucking SuSE?
Get a clue.
I'm almost ready to become a zealot but I don't know whether to become a Mac, Linux, or BSD zealot.
Here's a thought, why not become a *nix zealot. That way you don't have to pick a team, because they're all from the same camp.
That way you get to watch with glee as the wagons assemble in a circle around windows, and you get the freedom to use the best unixy OS for the job at hand.
1. Make it lockable
...Like some kind of ghost, it hovers over all other items and is see through, things in the Dock aren't really there, they're just temporary, and if you try to put them somewhere else, they disappear in a puff of smoke. It all sounds pretty straightforward in that context, but it's not easy to communicate to the user what the Dock is or how it works.
2. When icons are dragged off the dock, instead of going *poof* they should be moved to the desktop, unless they are dragged into the trash (and of course, the trash can't be removed)
I think what the UI people who designed the Dock are trying to achieve is to make the Dock sort of 'ethereal'; something that doesn't exist on the same plane as any other item in the OS. It's different to windows, and different to icons.
It seems to be in need of a major rethink to either make it less jarringly inconsistent with the rest of the OS, as in the Windows taskbar (although the start button is a different story - don't even get me started on a multi-tier drag-and-droppable spring-loaded cascading menu that extends from a button), or make it even more obviously inconsistent in an intuitive way.
As the dock stands now, it plays dirty tricks on the user by using what appears to be icons, but which on closer inspection are actually ghostly non-entities that don't behave like icons. They don't respect the rules by which icons are bound in the rest of the OS; in that they can't be dragged, aren't spring loaded, and don't respect finder colours among other things.
I'm not as bitter about the Dock as Tog seems to be, but I do think it communicates poorly just exactly what it is supposed to be, and as such is confusing and annoying until the user builds up a working model of it's behaviour. I suppose the term for this is counter-intuitive, but that carries connotations that it continues to be difficult to use even once you know how it works, which is not the case.
A little of both. The iBook is the cheapest, lowest-margin laptop Apple has ever made, and it has had a high failure rate. On the other hand, even if the failure rate is half that of Dell, say, you'll here more about it because Apple users expect more. So the iBook does suck, quality-wise, for an Apple (I'm typing from one now), but it's still better than a PC. Also, Apple has been fixing the iBooks out of warrantee, if you ask nicely. I can't imagine Sony ever doing that.
Nice bit of Apple apologism there, but as the owner of a 667Mhz TiBook, I can safely that this has been the most unreliable computer I have ever owned, I have splotches on the screen that Apple won't fix, lost all the stoppers off the bottom and Apple won't replace them, had to have the top case replaced because of flaking paint, gone through a battery and four power supplies, had the plastic divider inside one of the USB ports snap off under normal use, and have had to be without it for a total of about 4 weeks because of a failure of the motherboard, followed by the charging system in the 'reconditioned' motherboard Apple sent out as a replacement for the original.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool NeXTStep/OpenStep/OS X fan, but I will not buy another Apple product until I see evidence that they are taking quality control seriously.
I might not be so annoyed if not for the fact that everyone I know who has bought an Apple laptop since 2000 has experienced a failure of one sort or another. We're talking five or six people and every single one has had power supply, battery and screen problems with their laptops. These are experienced computer owners who aren't just slinging their laptops in a bag with a whole bunch of books, but taking good care of them, and storing them in specialized bags etc.
It's all very nice for you to say that the iBook is cheap by Apple standards, but my PowerBook was not cheap by any measurement, at $7000NZ all up for the TiBook and extended warranty, I'd expect something a little better than a never-ending string of problems and little in the way of support from Apple, who as good as told me to fuck off when my battery gave up the ghost after 18 months, halfway through the extended warranty period.
It's pretty clear that you've never owned a laptop made by any other company (I've had 4 PC laptops and never had these kind of problems) if you think that Apple's piss-poor quality control is defensible, especially at the premium Apple are charging for their gear.
If they decide tomorrow to no longer support M4P, where would you be with the music you downloaded from iTMS?
Put it on CDs like most of the other music in the world maybe?
I think he's a lloyd.
Today's QT license is alot more liberal.
Today's QT[free] license is the GPL.
How is GTK+ not "third party"? Did you write it entirely by yourself?
You forgot Kylix. Oh wait, so did Borland.
Sorry -- posting AC so I don't lose too much karma points being modded down as troll / flamebait :-(
:D
Pussy.
And when the insurgence starts, guess what the guerillas are going to do with people like you. :D
Oh, I thought it was "new-killer".
It never fails to amaze me how many former navy seals, marines, snipers, covert operatives, counter-terrorist agents and military officers frequent internet forums which are otherwise used mostly by nerds.
Yeah, I Gnow what you mean. GNOME is so much more professional, they Gnever use stupid Gay names like GayDE do.
Apple isn't "on top" of much of anything that I can think of. small/midrage servers? That's Linux-dominated. Workstations? That's Windows-dominated. I suppose they have more users than the other BSD variants, for what that's worth.
Or more users than all of the other Unix systems put together if you're talking about the desktop.
Apple sell more Unix than any other vendor in the world at the moment, so they are on top in at least one respect.
Yeah I know, Mikeophile! what a dodgy name!
This is utter nonsense, because cellphones keep a running log of all of the cells in transmission range, up to the maximum trackable by the telephone, and remain connected to all of them. This is the only way that it's possible to do a smooth handover from cell to cell.
In built up areas like city blocks, the providers use what are known as 'micro-cells' that are attached to the side of buildings or on lamp posts because a simple tower is not enough to reach all of the blind spots created by buildings.
In Auckland City, which is not exactly the most cosmopolitan of cities, there are over two hundred cell sites, and my old Nokia 5110 GSM phone would be connected to no less than six of them at any time. This would be easily enough information to track not only my latitude and longitude, but also my altitude down to less than one meter.
And one story with a post where someone who clearly spends a lot of time reading stuff on Slashdot whines about how bad it is.
What is this, some kind of public self-flagellation ritual or something?