I don't pretend to understand all of the issues with major application deployments, but most Mac OS X software is perfectly happy running from a read-only network mounted server directory (or directly off CD-ROM for that matter).
I have never understood the need to separately install application software on every PC. When you want to roll out an application, install the application on a server and let the users double click the application icon. What's the problem ? Why take up disk space on every PC ? Users still have their own settings, preferences, recently used files list, etc.
Couple this approach with user directories stored on servers and automated back-up is a snap too.
If Linux comes up with consistent drag & drop, a consistent widget set, sane default settings, good looking fonts, more fonts, color correction, QuickTime, supported Microsoft Office, iTunes, Spotlight, Keychain, Software Update, parental controls, Core Image, Core Audio... off the top of my head...
I have worked on Commercial and DoD avionics, and this type of thing is inexcusable.
Commercial avionics software of the sort described is governed by a standard called DO-178B level A or level B. The process is so rigorous that the slogan is "no-one has ever died from software failure in a commercial airliner, yet." DO-178B level A is expensive. It is virtually impossible that a software error of the nature described could get into a certified aircraft.
Having said that, the military is not obliged to follow commercial standards, but there is a trend toward using DO 178-B in military systems in part because the Europeans are starting to require commercial JAA/FAA certification for all aircraft that enter their air space. But even in the more lax military world, every line of code is typically formally reviewed and there are independent testers. The type of error described should have shown up in simulators before the first flight of the aircraft. Test flights should have stimulated the error long before a squadron ever attempted a transpacific flight.
Even worse still, avionics systems are supposed to be isolated from each other. Navigation radios typically share nothing but power with GPS or with engine instruments etc. Great effort prevents one system from disturbing the power of another too. Aircraft typically have two or more separate primary navigation systems plus inertial guidance and old fashion compass + baring/vector navigation. Military aircraft need to survive both normal equipment failures and battle damage. Military radios (including navigation) need to be isolated from other systems for security reasons too. Those NSA guarded encryption systems can not be contaminated by software that has lower security classification (like navigation)without somebody going to federal prison for a long time.
The bottom line is that something very very wrong, negligent, and illegal needed to happen for the described error mode to manifest. That makes me doubt the story.
Why is anybody manually de-fragmenting hard disks in the year 2007 ? Is disk fragmentation still a real problem with Vista ? Was it even a problem in Windows NT with NTFS ?
What corner of the universe do you live in where anybody ever said Vista "was going to blow Leopard away?" Most reviewers and even most advanced humans have been saying for years that Vista isn't even as good as Tiger, the version of Mac OS X that Microsoft knocked-off. Leopard is expected to further advance Mac OS X beyond the baseline Vista failed to achieve.
Having said all of that, I haven't used either Leopard or Vista enough to compare them meaningfully myself. I am just paraphrasing everything I have read in mainstream press and forums like this one.
According to a quick Google search, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S.A. border. What percentage of U.S.A cicizens live within 100 miles of a major metropolitan area let alone an international border ?
I am curious how your observation relates to the general supposition that Macs are easy to use ? Somehow the Mac users learned to cope with drag-and-drop application installation.
I wish I could mod the parent comment up! The light has dawned and I suddenly understand. Yes, what the parent says makes perfect sense now. I hope it works and every vendor releases software that doesn't gratuitously escalate permissions.
"I fail to see how the UAC, in this respect, is any different from Linux or MacOSX"
Use Mac OS X for a while and you might see more clearly.
Regarding Windows:
- The central registry used by both unprivaledged application as well as critical system components was a bone headed idea and many people commented on that fact back in 1995. Now user applications need admin priveledge just to write to a registry they should never have needed.
- Allowing applications such as office suites (or _gasp_ web browsers) to overwrite system DLLs was idiotic then and now. It also causes multiple reboots whenever large application suites are installed. The last time I installed Microsoft Visual Studio, I had to re-boot Windows 2000 SIX times. The last time I installed IBM's Rational Tool Suite, I has to reboot FIVE times. I sometimes even have to reboot to uninstall software.
- Allowing an alert dialog from any background application to steal the users focus from their foreground application was retarded then and now.
- Using an Installer was questionable even in the day when you needed a prompt to tell you to insert the next floppy disk. Continuing to use installers for ordinary user applications is tragic.
Microsoft used a particularly annoying and inneficient way to prompt users for permission escalation. Microsoft could make a less annoying system, but it wouldn't fix the root problem that too many (nearly all) user applications need escalated privaledges in the first place.
What kind of software are you writingfro Mac OS X that you need an installer at all ? Do you write device drivers or non-user-space kernel extensions ?
Thank you for at least minimizing the rights needed. But please, before writing another installer, I beg you to read Apple's guidance on the subject:
"Drag-and-Drop Installation Bundles make it possible to provide drag-and-drop installation for applications (for more information on application bundles, see Bundle Programming Guide). Using bundles is the preferred way to install an application for the following reasons:
It is easy for users to install and uninstall the application. It takes less time to install (only the time needed to copy the bundle). You don't have to spend time developing an installer. Providing drag-and-drop installation does not preclude you from placing files in specific places on the system. When your application is first run, it can copy any needed support files to appropriate places on the system. However, you should avoid using this technique to install additional executable code and should instead use it to install preference files, document templates, or other resources that can be regenerated as needed and are not required for the application to run.
Note: If you install additional files when your application is first run, be sure to install them in obvious places, such as in the Application Support directory. Place your resources in a directory named for your application to make it easy for the user to find these files if they ever need to uninstall your application."
So applications that don't need installers exist for Windows too. That is slightly encouraging.
Why is it that almost everything I encounter on Windows uses an installer ?
It must be a cultural thing, because I can't imagine a "need" in most cases. It must go along with using/polluting the registry and adding a desk top icon and/or tray icon for every application naturally assuming that I want to dedicate my computer to running just that one application. It probably correlates with applications that pointlessly steal the user's focus when they are deep in concentration on something else. I am sure its related to forcing every user to install the application on the local computer instead of letting people run all of their apps from a network share where they are centralized and easily maintained by the IT department.
Hell, Microsoft Office is one of the worst user experiences on Mac OS X. Why does an office productivity suite need an installer on OS X ? On Windows its because Office replaces half of the system DLLs, but why on Mac OS X ?
1) So, all Vista installers run with admin. priv. 2) Installing a downloaded Tetris game allows the game installer to change virtually anything in the system.
Why does a game need an installer at all ? Why not just unzip the game into your user account/home directory or better yet drag the game icon to the place you want it ? Why do Windows applications all seem to need an installer ?
On OS X and NeXTstep before it, application icons are actually covers for directories containing all of the support files including executables need by the application. Furthermore, applications are not supposed to assume that they can write to their own directory. This is convenient for running applications from servers without installing on the local machine or for running directly off a CD-ROM. If an application needs to store user data or write configuration files, there are standard places to put the files. When needed, the individual application copies files to standard places using the user's permissions and not admin permissions.
The first time any application is run, the user is asked if it is OK. If some crap is downloaded and executed unintentionally, the user is given a chance to say WTF and stop it. Any time any application needs privileges beyond the user's default privileges, an admin passwd is required.
No installers (except in crap-ware and unusual circumstances and even then they require an admin password for upgraded privileges! Remarkable little user irritation.
Why can't Microsoft copy this behavior ? It has been for sale since 1988.
- Apple market share is increasing (trend has been positive for several years).
- Apple market share outside of the server closet is presumably larger than Linux market share, but I don't know how it can be measured.
- Apple continues to set records for Macintosh units shipped quarter after quarter. Considering the ~34% margin that Apple reports on Macintosh hardware, they are unlikely to hurry out of that business.
- Apple knows that it is OS X and bundled applications that sell Mac hardware. Steve Jobs said the heart of the Mac is OS X.
So, Apple is not going to sell its Mac business or open/license much of OS X above the BSD layer and system utilities.
I would love it if Apple did open/license the parts of OS X that are still closed. The market for my OS X applications would grow tremendously. I just don't see it happening.
Dude! Don't use the feature if you don't want to. And what's with the irrational music player comment ? If you don't buy songs from the iTunes Music store, you will never encounter DRMed music on you iPod. The iPod will happily ply your pirated mp3s. Or do what I do, just buy CDs and copy the music onto you iPod. iTunes will do it all for you...just put the pretty CD in the slot.
Talk to the store manager. In my experience, Macs do not crash (much). I have only force quit an application perhaps three times in 5 years, and I have never seen a Mac OS X crash. What does it even look like ? Maybe there is something wrong with the floor demo's hardware ?
I do a lot of software development, use Windows file shares via SAMBA, browsing the web, send email, watch video, burn CD/DVD, plug in cameras and ipods, and use all of the standard productivity applications. I don't use Haxies. My kids play a lot of grade school appropriate games on the Mac in our house. Maybe my usage patterns just don't trip up the system.
I have heard that ssh based CVS connections and industrial strength FTP usage might stress the system. I don't do that much.
Unless I am mistaken, Windows standardized on 92+ pixels per inch. PDF, Postscript, and Mac OS standardized on 72 pixel per inch because that was a common printing/publishing standard and the first GUI's were for "desktop publishing".
Also, what you are asking for is resolution independent graphics, and that is already available as a user option with Mac OS 10.4 and will ubiquitous with Mac OS X 10.5.
Point 1: Yes, Interface Builder and NeXTstep predate the web: The "web" was _created_ with Interface Builder and NeXTstep! Tim Berners-Lee says "
The first web browser was implemented in NeXTstep and was also the first web editor. The World Wide Web application was a WYSIWYG editor with collaborative user editing features far beyind standard wiki today.
"It has taken a long time for technology to catch up with Berners-Lee's original vision. The first ever web browser was also an editor, making the web an interactive medium, the problem was that it only ran on the NeXTStep operating system."
Tim Berners-Lee worte "I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)" http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb. html
Note: He did not write the program on a Mac using Hypercard nore could he reasonably.
Point 2: NeXTstep predates XML: Prior to standard XML, NeXTstep used ASCII "Propert Lists" which are exactly the same concept with a different syntax and no user definable type qualification. When XML was standardized, NeXTstep transitioned to using it.
Point 3: Very few people (possibly only you) would claim that dropping Hypercard and adopting NeXTstep was even a small step backward. You don't seem to understand what NeXTstep/Openstep/Cocoa is or what it enables or why it is still ahead of the crowd 18 years later.
Point 4: How is Hypercard anything other than a tool to let users create quick and dirty applications also knows as "hacks" ? Don't be so quick to call things "Third party extension and hacks" particularly when they are full featured commecial tools used to build serious applications.
Can you edit the user interface of a Cocoa application WHILE it's running? YES, but not exactly the way you could with Hypercard.
Please read the link provided, http://www.fscript.org/ and understand "F-Script can be dynamically injected into any Cocoa application. " I agree that Hypercard is a wonderful interactive tool as are traditional Smalltalk and modern scripting environments such as PyObjc with Interface Builder. Hypercard, to and even greater extent than REALBasic, is limited to low complexity interactive "script" environments. It just doesn't scale to full featured applications that must be developed by a team larger than 1 person. As already mentioned, many large key Apple and third party applications (in fact, pretty much all Mac applications these days) use Interface Builder.
It is worth noting that Cocoa makes OpenDoc unnessasary and that in the past, standard object embedding has been available with Cocoa: "Open Object Embedding (OOE) is Lighthouse Design's compound document standard. OOE allows you to seamlessly create word processing documents that contain elements from other applications, for example drawings, spreadsheets, equations and tables."
Jonathan Schwartz (Current President and CEO of Sun Microsystems) was co-founder of Lighthouse Design and sold Lighthouse Design to Sun in 1996.
I concede that HYPERCARD is/was an awesome user editable application development tool. Smalltalk is/was similar in the sense that every user of a Smalltalk application had the entire Smalltalk environment and the opportunity (if not skill) to change anything.
You might enjoy http://www.fscript.org/ and its object browser and object injection capabilities. In fact, f-script plus Interface Builder should make any HYPERCARD programmer who wants to make serious (user editable)applications simply ecstatic.
There are many interactive scripting environments today including Python, Ruby, Tcl, Perl, and more. You can even use Interface Builder with them. If user editable application logic is what you want, any of the scripting environments will suite you. http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net/http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/doc/
However, Interface Builder absolutely DOES enable end users to manipulate any aspect of the user interface. If you have a Mac, open any of the Next Interface Builder (NIB) files for Cocoa applications from Apple or third parties in Interface Builder and edit away. Add, remove, rearrange any GUI components. Change the menus and short cuts, add menus, add new windows, change what objects do, enlarge fonts, create your own localization,... You can even add your own custom objects that didn't exist when the application was compiled into the mix.
In practice, people don't do this for three reasons: 1) They don't know they can 2) It is easy to break things or degrade the application's functionality (which was true of HYPERCARD as well) 3) Apple and some third parties cleverly remove the data.classes file from within the nib (a nib is actually a directory of files). However, you can re-introduce a blank data.classes from any source, and Interface Builder will let you open and edit the nib. You need to open the nib "files" with "Show Package Contents" http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060 720091325592
I am sorry, but HYPERCARD was and is a toy. It is fun and assesible to children, but it is not suitable for serious application development: particularly if more than one person is involved in the development.
In contrast, most important (quite possibly all by now) Mac OS X applications including the iWork suite were developed with Interface Builder and in most cases Cocoa. The very first web browser was developed with the precursor to Cocoa and Interface Builder. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb. html
Tim Berners-Lee worte "I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)"
Lotus Improv, the original Doom level editor, the untire user interface of NeXTstep were developed with Interface Builder.
If you haven't used Interface Builder (IB), then you are really missing out. Many people have a difficult time wrapping their brain around the concepts of Interface Builder, but I assure you it is across the board the best GUI builder paradigm yet invented. For a very brief introduction to its concepts, see Hold Me, Use Me, Free Me http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/HoldMe. html.
In fact, IB should have been named "Object Connector" because it is not a "builder" at all. All IB does is let you instantiate objects, specify their initial state, and define connections or relationships between the objects. You should note that it is equally applicable to user interface objects and every other kind of object including your own custom classes. The configured objects are serialized to either a binary file or an XML file (your choice). The "Test" mode in IB just serializes and then de-serializes the object graph in memory to produce a fully functional system that you can test.
Although Interface Builder has been available since 1988, it is actively developed by Apple and is in fact free along with the rest of Apple's development tools with Mac OS X. Recent additions to Interface Builder have included Key-Value Observing which eliminates al lot of "controller" code from a system and Data Modeler which automates a lot of "model" code.
Steve Jobs used to state that it doesn't matter whether code is hand written or computer written, every line of code is a potential bug and a source for future maintenance. The only way to radically improve programmer and life-cycle productivity is to radically reduce the amount of new code needed to implement applications. IB is a stellar example of the wisdom oh his words. [This is also a huge win for cultural localization...)
Given the extremely rich frameworks of objects (both GUI and non-GUI) that are available from Cocoa, IB's ability to instantiate objects and form connections and relationships between them without any code is a huge win. If you haven't used this technique, trust me: you don't know what you are missing. You will never want to go back!
IB's down side has always been documenting (for posterity) all of the connections and relationships that are specified in IB. IB is improving on that front with XML file formats and data "entity-relationship" modeling built in. There have also been plug-in palettes that improve documentation generation.
Just as a reminder, unlike most GUI builders, IB works equally well with your custom classes and the framework classes. You can build new "palettes" for you objects to provide slick graphical interaction, but the basic connections and relationships capabilities work with all objects with no special effort.
As others will surely point out, mathematics are generally not patentable today, and patents didn't exist when Pythagoras, Leibnitz and Newton were innovating. I wonder why they bothered to innovate then ?
I don't know if the PnP junction was patented (by IBM?). All of the basic math and theory for what to do with collections of switches (like PnP transistors) was well know hundreds of years before the invention of transistors. Computers composed of tubes and/or relays and/or gears all existed.
Was the flip-flop circuit patented ? Was the AND gate circuit patented ? Was the "while loop" construct patented ? Was the "if" statement patented (well, "if not" was patented by Microsoft!).
Platform/Technology limited competitor options
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From the Article: "Apple would have to decide not to license the Macintosh operating system."
Apple and others did a lot of stupid things to give Microsoft the desktop. Few would claim the Windows 3.1, the first popular version, was even half as good as Mac OS at the time. However, Microsoft got Windows 3.1 to work on the VGA graphics "IBM Compatible" computers that people already owned. Furthermore, Windows 3.1 could run almost all of the DOS software that people already had.
The Mac OS GUI features required much more than the CGA and VGA graphics (over an ISA bus) that typical PCs had at the time. Even if Apple had licensed Mac OS in 1990, nobody could have gotten it working on the craptastic PCs available at the time.
Microsoft leveraged its existing DOS dominance into its Windows dominance and leverage the fact the PC hardware sucked too much to run anything better at the time. Apple no doubt thought that anyone attempting to implement a GUI would at least have direct frame buffer access the way the Mac did in 1984. PCs did not have it in 1991.
Are you perchance female ? I have known several women who called Heinlein a misogynist. He certainly had unconventional ideas about gender roles and complex relationships. His widow must be a saint.
Heinlein has also been criticized for only having one character, and that character is recycled for both heroes and heroines. One woman I know calls Heinlein's heroines "femaleins."
I love Heinlein, and I think it is ironic that Lois McMaster Boujold (a woman and my favorite author) has in some respects picked up the mantle for Heinlein IMHO. For those who enjoy Heinlein, you will love Boujold... It is Heinlein with more distinct characters.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't pretend to understand all of the issues with major application deployments, but most Mac OS X software is perfectly happy running from a read-only network mounted server directory (or directly off CD-ROM for that matter).
I have never understood the need to separately install application software on every PC. When you want to roll out an application, install the application on a server and let the users double click the application icon. What's the problem ? Why take up disk space on every PC ? Users still have their own settings, preferences, recently used files list, etc.
Couple this approach with user directories stored on servers and automated back-up is a snap too.
If Linux comes up with consistent drag & drop, a consistent widget set, sane default settings, good looking fonts, more fonts, color correction, QuickTime, supported Microsoft Office, iTunes, Spotlight, Keychain, Software Update, parental controls, Core Image, Core Audio... off the top of my head...
I have worked on Commercial and DoD avionics, and this type of thing is inexcusable.
Commercial avionics software of the sort described is governed by a standard called DO-178B level A or level B. The process is so rigorous that the slogan is "no-one has ever died from software failure in a commercial airliner, yet." DO-178B level A is expensive. It is virtually impossible that a software error of the nature described could get into a certified aircraft.
Having said that, the military is not obliged to follow commercial standards, but there is a trend toward using DO 178-B in military systems in part because the Europeans are starting to require commercial JAA/FAA certification for all aircraft that enter their air space. But even in the more lax military world, every line of code is typically formally reviewed and there are independent testers. The type of error described should have shown up in simulators before the first flight of the aircraft. Test flights should have stimulated the error long before a squadron ever attempted a transpacific flight.
Even worse still, avionics systems are supposed to be isolated from each other. Navigation radios typically share nothing but power with GPS or with engine instruments etc. Great effort prevents one system from disturbing the power of another too. Aircraft typically have two or more separate primary navigation systems plus inertial guidance and old fashion compass + baring/vector navigation. Military aircraft need to survive both normal equipment failures and battle damage. Military radios (including navigation) need to be isolated from other systems for security reasons too. Those NSA guarded encryption systems can not be contaminated by software that has lower security classification (like navigation)without somebody going to federal prison for a long time.
The bottom line is that something very very wrong, negligent, and illegal needed to happen for the described error mode to manifest. That makes me doubt the story.
Why is anybody manually de-fragmenting hard disks in the year 2007 ? Is disk fragmentation still a real problem with Vista ? Was it even a problem in Windows NT with NTFS ?
What corner of the universe do you live in where anybody ever said Vista "was going to blow Leopard away?" Most reviewers and even most advanced humans have been saying for years that Vista isn't even as good as Tiger, the version of Mac OS X that Microsoft knocked-off. Leopard is expected to further advance Mac OS X beyond the baseline Vista failed to achieve.
Having said all of that, I haven't used either Leopard or Vista enough to compare them meaningfully myself. I am just paraphrasing everything I have read in mainstream press and forums like this one.
According to a quick Google search, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S.A. border. What percentage of U.S.A cicizens live within 100 miles of a major metropolitan area let alone an international border ?
d ians+living+on+us+border
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=percentage+cana
I am curious how your observation relates to the general supposition that Macs are easy to use ? Somehow the Mac users learned to cope with drag-and-drop application installation.
I wish I could mod the parent comment up! The light has dawned and I suddenly understand. Yes, what the parent says makes perfect sense now. I hope it works and every vendor releases software that doesn't gratuitously escalate permissions.
VERY INSIGHTFUL!
"I fail to see how the UAC, in this respect, is any different from Linux or MacOSX"
Use Mac OS X for a while and you might see more clearly.
Regarding Windows:
- The central registry used by both unprivaledged application as well as critical system components was a bone headed idea and many people commented on that fact back in 1995. Now user applications need admin priveledge just to write to a registry they should never have needed.
- Allowing applications such as office suites (or _gasp_ web browsers) to overwrite system DLLs was idiotic then and now. It also causes multiple reboots whenever large application suites are installed. The last time I installed Microsoft Visual Studio, I had to re-boot Windows 2000 SIX times. The last time I installed IBM's Rational Tool Suite, I has to reboot FIVE times. I sometimes even have to reboot to uninstall software.
- Allowing an alert dialog from any background application to steal the users focus from their foreground application was retarded then and now.
- Using an Installer was questionable even in the day when you needed a prompt to tell you to insert the next floppy disk. Continuing to use installers for ordinary user applications is tragic.
Microsoft used a particularly annoying and inneficient way to prompt users for permission escalation. Microsoft could make a less annoying system, but it wouldn't fix the root problem that too many (nearly all) user applications need escalated privaledges in the first place.
What kind of software are you writingfro Mac OS X that you need an installer at all ? Do you write device drivers or non-user-space kernel extensions ?
Thank you for at least minimizing the rights needed. But please, before writing another installer, I beg you to read Apple's guidance on the subject:
"Drag-and-Drop Installation
Bundles make it possible to provide drag-and-drop installation for applications (for more information on application bundles, see Bundle Programming Guide). Using bundles is the preferred way to install an application for the following reasons:
It is easy for users to install and uninstall the application.
It takes less time to install (only the time needed to copy the bundle).
You don't have to spend time developing an installer.
Providing drag-and-drop installation does not preclude you from placing files in specific places on the system. When your application is first run, it can copy any needed support files to appropriate places on the system. However, you should avoid using this technique to install additional executable code and should instead use it to install preference files, document templates, or other resources that can be regenerated as needed and are not required for the application to run.
Note: If you install additional files when your application is first run, be sure to install them in obvious places, such as in the Application Support directory. Place your resources in a directory named for your application to make it easy for the user to find these files if they ever need to uninstall your application."
So applications that don't need installers exist for Windows too. That is slightly encouraging.
Why is it that almost everything I encounter on Windows uses an installer ?
It must be a cultural thing, because I can't imagine a "need" in most cases. It must go along with using/polluting the registry and adding a desk top icon and/or tray icon for every application naturally assuming that I want to dedicate my computer to running just that one application. It probably correlates with applications that pointlessly steal the user's focus when they are deep in concentration on something else. I am sure its related to forcing every user to install the application on the local computer instead of letting people run all of their apps from a network share where they are centralized and easily maintained by the IT department.
Hell, Microsoft Office is one of the worst user experiences on Mac OS X. Why does an office productivity suite need an installer on OS X ? On Windows its because Office replaces half of the system DLLs, but why on Mac OS X ?
1) So, all Vista installers run with admin. priv.
2) Installing a downloaded Tetris game allows the game installer to change virtually anything in the system.
Why does a game need an installer at all ? Why not just unzip the game into your user account/home directory or better yet drag the game icon to the place you want it ? Why do Windows applications all seem to need an installer ?
On OS X and NeXTstep before it, application icons are actually covers for directories containing all of the support files including executables need by the application. Furthermore, applications are not supposed to assume that they can write to their own directory. This is convenient for running applications from servers without installing on the local machine or for running directly off a CD-ROM. If an application needs to store user data or write configuration files, there are standard places to put the files. When needed, the individual application copies files to standard places using the user's permissions and not admin permissions.
The first time any application is run, the user is asked if it is OK. If some crap is downloaded and executed unintentionally, the user is given a chance to say WTF and stop it. Any time any application needs privileges beyond the user's default privileges, an admin passwd is required.
No installers (except in crap-ware and unusual circumstances and even then they require an admin password for upgraded privileges!
Remarkable little user irritation.
Why can't Microsoft copy this behavior ? It has been for sale since 1988.
OS X isnt perfect, but sometimes it is better.
- Apple market share is increasing (trend has been positive for several years).
- Apple market share outside of the server closet is presumably larger than Linux market share, but I don't know how it can be measured.
- Apple continues to set records for Macintosh units shipped quarter after quarter. Considering the ~34% margin that Apple reports on Macintosh hardware, they are unlikely to hurry out of that business.
- Apple knows that it is OS X and bundled applications that sell Mac hardware. Steve Jobs said the heart of the Mac is OS X.
So, Apple is not going to sell its Mac business or open/license much of OS X above the BSD layer and system utilities.
I would love it if Apple did open/license the parts of OS X that are still closed. The market for my OS X applications would grow tremendously. I just don't see it happening.
Dude! Don't use the feature if you don't want to. And what's with the irrational music player comment ? If you don't buy songs from the iTunes Music store, you will never encounter DRMed music on you iPod. The iPod will happily ply your pirated mp3s. Or do what I do, just buy CDs and copy the music onto you iPod. iTunes will do it all for you...just put the pretty CD in the slot.
Talk to the store manager. In my experience, Macs do not crash (much). I have only force quit an application perhaps three times in 5 years, and I have never seen a Mac OS X crash. What does it even look like ? Maybe there is something wrong with the floor demo's hardware ?
I do a lot of software development, use Windows file shares via SAMBA, browsing the web, send email, watch video, burn CD/DVD, plug in cameras and ipods, and use all of the standard productivity applications. I don't use Haxies. My kids play a lot of grade school appropriate games on the Mac in our house. Maybe my usage patterns just don't trip up the system.
I have heard that ssh based CVS connections and industrial strength FTP usage might stress the system. I don't do that much.
Unless I am mistaken, Windows standardized on 92+ pixels per inch. PDF, Postscript, and Mac OS standardized on 72 pixel per inch because that was a common printing/publishing standard and the first GUI's were for "desktop publishing".
m aging/RN-ResolutionIndependentUI/
Also, what you are asking for is resolution independent graphics, and that is already available as a user option with Mac OS 10.4 and will ubiquitous with Mac OS X 10.5.
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsI
Point 1: Yes, Interface Builder and NeXTstep predate the web: The "web" was _created_ with Interface Builder and NeXTstep! Tim Berners-Lee says "
. html
/ AboutCERN/Achievements/WorldWideWeb/WebHistory/Web History-en.html
The first web browser was implemented in NeXTstep and was also the first web editor. The World Wide Web application was a WYSIWYG editor with collaborative user editing features far beyind standard wiki today.
pictures: http://info.cern.ch/NextBrowser.html
"It has taken a long time for technology to catch up with Berners-Lee's original vision. The first ever web browser was also an editor, making the web an interactive medium, the problem was that it only ran on the NeXTStep operating system."
Tim Berners-Lee worte "I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)"
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb
Note: He did not write the program on a Mac using Hypercard nore could he reasonably.
12 November 1990 proposal: http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html "... we extend the application area by also allowing the users to add new material."
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
Point 2: NeXTstep predates XML: Prior to standard XML, NeXTstep used ASCII "Propert Lists" which are exactly the same concept with a different syntax and no user definable type qualification. When XML was standardized, NeXTstep transitioned to using it.
Point 3: Very few people (possibly only you) would claim that dropping Hypercard and adopting NeXTstep was even a small step backward. You don't seem to understand what NeXTstep/Openstep/Cocoa is or what it enables or why it is still ahead of the crowd 18 years later.
Point 4: How is Hypercard anything other than a tool to let users create quick and dirty applications also knows as "hacks" ? Don't be so quick to call things "Third party extension and hacks" particularly when they are full featured commecial tools used to build serious applications.
Can you edit the user interface of a Cocoa application WHILE it's running? YES, but not exactly the way you could with Hypercard.
Please read the link provided, http://www.fscript.org/ and understand "F-Script can be dynamically injected into any Cocoa application. " I agree that Hypercard is a wonderful interactive tool as are traditional Smalltalk and modern scripting environments such as PyObjc with Interface Builder. Hypercard, to and even greater extent than REALBasic, is limited to low complexity interactive "script" environments. It just doesn't scale to full featured applications that must be developed by a team larger than 1 person. As already mentioned, many large key Apple and third party applications (in fact, pretty much all Mac applications these days) use Interface Builder.
It is worth noting that Cocoa makes OpenDoc unnessasary and that in the past, standard object embedding has been available with Cocoa: "Open Object Embedding (OOE) is Lighthouse Design's compound document standard. OOE allows you to seamlessly create word processing documents that contain elements from other applications, for example drawings, spreadsheets, equations and tables."
Jonathan Schwartz (Current President and CEO of Sun Microsystems) was co-founder of Lighthouse Design and sold Lighthouse Design to Sun in 1996.
I concede that HYPERCARD is/was an awesome user editable application development tool. Smalltalk is/was similar in the sense that every user of a Smalltalk application had the entire Smalltalk environment and the opportunity (if not skill) to change anything.
0 720091325592
o nceptual/BPInternational/Articles/InternatSupport. htmlc acy/browse_frm/thread/bb63e0fdbc1a6ad4/18a92b75f44 ecf64?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#18a92b75f44ecf64/ browse_frm/thread/a9961e36d73960c8/a60ebfdef5c355e b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#a60ebfdef5c355ebr ammer/browse_frm/thread/fa4dd3e06dddfaec/3ac62f070 2daf32e?lnk=st&q=&rnum=9#3ac62f0702daf32e
You might enjoy http://www.fscript.org/ and its object browser and object injection capabilities. In fact, f-script plus Interface Builder should make any HYPERCARD programmer who wants to make serious (user editable)applications simply ecstatic.
There are many interactive scripting environments today including Python, Ruby, Tcl, Perl, and more. You can even use Interface Builder with them. If user editable application logic is what you want, any of the scripting environments will suite you. http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net/ http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/doc/
However, Interface Builder absolutely DOES enable end users to manipulate any aspect of the user interface. If you have a Mac, open any of the Next Interface Builder (NIB) files for Cocoa applications from Apple or third parties in Interface Builder and edit away. Add, remove, rearrange any GUI components. Change the menus and short cuts, add menus, add new windows, change what objects do, enlarge fonts, create your own localization,... You can even add your own custom objects that didn't exist when the application was compiled into the mix.
In practice, people don't do this for three reasons:
1) They don't know they can
2) It is easy to break things or degrade the application's functionality (which was true of HYPERCARD as well)
3) Apple and some third parties cleverly remove the data.classes file from within the nib (a nib is actually a directory of files). However, you can re-introduce a blank data.classes from any source, and Interface Builder will let you open and edit the nib. You need to open the nib "files" with "Show Package Contents" http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2006
References:
Add custom objects as end user: http://www.lorax.com/FreeStuff/TextExtras.html
Add localizations and changing nibs: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.next.advo
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.next.misc
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.next.prog
I am sorry, but HYPERCARD was and is a toy. It is fun and assesible to children, but it is not suitable for serious application development: particularly if more than one person is involved in the development.
. html
In contrast, most important (quite possibly all by now) Mac OS X applications including the iWork suite were developed with Interface Builder and in most cases Cocoa. The very first web browser was developed with the precursor to Cocoa and Interface Builder. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb
Tim Berners-Lee worte "I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)"
Lotus Improv, the original Doom level editor, the untire user interface of NeXTstep were developed with Interface Builder.
What exactly was ever developed with HYPERCARD ?
I am sorry, I posted the wrong link on Stepwise: You want Freeze Dried ObjectsD riedObjects.html.
http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/Freeze
If you haven't used Interface Builder (IB), then you are really missing out. Many people have a difficult time wrapping their brain around the concepts of Interface Builder, but I assure you it is across the board the best GUI builder paradigm yet invented. For a very brief introduction to its concepts, see Hold Me, Use Me, Free Me http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/HoldMe. html.
. htmlr Tools/Conceptual/IBTips/IBTips.html
In fact, IB should have been named "Object Connector" because it is not a "builder" at all. All IB does is let you instantiate objects, specify their initial state, and define connections or relationships between the objects. You should note that it is equally applicable to user interface objects and every other kind of object including your own custom classes. The configured objects are serialized to either a binary file or an XML file (your choice). The "Test" mode in IB just serializes and then de-serializes the object graph in memory to produce a fully functional system that you can test.
Although Interface Builder has been available since 1988, it is actively developed by Apple and is in fact free along with the rest of Apple's development tools with Mac OS X. Recent additions to Interface Builder have included Key-Value Observing which eliminates al lot of "controller" code from a system and Data Modeler which automates a lot of "model" code.
Steve Jobs used to state that it doesn't matter whether code is hand written or computer written, every line of code is a potential bug and a source for future maintenance. The only way to radically improve programmer and life-cycle productivity is to radically reduce the amount of new code needed to implement applications. IB is a stellar example of the wisdom oh his words. [This is also a huge win for cultural localization...)
Given the extremely rich frameworks of objects (both GUI and non-GUI) that are available from Cocoa, IB's ability to instantiate objects and form connections and relationships between them without any code is a huge win. If you haven't used this technique, trust me: you don't know what you are missing. You will never want to go back!
IB's down side has always been documenting (for posterity) all of the connections and relationships that are specified in IB. IB is improving on that front with XML file formats and data "entity-relationship" modeling built in. There have also been plug-in palettes that improve documentation generation.
Just as a reminder, unlike most GUI builders, IB works equally well with your custom classes and the framework classes. You can build new "palettes" for you objects to provide slick graphical interaction, but the basic connections and relationships capabilities work with all objects with no special effort.
Apple's IB description: http://developer.apple.com/tools/interfacebuilder
There is an excellent but shallow Introduction to Interface Builder at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Develope
As others will surely point out, mathematics are generally not patentable today, and patents didn't exist when Pythagoras, Leibnitz and Newton were innovating. I wonder why they bothered to innovate then ?
I don't know if the PnP junction was patented (by IBM?). All of the basic math and theory for what to do with collections of switches (like PnP transistors) was well know hundreds of years before the invention of transistors. Computers composed of tubes and/or relays and/or gears all existed.
Was the flip-flop circuit patented ? Was the AND gate circuit patented ? Was the "while loop" construct patented ? Was the "if" statement patented (well, "if not" was patented by Microsoft!).
From the Article: "Apple would have to decide not to license the Macintosh operating system."
Apple and others did a lot of stupid things to give Microsoft the desktop. Few would claim the Windows 3.1, the first popular version, was even half as good as Mac OS at the time. However, Microsoft got Windows 3.1 to work on the VGA graphics "IBM Compatible" computers that people already owned. Furthermore, Windows 3.1 could run almost all of the DOS software that people already had.
The Mac OS GUI features required much more than the CGA and VGA graphics (over an ISA bus) that typical PCs had at the time. Even if Apple had licensed Mac OS in 1990, nobody could have gotten it working on the craptastic PCs available at the time.
Microsoft leveraged its existing DOS dominance into its Windows dominance and leverage the fact the PC hardware sucked too much to run anything better at the time. Apple no doubt thought that anyone attempting to implement a GUI would at least have direct frame buffer access the way the Mac did in 1984. PCs did not have it in 1991.
Are you perchance female ?
I have known several women who called Heinlein a misogynist. He certainly had unconventional ideas about gender roles and complex relationships. His widow must be a saint.
Heinlein has also been criticized for only having one character, and that character is recycled for both heroes and heroines. One woman I know calls Heinlein's heroines "femaleins."
I love Heinlein, and I think it is ironic that Lois McMaster Boujold (a woman and my favorite author) has in some respects picked up the mantle for Heinlein IMHO. For those who enjoy Heinlein, you will love Boujold... It is Heinlein with more distinct characters.