Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux and Mac OS X

pudge posted more than 12 years ago | from the unprecedented-is-five-syllables-long dept.

OS X 172

William J writes "Here is an article with an interesting slant on the relationship between the Mac OS and Linux. The author suggests that Gnome and KDE developers can learn from the Mac GUI. Worth quoting: 'It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My opinion of Mac OS (0, Redundant)

erlenic (95003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057866)

I'll tell you what, I don't really like all the eye candy that goes on in MacOS, but if we can get Gnome or KDE to be as easy to use/learn, it would definately be a great thing.

I am a user of MacOS X (0)

mAIsE (548) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059391)

I love Mac OS-X, i am a UNIX geek and i really like linux. But i have to get work done and i can interopperate with the buisness world on a g3 notebook running OS_X pretty well.

as far as gnome and kde, one does run on OS_X with the help of fink and that is GNOME, i would really like to see the day that KDE runs on OS_X as well.

http://fink.sourceforge.net/faq/usage-fink.php#k de

Re:My opinion of Mac OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059733)

If you can't figure out the desktop metaphor GUI, MacOS isn't going to be any easier to learn than the rest.

Normal folks (the vast majority) don't have the problems that Mac users whine about constantly. It ain't rocket science, heck it ain't even bottlerocket science! All of the common desktops are so similar in appearance and operation, that the only way you couldn't pick up another one is if you didn't try. Or if you planned to fail.

Mac users either need to accept that they're below-par, in which case they need to learn a LOT more humility. Or they need to learn that being a combative jerk, just because they want to be that way, is not acceptable.

Re:My opinion of Mac OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060142)

um, your opinion sucks. you suck. you life can be described as one long episode of suckage.

get that baseball bat out of your ass.

wipe the cum off your face.

thanks.

Proposal (5, Insightful)

__past__ (542467) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057872)

Could our beloved Editors perhaps consider not to post links to stories without any content?

What the heck is the point of this article? OS X is more polished than KDE/Gnome, Windows is not so stable, you can use Linux as a server for Macs... News at eleven!

Re:Proposal (3, Informative)

sydb (176695) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058435)

This story is a melange of Linux, Mac, Windows and *BSD and hence is likely to fan the religious flames, generate page hits, advertising views and revenue.

That's why it's here.

macdot (0, Flamebait)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057876)

why?

so mac's use BSD code

so does windows and we don't have "woo those windows boxes are so cool, I'm drooling" from the /. crew.

Well we did when DiabloII came out..

Wel in fact lets just change it do DosDot and have done

KDE and Linux (2)

TheReverand (95620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057878)

Why oh why does everyone think KDE has something to do with Linux? Sure, it runs on Linux, but it works just fine on loads of other platforms as well (I've been running it on FreeBSD for a while now with no problems). I wouldn't be surprised if there was an OS X port of KDE sometime in the future as well...

That's the whole thing about Linux, KDE and Gnome... You're not limited to one combination of hardware and software. All these articles which put KDE and Linux together are missing that point.

Re:KDE and Linux (2)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057888)

anyway KDE is a MS Windows App [sourceforge.net]

Re:KDE and Linux (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058237)

We just need to get the Gnome and KDE developers to realize this as well. Most of Gnome and KDE run just fine under my FreeBSD boxen, but there's always an occasional linuxism so that something doesn't work or works oddly. There's this big huge standard out there called "POSIX", and another one called "X11R6". It's a shame there is still the occasional developer who doesn't know about them.

Re:KDE and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058403)

Oh, the *BSD hackers know about "POSIX", but they intentionally reject it as being inpure and stick to their legacy BSDisms.

Re:KDE and Linux (2, Informative)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058689)

What the hell are you talking about? One of the goals of FreeBSD-5.0 is "to implement all requirements of the ISO 9899:1999 (C99) and IEEE 1003.1-2001 (POSIX) standards." I don't have time to do a POSIX audit right now, but my -4.5 system has a man page for POSIX.1e, every random man 3 page I've tried yet states compliance for C89, C99, POSIX.1 or SUSv2 under the STANDARDS section. Having done a bit of pthread programming, I know from first hand experience that FreeBSD us *much* more compliant with the standards than Linux.

Is FreeBSD fully compliant? No. No free unix implementation is. But FreeBSD (and I assume the other *BSDs as well) is a lot more compliant than some commercial unices I've used.

Re:KDE and Linux (2)

stevew (4845) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059372)

This set me to wondering - and I'm not trying to lite off a BSD vs Linux debate with this, but another thread entirely. Of unices & unix like systems... Linux is probably the most wide spread at this point in time...(maybe it's solaris, but I'm betting that the total number of installs of linux is greater than solaris now...) So let's assume that assumption is correct. When does Linux become the standard as oppossed to Posix? As a practical matter it might be argued that Linux has already achieved that status when you consider that both BSD and Solaris have Linux compatibility libraries!

Thoughts?

Re:POSIX and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059766)

"When does Linux become the standard as oppossed to Posix?"

Your first mistake is to assume that it's one or the other. That's simply not true. Linux has become a de facto standard because a lot of people use it and develop for it first. The POSIX standards were supposed to be standards, but nobody has to use it.

"As a practical matter it might be argued that Linux has already achieved that status when you consider that both BSD and Solaris have Linux compatibility libraries!"

If you mean that Linux is what everybody's following, then you are correct.

Bzzt. "De facto?" That's Mac OS X. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060448)

Of unices & unix like systems... Linux is probably the most wide spread at this point in time...(maybe it's solaris, [..])

Wide adoption of a particular product at a particular moment in time a standard does not make. Standards (and compatibility) and implementation speficics are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Nevertheless, if the widespreadedness of a particular technology would be what makes it a reference standard in its kind, then Mac OS X would be (at this point) the reference standard for Unix systems, with over ten million users at this point, and hundreds of thousands new users every month.

Re:KDE and Linux (1)

rikkus-x (526844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058621)

If you want better FreeBSD support, try asking if any developers would like FreeBSD CDs sending to them. If I had FreeBSD, I'd install it and test on it. I don't fancy downloading it over a modem, though. Rik

Re:KDE and Linux (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059002)

Send me your snail mail to arandir@usermode.org and I'll send off a copy to you. Also check out freebsd.kde.org, which is an effort to improve KDE on the FreeBSD side.

My intention was not to bitch at KDE or Gnome, and I hope you didn't take it that way. But being the minority OS user, we sometimes have to shout to get recognition.

Can't connect to Windows? (4, Informative)

sg3000 (87992) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057924)

> I was unable to get a Windows 2000 PC to see any
> Macs (OSX or 9) on the network or vice-versa.

I don't want to be tough, but I've had no problems getting my Mac to load Windows servers via SAMBA. I do it every day, and I'd hardly say I'm an expert at SAMBA. So I'd say that rather than this being an OS X or Windows limitation, this guy may just "lack the skills to pay the bills". What was the point of the article again?

Re:Can't connect to Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058386)

Right - 15 years ago JL Gassee and his cronies over at Apple decided it would be a good idea to be network-incompatible with the rest of the world, thus making Macs a royal pain-in-the-ass. And this guy just figures that out yesterday, and it's Microsoft's fault?

"On the other hand, our Linux PC just showed up as available file servers in OS X with no extraordinary measures on our part. All I have to do is install AppleTalk and Mac name space support, and the NetWare server shows up in the Chooser!"

Is he setting up Linux or NetWare here? I'm not even sure that he knows the difference. Does he know that AT is a legacy protocol even over at Apple? Have we been trolled?

Besides Samba, here's some other hints for the clueless:
MS NFS client [microsoft.com]
Windows AppleShare client [miramarsys.com]

Re:Can't connect to Windows? (1)

wundabread (242160) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058440)

The Mac will load Windows servers no problem, as you describe.

However, as the article describes, he was unable to see the Mac from Windows. At the moment this requires installing tools that should be included and easily accessible in OS X but are not.

So, not to be tough, but you are a bit off base here.

People accomplish things (4, Interesting)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057938)

Worth quoting: 'It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.'"
For software development you only need some brains, time and a computer. Because of this and also thanks to a certain global communication tool, it's hardly suprising people accomplish grand things without coorporations backing them.

Really, people don't need management to accomplish something. Given the resources (money and time) people can and will do productive things for society.

Re:People accomplish things (5, Insightful)

__past__ (542467) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058032)

Aaah, it's nice to once again hear this, after all this focusing on how to make money with open source!

Before the Linux hype, it was quite common knowledge (or, at least, opinion) that Free Software is not only great because of its unbeatable price or even the "philosophic" implications (that come down to "be kind to your customers" when restricted to licenses), but because of its quality, which in turn is directly related to the freedom of programmers - at least as important as the freedoms of software users.

Not only do people not need management, they can build better things without worrying about deadlines (leading to "good enough" solutions), corporate politics, marketability etc. Free programmers can focus on doing the Right Thing, which is often not possible in a corporate environment. The results of this are where the pride of the free software movement should come from, not the sympathy of venture capitalists or IBM or Apple.

Re:People accomplish things (2)

MaxQuordlepleen (236397) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058142)

Agreed, and to illustrate your point, look at what happened when Linus was under heavy pressure to release 2.4. We got an unstable mess that clearly would have benefited from a few more months of development...

Re:People accomplish things (2)

sydb (176695) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058410)

Linus released 2.4 because he wanted more testers. He got them. 16 or so releases later and we have a stable kernel.

Porting Aqua (2)

darkov (261309) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057972)

Why isn't someone undertaking a port of Aqua to Linux? It is build on top of a Unix system, after all. It wouldn't have to be a perfect copy, maybe just a set of APIs mostly compatible with Carbon APIs.

The advantages of this are :
(a) you have sound user interface design for free
(b) you have an instant installed base familiar with the user interface
(c) you have many applications which can be ported possibly with a minimum of effort.

Something like this would definately put it up Apple. But it does make sense. If people can rush off and build .Net clones, why not do someting actually useful?

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058102)

Why isn't someone undertaking a port of Aqua to Linux?

because apple has a patent on the whole thing?

Re:Porting Aqua (1, Flamebait)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058117)

Because Apple is just another jackbooted corporate thug, and sues anyone who dares make anything that even sort of looks like Aqua. Which is why my credo remains "DEATH TO APPLE, DEATH TO THE MAC," despite their porting BSD and finally getting a real operating system.

Re:Porting Aqua (2, Interesting)

base3 (539820) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058195)

Hit it on the head. Every time I think of going over to the Mac to avoid giving money to the Evil Empire [microsoft.com] , I remember things like

o Apple licensed the nefarious Amazon one-click patent, giving Amazon a precedent with which to bludgeon smaller companies.

o Apple crippled their DVD writing software to disallow mastering for replication.

o Apple used legal threats on non-for-profit skinners.

o Apple screwed over the clone vendors.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm not thrilled about buying Microsoft, but I wouldn't feel particularly good about supporting another company with a monopoly (can you get Mac OSX for a clone? No. Then they have a monopoly) which leverages their software to sell overpriced hardware. It's obvious that if Apple were sufficiently competent, they would be another Microsoft. But while Apple is ruthless, predatory, and sells out its users just like MS, they're not as good at it.

Re:Porting Aqua (2)

pressman (182919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058557)

Just because you can't get OS X on anything other than a Macintosh does not mean that Apple has a monopoly in any meaningful sense. They own 5% of the personal computer market. To be a monopoly a compnay must own at least 51% of their respective market. M$ has a monopoly in operating systems, office suites and web browsers. Apple makes their own hardware and OS and competes with M$, SGI, Linux and Sun. They don't have a monopoly in anything.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059271)

Go look up the word monopoly in a dictionary. The MacOS is a commodity for personal computers, and the Mac platform is a commodity computer (albeit in a proprietary package with a force-bundled OS (hmm... just like Microsoft...)). They're the only one that sells this commodity.

SGI, Sun, et al, also hold monopolies in their space. But both Microsoft and Apple hold monopolies where the government actually has a right to be concerned--in the consumer market.

What is a monopoly? (2)

Dictator For Life (8829) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059669)

This is nonsensical. The fact that no one else makes an OS for the Mac in no way makes Apple a monopolist, unless of course you think that Ford is a monopolist because no one else makes engines for Fords.

In a commodity market, differentiation is a major way to lure customers. "Computers" is the commodity here, and the Mac is just one part of the market for computers. Apple protects those things by which they attempt to differentiate their products. Love it or hate it, that does not constitute monopolist action.

Re:What is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059806)

True enough. Monopoly isn't exactly the right word. But is it that hard to grasp the concept? C'mon!

What's important is that Apple products are closed, and don't "play well with others." No, Apple isn't a monopoly. What makes Apple unique is that they can act like a monopoly and still get away with it, thanks to the slavish devotion of their followers.

If Mac users want to settle for flashy baubles and insincere flattery, that's their business. That doesn't mean I can't laugh at them.

Re:What is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059897)


What's important is that Apple products are closed, and don't "play well with others." No, Apple isn't a monopoly. What makes Apple unique is that they can act like a monopoly and still get away with it, thanks to the slavish devotion of their followers.


If Mac users want to settle for flashy baubles and insincere flattery, that's their business. That doesn't mean I can't laugh at them.

Too bad it's so hard for us Mac users to hear you laughing at us, what with your head being so far up your ass and all.

Re:What is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060007)

Sour grapes, dude. Sour grapes...

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Lurker (1078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059903)

Go look up the word monopoly in a dictionary. The MacOS is a commodity for personal computers, and the Mac platform is a commodity computer (albeit in a proprietary package
with a force-bundled OS (hmm... just like Microsoft...)). They're the only one that sells this commodity.

So who is forcing Apple to bundle MacOS with their computers? Or did you mean you're forced to buy MacOS if you buy an Apple computer? Well, since it's their computer, they can sell it any damn way they like. It would be a bit like complaining you can't buy a Ford car with a GM engine in it. It just doesn't make sense, unless you're a whining idiot.

Evil Apple...NOT! (1)

GaelDesign (561391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058693)

I think you're a bit off on this one. I don't know about the DVD mastering issue, but the rest of what you're talking about is rather skewed.

Apple's licensing of Amazon's one-click service doesn't do anything other than make Apple's online store easier to use for their customers. Amazon has a patent on that technology whether Apple licenses that technology or not, so it really makes no difference. Besides, you seem to forget that Apple's DELAYING the release of QuickTime 5 indefinitely because of the MPEGLA's licensing scheme for MPEG 4 -- not because Apple doesn't want to pay the MPEGLA for the technology, but because they don't want any content providers (including Apple, I admit) to have to pay streaming fees to the MPEGLA. I think it all evens out in the end.

Apple's legal threats on skinners I don't care much for, but as a business Apple has every right to want to protect their intellectual propertey. If they've spent millions of dollars designing a hot new interface for their operating system, why should anyone else be able to rip it off at whim?

Apple "screwed over" the clone vendors because they had to. The clone licensing deal was a badly engineered move, and Apple wasn't competetive enough at the time to resist being clobbered by the clone makers. If Apple had gone under, the clone makers would have gone under as well anyway. Steve Jobs did what he had to do to ensure the health of the company.

Now let's name a few of the GOOD things Apple as a company has done.

o Open-sourced Darwin. Sure, it isn't Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa, but it's a good start.

o Released a free speech, free beer Quicktime Streaming Server that runs on multiple platforms.

o Contributed PPC optimizations to GCC, which benefits LinuxPPC just as much as it does OS X.

o Given away sophisticated developers tools so freeware and shareware developers can program for OS X easily and cheaply. Let's see Microsoft try that.

And of course Apple's continuing to develop high-quality, innovative products. They could become another Microsoft if they had the chance, maybe, but the fact is that they're NOT, and they won't be for a long time simply because of market pressures. Don't let anti-business "open source" zealotry get in the way of reason and understanding facts here.

Regards,

Jared

Re:Evil Apple...NOT! (1)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059094)

Apple's licensing of Amazon's one-click service doesn't do anything other than make Apple's online store easier to use for their customers. Amazon has a patent on that technology whether Apple licenses that technology or not, so it really makes no difference.

While it's true that Amazon has the patent, it didn't really have much to go on in enforcing it. Now, a smaller company being threatened by Amazon for using an obvious business technique of storing credit card information can be further intimidated by the fact that Amazon can point to Apple as having thought the patent legitimate enough to license it. While the details are secret, I'd bet that Apple had to pay a minimal sum to Amazon, if anything at all--Amazon was probably so glad to have this precedent to point to that they gave the license to Apple for free.

Re:Evil Apple...NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060153)

mere speculation. you are not in any position to know from shinola.

Re:Evil Apple...NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060157)

er, QT5 has been out for a LONG time.

you meant QT6. sheesh.

may MPEGLA die a horrible death...

Re:Porting Aqua (2, Interesting)

alex_ant (535895) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058751)

That's a really funny definition of "monopoly." By your logic, Sun has a monopoly on Solaris, SGI has a monopoly on IRIX, HP has a monopoly on HPUX, and IBM has a monopoly on AIX. Monopolies = bad, so Sun, SGI, HP, and IBM are all evil, and will be until they port their big iron OSes to your peecee. "I want 4Dwm! Open-source it, SGI! Give it to me free, or else yer nothin' but a dirty monopolist!"

Aqua is a work of art. Believe it or not /., some people in the world actually believe in intellectual property.

Apple is not predatory. It's too small to be predatory. Its attack of the clones happened only after a radical shift in management. I think the term there would be "non-suicidal," not "predatory."

How does Apple sell out its users? I've had a mac.com email address for the longest time (Mac owners get them for free - how evil of Apple to offer such nasty tie-ins!), even though I've rarely used it, and I've not gotten a SINGLE piece of spam to it. Ever.

As has been covered so many times here before, more expensive hardware != overpriced hardware. You get what you pay for. This is a myth that really needs to get shot down - I don't see why so many obviously smart geeks have such a terrible time understanding this. Some people in the world are actually not content with cheap-ass high-MHz beige commodity boxes built by soulless vendors like Dell, Gateway, etc. who just don't give a shit about their product and who WOULD sell their customers out to gain any edge they could in the cutthroat Wintel market.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but I am a Mac/Linux user and I will go to certain lengths to defend the company against the heaps of obvious bullshit piled upon it. I agree that a large and powerful Apple would not be a pretty sight. I would be most content with Apple at around 10-15% market share.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058779)

As has been covered so many times here before, more expensive hardware != overpriced hardware.

That might have been true back when Apples came with SCSI, but they are now no better than Wintel commodity hardware, except that they use a PowerPC. They have IDE interfaces (and not even the fastest or highest capacity ones), ATI video, and other things that PC users can purchase off the shelf for far less money.

Just because they have a standard (read: limited) platform and control what commodity hardware goes in the box doesn't mean it isn't overpriced.

Re:Porting Aqua (3, Interesting)

pressman (182919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058957)

What the /. Linux crowd fails to see is that Apple customers don't mind paying a little extra money for the time and care put into developing Macintosh systems. Most Mac users don't want to get into the guts of their computer except to maybe install an extra harddrive or some extra RAM. We generally don't care about getting under the hood because the people who made the computer engineered it so we don't have to do that if we don't want to.

For Linux users I can understand why getting to the guts of the computer and the OS is so important. It's part of the computing experience for that market. Linux users LIKE getting to the very core of their computers. I don't understand why they have to bash Apple and it's users just because Apple doesn't consider them part of their target market demographic. Why would Apple market to people who don't want to spend money on anything? They are a company whose goal is to make money and they can't make money off a free OS and low margin computer components.

I don't go around bashing Linux because it doesn't meet all of my computing needs. It's a good OS for what it's intended to do, but it doesn;t come close to meeting my needs or the needs of millions and millions of other computer users... users being the operative word.

Macs just work out of the box. Ceratin people want that.

Linux only works if you configure it to work the way you want it to and have the technical knowledge to do that. Certain people want and need that from their OS and computer.
Windows has lots of games and is ubiquitous. Very few people really want Windows but it is the only option they know. It seems to meet their needs reasonably, but then again their standards and expectations of a computer might be a bit lower than Mac or *NIX users.

So, if the macintosh doesn't fit your criteria for a computing environment, DON'T BUY ONE OR USE MAC OS! Stop complaining about the price of their hardware and buy the system you need. You're just wasting energy and the time of other people.

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058964)

So, if the macintosh doesn't fit your criteria for a computing environment, DON'T BUY ONE OR USE MAC OS! Stop complaining about the price of their hardware and buy the system you need. You're just wasting energy and the time of other people.

Truth hurt that much? If you disagree with me, stop complaining. You're just wasting energy and my time. Waaaaa.

~~~

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058985)

Geez, that was defensive. And pretty much wrong:

o Neither Windows nor Linux require users to get "in the guts" of their computer. The difference is that with Wintel, at least users have that option.

o Where did you get any Linux bigotry out of my post? I'm using Windows right now.

o Plenty of PC clones just "work out of the box."

o There are Linux distributions that don't require any more technical knowledge to operate than the MacOS. Not enough, mind you, but they exist

o I didn't buy or use Mac OS. It's just that Apple gets away with stuff that would make Microsoft blush, just because they're the underdog. That's not fair. If you feel like I'm wasting your energy, that's your problem. I didn't make you reply.

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059869)

"Where did you get any Linux bigotry out of my post?"

Don't let that shake you. You'll get it often from people who are dead wrong, and know it. When they have no valid points, all they can do is use diversionary tactics.

BTW, I second most of what you said. For example, there are so many turnkey PCs out there, that mentioning it as a Mac selling point is laughable. But you'll see a lot of Mac sales points that ceased being valid 10 years ago. The people still using them are really that out of touch.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Lurker (1078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059911)

It's just that Apple gets away with stuff that would make Microsoft blush, just because they're the underdog. That's not fair.

Just what is it that Apple is getting away with that would make even the robber barons of Microsoft blush?

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

discstickers (547062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059954)

::sigh::

I really feel sorry for the people that have to use Windows on a regular basis. I know people that have to reformat their harddrives everyfew weeks because of problems.

Don't even get me started on Windows' "features." Since OS X's public release, there has been 1 (one) security related problem. It was promptly fixed by Apple. We have security holes found weekly in Microsoft products. And I am really sick of CodeRed and nimda attacks filling up my apache logs.

I use a Mac because I can get my work done without having to fight with the OS.

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060005)

Hm, I guess the idea is to say "have to" so many times that the reader thinks that's really how it is with Windows. No sale.

I use a Mac because I can get my work done without having to fight with the OS.

That's like saying "I ride a horse because it takes me from one place to the other." The truth is that there are many forms of transportation, and that no modern OS requires combat.

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059844)

"What the /. Linux crowd fails to see is that Apple customers don't mind paying a little extra money for the time and care put into developing Macintosh systems."

And Keebler cookies are really made by elves in trees.

Get real! We see it alright. It's just that we aren't bowled over by marketing hype. We know that flashy cosmetics != quality.

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059825)

FYI- IBM, SGI, Sun et al are having a tough time keeping their separate, proprietary platforms going. Apple might want to read the writing on the wall.

Actually, a company that builds ill-will by suing anyone and everyone will soon find themselves without partners. That is suicidal.

One more thing: do you have the slightest clue what color beige is? Nobody makes beige computers!

Re:Porting Aqua (2)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060060)

You said:
Apple crippled their DVD writing software to disallow mastering for replication.

I reply:

I fail to see any problematic "crippling" of DVD production in Apple's current hardware.

If you were referring to the fact that iDVD [apple.com] will not export a master image (to a DLT tape for example) - Apple has to differentiate DVD Studio Pro [apple.com] from their free software.

If you were referring to the fact that the SuperDrive can only produce DVD-R 5-general disks, and not authoring disks, I also fail to see that as a problem, as all of the DVD manufacturing services I have checked will accept a general disk as a media source.

It is true that disks produced in this way can not be protected with CSS and macrovision, (an author would need to make a master on a DLT, or an authoring DVD-R rather than on a superdrive to add these protections ) but I feel that many on Slashdot would see this as an advantage in that it increases the amount of unprotected, legally viewable under Linux (or [Free,Open,Net]BSD ) available in the world ;-)

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Anonynnous Coward (557984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060503)

Apple has to differentiate DVD Studio Pro from their free software.

When one removes a feature to "differentiate" one substantially identical piece of software from another, those in the industry call that crippling.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

MaxQuordlepleen (236397) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058149)

try gnustep [gnustep.org]

Re:Porting Aqua (2, Interesting)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058226)

(a) you have sound user interface design for free
GNOME and KDE will get there, it will just takes a bit more time. Looking at the GNOME usability project with a.o. the work Sun is putting into it, I'm confident that by version 3.0 GNOME will be a killer.

MacOS X OTOH has had a lot of critism [asktog.com] .

(b) you have an instant installed base familiar with the user interface
Not all that much people are familiar with Aqua.

The number of people familiar with GNOME and/or KDE is probably larger? I admit I don't have any numbers to back this up except for the fact that there are more machines out there running GNU/Linux rather than Macintosh, add to this that MacOS X was released not so long ago and I may just be right.

Either how, the number is probably not going to be worth the bother.

(c) you have many applications which can be ported possibly with a minimum of effort.
GnuStep should allow for this without actually porting Aqua. The advantage of this strategy is that you get to keep X :). (For those that for whatever reason believe X is bad/bloated/whatever, think about the drivers.)

But it does make sense. If people can rush off and build .Net clones, why not do someting actually useful?
Gimme a break. .NET seems like a sound development platform and it's almost garantueed to be a huge success (it's Java with lots of extras plus MS is backing it).

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

discstickers (547062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059960)

The number of people familiar with GNOME and/or KDE is probably larger? I admit I don't have any numbers to back this up except for the fact that there are more machines out there running GNU/Linux rather than Macintosh, add to this that MacOS X was released not so long ago and I may just be right.

Actually, because of OS X, BSD now has triple the desktop market share of Linux. [osopinion.com]

Re:Porting Aqua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060026)

Oh, there's a place to get hard numbers--from an opinion site. Let's see, OS/2 is stronger than ever! Amiga is on the verge of a glorious comeback any day now! Cows fly!

Oh yes, and the last BSD was released in 1993, figure that into the merit of the article.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060164)

Two things. 1/ I don't believe that, 2/ we're talking about the desktop here, not the underlying system.

Re:Porting Aqua (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059874)

Why isn't someone undertaking a port of Aqua to Linux?

For the same reasons that Ferrari owners don't weld trailer hitches to their cars.

Re:Porting Aqua (1)

bsartist (550317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059990)

It sounds like what you want is OpenSTEP, the predecessor to Cocoa. Before NeXT bought Apple for -$200m, OpenSTEP was available on NT and a variety of UNIXes.

You can still see the signs of it, too - just take a look through the Foundation and AppKit header files. They're filled with platform specific definitions wrapped in #ifdefs.

What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3057973)

Why does Slashdot put up an Apple story every couple of hours? Just to show off the new ultra cool shitstabbing cocksucking 'lickable' theme?

Assholes. What makes Apple so fucking special? Is VA Shitware trying to get extra money from Apple for all this 'special' attention? This doesn't make me want to go out and buy an iMac at all. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

And Quicktime is used primarily for child porn as well.

Cunts.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058019)

The deal is, OSX is cool.

I was a mac hater, but OSX + mac hardware was enough to make me switch from Linux as my primary platform. It's the best of both worlds, eye-candy with a large application base.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058625)

Um...let me get this straight, you're claiming that >>OSX has "a large application base"? ROFL!!! What are you smoking?

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (1)

GaelDesign (561391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059181)

OS X runs Microsoft Office. Like it or not, that's the office suite that +90% of the world uses. Until Office runs on Linux, you won't see most desktop users switching to Linux, plain and simple.

Beyond that, there's already tons of great desktop software available for OS X, with more and more coming out all the time. Between OS 9 and OS X, the Mac platform has so much more desktop-oriented software than Linux, it's not even funny. If you think Linux is a more viable desktop OS than Mac OS X at this point in time, then *you're* the one who's been doin' some real powerful smokin' lately.

Jared

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059508)

Jared, considering that you attempt to change the subject several times, and retreat from your original claim by throwing in special qualifications, you're only getting farther away from making that claim believeable. I'm not going to wait around for you to come up with evidence. Let's just leave it with the understanding that your "large application base" claim is BS. Nice try, but no sale.

No MS Office for Linux? A lot of us think that's a Good Thing! A major part of what makes Linux and OSS in general desirable is that you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars to write a letter. But if that's the way you want to play it, then you'd better get your Windows PC, because 95% of the world uses Windows!

I never said anything about Linux being "a more viable desktop OS than Mac OS X", but since you brought it up I'm happy to share my thoughts. Yes, I would consider Linux to be more viable than OSX for desktop use. Linux is a kernel that has proved itself on many platforms. Linux is ubiquitous right now! OTOH, OSX is locked into Apple's Mac marketing strategy, which has perpetually failed to grow beyond its token 5% share of the desktop market in any sustainable way.

I've switched over to KDE for my own personal use because it's that good. KDE is emerging as a first class user interface, and right now it's exclusive to Linux. I believe that KDE will emerge as the "killer app" for Linux that puts it in the mainstream.

Apple hasn't come out with any really big, fresh ideas since 1985. That might not mean that Apple will go out of business, but it has become clear over the last 15 years that the cool left Apple about the same time Woz did. The future is elsewhere. The future runs on Linux.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (1)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059569)

Dude, just calm down. The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button. You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail. She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet. Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent. Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux. I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick. I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059676)

"Dude, just calm down."

Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself.

"The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button."

And I should care because.....?

"You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail."

Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either.

"She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet."

So what's your point? That you come from a family that's not too bright?

"Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent."

Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?

"Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux."

Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance.

"I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick."

Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!

"I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so."

Your calculator lacks the intelligence to evaluate that. That leaves you stuck.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060163)

NOW who's the idiot? "...perpetually failed to grow beyond its token 5% share of the desktop market..."

do you have the slightest clue what those bogus claims are based on?

i thought not. and i shall not bother to enlighten a troll bent on darkness.

rest assured the Apple market share is under-reported as much as Linux' market share is, if not more so.

oh by the way, BSD is not dying, Apple is and has been since 5:00 AM this morning, EST.

pfffft! fool.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (5, Insightful)

Melantha_Bacchae (232402) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059794)

An AC wrote:

> you're claiming that >>OSX has "a large application base"? ROFL!!!
> What are you smoking?

Okay, you asked for it ;):

1) Most Mac applications ever written. I've found very few that don't run well under the Classic environment. This includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.

2) New and ported Carbon and Cocoa Mac OS X applications. This is increasing in number daily, especially since the development tools are free. Again, this includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.

3) Most Java J2SE applications, and J2EE applications if you obtain the necessary libraries. The first Airport utilities that were in use on OS X were Java apps originally created for Windows. OS X has the best Java 2 on the desktop.

4) Various Unix applications, many Open Source or GNU, ported for OS X/Darwin. Some of these beloved programs come with OS X, such as the Apache web server and Emacs. Others (like an X server or postgresSQL) are available for the download.

5) If you care to plunk down around $200 (ranges from about $99 for DOS to $249 for Windows NT, per operating system) for Virtual PC 5.0, you can run most any Windows, DOS, or Linux application.

6) Go to "http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/index.shtml" and search for "emulator". I found about 29 entries for different computers and video game consoles.

In short, OS X can pretty much run whatever you want it to run. I've been using it for nearly a year now. It is great, and getting better all the time.

OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.

Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059979)

I suppose that I would be quite impressed if I were a hayseed. I'm not that naive.

First of all, the subject wasn't how many ways you can find to kludge non-OSX apps to work with OSX. Seems that you're evading the subject. It's not like OSX is the only one with emulators. That's a pissing contest that you'll lose anyway.

Here's some truth:

1. The sum total of all old Mac OS applications pales in comparison to the base of Windows applications out there.

2. So-called "carbon" apps are the only ones that really count. Everything else is legacy support. The truth is that there are far fewer carbon apps than there are legacy apps. Filter out all the "I wrote it in 5 minutes" demo apps, and there's very little.

3. Java? That's an OSX claim to fame? Pretty lame. And how many useful Java apps are there? Three?

4a. OSX supports absolutely no UNIX environments. No AIX, no HP-UX, no Solaris. How can you run a UNIX application without being able to read the binaries? You can't!

4b. How many "Open Source or GNU" apps do you use? Face it, this claim is something like piano lessons for dogs. It might be fun to brag about, but everybody knows that their dog isn't going to be able to play dinner music.

4c. Apache comes with OSX, good. But X doesn't. X is the basis of any meaningful Linux, *BSD or UNIX app, so not having native X means that all those apps aren't OSX apps. I can cobble together the same collection of freeware on Windows, big deal. Frankly, I doubt that you or many other Mac fanboys have the skills to get these professional-grade tools working.

4d. PostgreSQL is a database, not an application.

5. If I plunk down money, I can run Windows for real. OTOH I can run Windows (DOS too) apps directly under Linux without having to pay a cent. You chose to nitpick, so don't cry when it's discovered that your nits are inferior.

6. Big deal. That many game emulators come with most Linux distros. Again, you're acting as if OSX is unique with this. In truth, it's yesterday's news for the rest of the world.

In short, many operating environments can run a hodgepodge of emulators, support programs and compatibility layers. It doesn't take any talent to slap a bunch of stuff together.

Getting back to the subject, how come OSX has so few native apps after so long?

Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (2, Interesting)

LeapingGnomeArs (561240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058121)

"unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing"

Has the submitter even used OSX? I've been using it daily since October and it has only crashed on me once. The majority of OSX users do not rebooted their Macs, they just put them to sleep. Remeber, Macs have instant wake-up from sleep, unlike Windows or Linux.

OSX uptime is typcially measured in weeks, not days.

Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (1)

EddydaSquige (552178) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058190)

I think he was talking about Windows

Has LeapingGNomeArs even read the article? (1)

chfleming (556136) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058191)

Has the submitter even read the article? I've read the article and it was talking about MSWindows and not OSX. The majority of UNIX users do not rebooted their boxes, they just leave them running. Remember, UNIX stay running without crashing and memory leaks, unlike Windows or MacOS.

Linux uptime is typically measured in months not weeks.

Re:Has LeapingGNomeArs even read the article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059891)

Actually the reason why UNIX systems can keep going for weeks and months is because we can control almost every aspect of the OS without rebooting. Memory leaks happen, but they're no problem if you can restart a process once in a while. Mac and Windows are behind in that respect.

Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (1)

MaxQuordlepleen (236397) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058196)

Dude I think he was talking about Windows..

Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (1)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058319)

"Macs have instant wake-up from sleep, unlike Windows"

/presses the power button

/sees "Writing hibernation file to disk"

/machine powers down

/powers machine up again

/waits 15 seconds

/is back at the desktop

oh look, we can do that too....

Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058484)

He said INSTANT wake-from-sleep.

And 15 seconds is NOT instant. instant means I close the lid on my Powerbook and it shuts off. I open the lid and my desktop is ready to go as fast as I can get my fingers on the trackpad.

That's instant.

Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (1)

Lurker (1078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058513)

"Macs have instant wake-up from sleep, unlike Windows"


/presses the power button

/sees "Writing hibernation file to disk"

/machine powers down

/powers machine up again

/waits 15 seconds

/is back at the desktop

oh look, we can do that too....

That's nice. Fifteen seconds is kind of a long way from "instantaneous", though. Also, I'm pretty sure "sleep", which the poster you're quoting said, and "hibernate", which you did, are different things. My G4 takes four seconds to wake from sleep. At least that's how long before my Sony CRT is powered back up so I can see something. Four seconds isn't instantaneous either, but it's a bit better than 15 seconds. I've heard people with Titanium Powerbooks say when they wake it from sleep by opening the lid, it's up and running by the time they have the lid open. What's the wake from sleep time like on the box you're using?

Hibernate vs. Sleep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059614)

The last person made an unfortunate comparison. PCs can do sleep too. They come back instantly, just like Macs. No surprise, since it's the exact same technology.

Hibernate is a PC technology that's been mostly limited to laptops, until recently. Hibernate allows you to remove all power, then restore without losing data or state. Sleep is more convenient, so long as your power is always there.

Thanks pudge (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058126)

for the first pudge-posted article on apple.slashdot.org whose department doesn't end in "for-dummies".

Re:Thanks pudge (0, Offtopic)

pudge (3605) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058821)

I was just wondering if anyone would notice!

The submitter made a misleading quote... (2, Informative)

Daniel Wood (531906) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058214)

Worth quoting: 'It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.'"

This was in fact a reference to Windows, not Mac OSX.

On the subject of Windows stability. If you're not using that crap VIA puts out, but instead use tested Intel solutions, it is not an issue. Since my migration to Windows 2000, I have had a total of eight memory dumps. That is since my initial use of Windows 2000, RC2. As a desktop OS in the Intel world, nothing comes close(available software versus stability). Eight memory dumps over twelve systems in a period of Three years seems like a good track record to me.

I will probably be modded to hell for posting anything positive about Windows, but these are the facts.

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (1)

c0wh (445032) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058423)

If I had mod points I would give one to you.

Your opinion seems to me that it is based on reason instead of anti-MS trendiness.

I have been trying to think of a way to break it to everyone that Windows CAN be reliable, though I'll limit my claims to versions based on the NT code base.

It seems like every time you try to mention that properly configured, and with tested hardware, windows isn't all that bad, you are called a microlemming or some such term and modded for being a troll or something. Windows is much happier with 128 or 256 MB of ram. With the price of RAM these days, why not get a few extra 128MB modules?

My NT Server 4 box had been running for two months without a reboot*. I use it for memory-intensive applications like graphics work and visual studio programming (insert bloated application joke here).

* Well, I did have to take it down yesterday to apply the two new IE hotfixes...

(Of course everyone will love that last sentence.)

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058509)

Of course it was a pot-shot at Windows. That's obvious. What's funny is the unintentional and subtle truth that it revealed about Apple's product.

I've used both Windows and Macs for long enough to know that the reliability claims made by Mac people are highly exaggerated towards their prejudice. In reality, Windows is plenty stable. Like anything, it gets worse with abuse. But that's the fault of the abuser, not the abused. OTOH, every Mac that I've used has frozen up solid on a regular basis, necessitating a hard reset.
OSX may have improved things a bit for Macs. But I'm not going to find out as long as getting OSX == buying a new Mac.

I've concluded that Apple products are for the small group of people that Abe Lincoln referred to when he said "you can fool some of the people all of the time."

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (2)

pressman (182919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058983)

I don't know what Macs you've used or who set it up, but my 4 Macs all have uptimes that range into months rather than weeks. Generally if there is a crash it's because of a poorly written application rather than the OS. Lirterally, I have 4 Macs that have uptimes in the 4-6 month range. The laptop gets shut down a lot, but then again, that's a battery and portability issue. Though I'm sure someone could find a way to make that Apple's fault also. "Can you believe it? A one button mouse AND I have to shut it down when I'm carrying it around? What a load!"

Personally I think it's MS that has fooled everyone all of the time. They have actually convinced the general public that they are creating innovative products when in fact they are either stolen or copied from from smaller competitors who are soon out of business once their "air supply has been cut off".

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059571)

I would consider the Finder to be part of the OS, considering the process management that it does. That's the culprit most of the time.

Actually, MS hasn't fooled all that many people. Buzzwords like "innovative" are Mac-user fare. IME, people who use most of Microsoft's products aren't that obsessive about them. They have other priorities in life.

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (1)

bsartist (550317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059977)

Finder is not a part of the OS, it's just a file manager application. Many classic applications, installers and games especially, kill every other application, including the finder, and take the machine over entirely.

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059986)

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. The truth is that Finder controls application launching, closing and task switching. That makes it very much part of the OS

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (2)

pressman (182919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060087)

Sheesh. I should have known that! Regardless, my macs almost never crash and when applications do, generally, I'm right back at the Finder.

Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059920)

I've have had same kind of experiences. My webserver with NT4 was up and running a bit over 400 days without a single reboot. Reason? not a default install.
Also it would have been resistant all the ISAPI attacks and UTF-8 traversals, as they need only removal of mappings and installation for separate partition. So simple, and no Nimda, Code Red etc.
Too bad most admins(?) seem to like default installs.

what hinders me from developing for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058223)

is that it doesn't have one central repository for its APIs like Apple does with http://developer.apple.com/. IOW, I'd like to develop for Linux but it's just not that simple. I found after a little research about the GTK+ toolkit and I guess there's an ObjC wrapper for that happening but... the whole thing is confusing. I don't know (and I doubt) if GTK+ development works under KDE and I looked at linux.org "to do" list for GNOME and, well, it's pretty uninteresting to me - tasks for apps I've never heard of (and which sound like things I wouldn't use) and features in them that don't jump out at me. There's nothing there that says "make GNOME a much better interface", in fact there really isn't much directly GNOME related there at all. Also, OS programs both tend to be pure C or else C++ (which is pretty much the bane of my existence as an OOP) and write all their code for different platforms inline using #ifdef's, both of which turn me off from developing for them. [Yes I know people use Perl, python, lisp, fortran, etc. but I'm talking about the apps whose source code I've actually read.] Eh, maybe I'll stick a linux distro on my old 8500 and see what happens. I'd honestly appreciate any pointers people have towards getting started with Linux development (esp. w/reference to developing using ObjC in Linux); I just don't want to stick it on either of my tower or iBook as the iBook has a small hard drive and the tower has an already complicated hard drive setup.

Re:what hinders me from developing for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058247)

For GNOME development check . Of interest to you might also be the [gnome.org] GNOME mailing lists [gnome.org] (if I understand correctly and you're interested in improving the user interface, try the usability list).

Unfortunately I know nothing about Obj-C. I hate the fact that C(++) are so dominant too.

Wow, I never knew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3058439)

I never knew that OSX was available for UNIX systems.

I never knew that OSX was a replacement for the X Window System.

I never knew that Linux was just a shell.

I never knew that programmers were incapible of writing applications, being too "advanced" to understand "average" people.

I never knew that a GUI makes "commands" "available".

I never knew that Linux has the power to keep people from doing things that are universally and unconditionally "straightforward" and "simple".

I never knew that things like "changing my network settings" really are universally and unconditionally "straightforward" and "simple".
I never knew that computers were a "hodgepodge".

I did know that the EvangeList has been spreading misconceptions and half-truths like the above for many years.

And I know the difference between reality and marketing BS.

Re:Wow, I never knew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060575)

very bad that u didn't knew all that... it's the truth, despite ur lack of culture of the outside world average user

Reliability and Open Source (2)

fm6 (162816) | more than 12 years ago | (#3058913)

It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.
Because of the context, you have to read this quote very carefully before you realize that the "product" he refers to is Windows, not MacOS.

In any case, the author betrays a certain ignorance of how commercial software gets developed. Products that have reliability as their primary goal are few and far between. A bigger priority is features. Features help sell the product, and market-driven products tend towards nasty feature bloat. You can see this in all Microsoft products. And elsewhere -- I know little about the Copeland/Gershwin debacle [apple.com] , but folks working at Infinite Loop at the time assure me that feature bloat did more to destroy that product than anything.

Open source products, by contrast, are driven by consultants and "Free Software" enthusiasts who just want software that works. Which is not to say there's no feature bloat there either, as any user of EMACS or KDE can testify. But since the process is driven by the people who actually do the work, there's a more realistic notion as to what features are actually practical. And with the source open to everybody, there's a more objective idea of how reliable the software actually is.

Hundreds of millions of dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059097)

and OS-X can't even play dvd or make cd-r disks. There's progress people.

Re:Hundreds of millions of dollars (0, Offtopic)

GaelDesign (561391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059156)

Hmm, that explains why I've burned numerous CD-Rs and have watched several DVDs without one dropped frame in OS X running on my PowerBook G4.

Troll.

Jared

Re:Hundreds of millions of dollars (1, Flamebait)

ellem (147712) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059167)

yeah about 8 mos ago your post made sense

Developing the GUI (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059297)

I think it's telling that Apple was able to achieve in just a couple of years what the open source community has been struggling to do for years, unsuccessfully -- that is, bring a great user experience to a Unix platform.

Open source development models are great at a lot of things, lousy at others. Agreeing where to go or what to do or how best to do it is something the OSS model has failed miserably at.

What OSX proves is just how essential it is to have engineers working under a single umbrella, with a single vision, and a single set of user interface guidelines. There is no technical reason why Linux should be so much harder to use than OS X - the failings are all due to the failure of the OSS GUI teams to coalesce around a single vision .

Re:Developing the GUI (1)

shacker (11455) | more than 12 years ago | (#3059304)

Oops, that wasn't mean to be posted anonymously - I'm shacker.

Re:Developing the GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3059546)

Could you name the OSS projects that have been unsucessfully struggling to "bring a great user experience to a Unix [sic] platform"? I don't recall any such projects.

Also, could you tell me what UNIX flavors that OSX is available for? Solaris? HP-UX? I couldn't find any mention of it at Apple's website. In fact, it appears that OSX is proprietary to the Mac.

One more thing, you said:
"What OSX proves is just how essential it is to have engineers working under a single umbrella, with a single vision..."

How do you reconsile that philosophy with OSX's hodgepodge of APIs and middleware layers? OSX is a pretty porky product, needlessly so IMHO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?