Leopard

[bascule]

Well, Leopard, the newest version of MacOS X, has been out for awhile now.

 

Who's using it, and what do you think?

 

I love Spaces, the new virtual desktop system, and from a developer perspective the operating system is great, particular a new developer-oriented feature called DTrace which lets you peek inside running executables, and the operating system itself.

[insane_alien]

i used it once, noticed how 'spaces' seems much the same as the 'workspaces' in linux do. also seen them pawning it off as 'new'.

 

i didn't really see anything impressive. just seemed like a shinier version of the previous iteration of macOS

[Pangloss]

Is that "Spaces" thing a true virtualization, or just a desktop spreader like that 4-box gadget you see in KDE/Gnome?

[insane_alien]

same thing for all intents and purposes. though you can get different wallpapers on each desktop. then again with a bit of compiz magic i can do that on linux as well.

[Pangloss]

That's just a spread desktop, though -- I was wondering if it was a separate OS in each window. I know you can get VirtualPC and Boot Camp so practically speaking it's a non-issue, I'm just curious whether Apple is moving in the direction of integrated virtualization services built in to the OS or not.

 

Microsoft is building Virtual Server into its next Server product (Server 2008), but whether that has practical advantage at the workstation level (as opposed to just tossing a copy of VirtualPC in the box) is an open question. The server inclusion makes sense, because of the "server spread" issue that so many IT departments face these days, but how often do you really need a second complete OS on your desktop? (shrug)

[bascule]

i used it once, noticed how 'spaces' seems much the same as the 'workspaces' in linux do. also seen them pawning it off as 'new'.

 

Yep, they're virtual desktops... the same kind that I've been using since FVWM back in 1995.

 

All the stuff you'd expect from a virtual desktop system is there: direct switching between desktops via keyboard shortcuts and dragging windows between desktops.

 

What's new is the "birds eye view" (hit F8), allowing you to drag and drop windows between workspaces or even drag and drop entire workspaces to rearrange them. This also integrates with Expose, so hitting F9 while in the birds eye view does Expose on all workspaces at once.

 

i didn't really see anything impressive. just seemed like a shinier version of the previous iteration of macOS

 

I'll admit many of the changes appeal mostly to developers (particularly in the Ruby world), but among others: Spotlight finds programs as fast as QuickSilver now (although it's still not a QuickSilver replacement), the entire OS (sans the kernel) is now 64-bit, and the best thumbnail generation I've ever seen is now completely integrated.

 

That's just a spread desktop, though -- I was wondering if it was a separate OS in each window. I know you can get VirtualPC and Boot Camp so practically speaking it's a non-issue, I'm just curious whether Apple is moving in the direction of integrated virtualization services built in to the OS or not.

 

Nope, although Parallels and VMware are two excellent 3rd party virtualization solutions. Parallels even has a "coherence mode" that lets you run Windows and OS X applications side-by-side without issue.

 

Microsoft is building Virtual Server into its next Server product (Server 2008), but whether that has practical advantage at the workstation level (as opposed to just tossing a copy of VirtualPC in the box) is an open question. The server inclusion makes sense, because of the "server spread" issue that so many IT departments face these days, but how often do you really need a second complete OS on your desktop? (shrug)

 

That said I've installed Parallels before and never used it. I don't really plan on using Windows for anything.

[insane_alien]

the entire OS (sans the kernel) is now 64-bit, and the best thumbnail generation I've ever seen is now completely integrated

 

i think the move to full 64-bit is defininately a step in the right direction as pretty much all new hardware is 64-bit now. might as well use it if it is there.

 

still, nothing is there to get me over my inherent hatred of macOS. i still find it frustrating to use. for numerous reasons.

[Pangloss]

I like MacOS but I definitely empathize -- it has its share of weaknesses, just like any GUI.

 

Good interface design is tough. The course I had during my masters program on it was one of the most challenging I took. Trying to figure out what other people will find "intuitive", no matter how many book theories you read, always seems to fall to individual, subjective judgement, and no matter how many tools and features you add you can never have enough, and at some point have to say "well the users can just....", which of couse will end up being just shy of that one feature that the reviewer will wish they had had.

[1veedo]

Mac OS X is good if you get rid of all the OS X stuff and install the X server / gnome or KDE.

[bascule]

Mac OS X is good if you get rid of all the OS X stuff and install the X server / gnome or KDE.

 

You must have an interesting definition of "good"

[1veedo]

You must have an interesting definition of "good"

Have you ever tried it? X apps are sooo much better than the default stuff you can put on your mac.

[bascule]

Have you ever tried it? X apps are sooo much better than the default stuff you can put on your mac.

 

I've ran Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris as desktop systems for the past 12 years, and was an SA for a research group that used KDE primarily. For a long time I was a fan of WindowMaker, but after Ubuntu I started running KDE/Gnome.

 

I run Ubuntu at home (Kubuntu to be more specific). I'm itching to ditch it and run OS X there as well. At the very least I should go back to Gnome... Kubuntu is a second class citizen and I've found KDE to be pretty aggrivating for day to day use.

 

I really don't like any of the stock Gnome or KDE apps. They all get the job done but all have annoying deficiencies and typically lousy UIs.

 

For example, let's look at instant messaging. There's Gnome's Pidgin, which I really hate for a multitude of reasons, stability being a big one (I had much better luck with it from a stability standpoint when it was Gaim, and I've run various incarnations over the years, including the one that only had AIM support). There's KDE's Kopete, which is actually pretty nice and has a nice UI, but it stores all my IM passwords in a KDE wallet. The KDE wallet makes you authenticate against it separately from logging in.

 

On OS X, I have Adium, which is pretty much the best IM client I've ever used. It supports multiple networks and gives you a unified contacts list (unlike iChat) and many features like OTR out of the box (Pidgin and Kopete both need OTR plugins).

 

Plus, Adium stores your IM network passwords in an OS X keychain. Keychains, unlike the KDE wallet, are authenticated by your login credentials at login. No need to login to your computer twice...

 

That's not to mention the multitude of professional applications available for OS X for which there are simply no Linux counterparts. Linux is a 3rd class citizen, and all the niceties of cross-platform software are often lost on the Linux version. For example, the Adobe Flash player for Windows and OS X supports a fullscreen mode for video. This feature is not supported on the Linux version.

[1veedo]

I've ran Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris as desktop systems for the past 12 years, and was an SA for a research group that used KDE primarily. For a long time I was a fan of WindowMaker, but after Ubuntu I started running KDE/Gnome.

 

I run Ubuntu at home (Kubuntu to be more specific). I'm itching to ditch it and run OS X there as well. At the very least I should go back to Gnome... Kubuntu is a second class citizen and I've found KDE to be pretty aggrivating for day to day use.

 

I really don't like any of the stock Gnome or KDE apps. They all get the job done but all have annoying deficiencies and typically lousy UIs.

 

For example, let's look at instant messaging. There's Gnome's Pidgin, which I really hate for a multitude of reasons, stability being a big one (I had much better luck with it from a stability standpoint when it was Gaim, and I've run various incarnations over the years, including the one that only had AIM support). There's KDE's Kopete, which is actually pretty nice and has a nice UI, but it stores all my IM passwords in a KDE wallet. The KDE wallet makes you authenticate against it separately from logging in.

 

On OS X, I have Adium, which is pretty much the best IM client I've ever used. It supports multiple networks and gives you a unified contacts list (unlike iChat) and many features like OTR out of the box (Pidgin and Kopete both need OTR plugins).

 

Plus, Adium stores your IM network passwords in an OS X keychain. Keychains, unlike the KDE wallet, are authenticated by your login credentials at login. No need to login to your computer twice...

 

That's not to mention the multitude of professional applications available for OS X for which there are simply no Linux counterparts. Linux is a 3rd class citizen, and all the niceties of cross-platform software are often lost on the Linux version. For example, the Adobe Flash player for Windows and OS X supports a fullscreen mode for video. This feature is not supported on the Linux version.

Lol you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? I'm not comparing Linux. I said if you get rid of the default OS X desktop and install the boxed X server you can have all the X apps you want. OS X does have a couple neat apps by default or that you can install but X apps are generally better, and there are more of them (don't get me wrong though I love leopard, macs are nice. iPhoto really really sucks though lol, so does safari). The great thing about installing the X server on mac OS X is that you can still use the defaults on top of just about any other application you want. So you have OS X apps, all the Windows applications that run on macs (office etc), and X apps. Meaning on a Mac you can really run just about any application out there (not games, and not all X apps will run on the OS X kernel, but for the most part this is true).

 

Sheesh talk about impulsive posting, bascule. A lot of people do this, it's very popular -- it's really the only reason to get a mac unless you like the clunky default setup. Which is all a matter of personal opinion, and you can keep the default desktop and still do this -- I just happen to like gnome a lot more than the standard desktop and only use a couple of the applications that came with the mac (like the camera). If only they could fix all the bugs, I like macs but os x has a long way to go.

 

 

Btw just FYI I do have to disagree about what you say about Linux, but you're the one trying to go off topic, not me, so I'll stop there.

[bascule]

Lol you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? I'm not comparing Linux. I said if you get rid of the default OS X desktop and install the boxed X server you can have all the X apps you want.

 

Go ahead and name a few. I'll tell you the OS X counterpart I use instead.

 

OS X does have a couple neat apps by default or that you can install but X apps are generally better

 

In terms of the apps I use day-to-day, I can't think of any that don't have a native port to OS X or a superior OS X counterpart.

 

and there are more of them

 

Quantity != quality

 

don't get me wrong though I love leopard, macs are nice. iPhoto really really sucks though lol

 

Try Aperature. I happen to like iPhoto.

 

so does safari

 

I run Firefox

 

The great thing about installing the X server on mac OS X

 

X11 has shipped with OS X since Tiger. There's no need to install it.

 

There's a few X apps I use which have no real counterpart, namely Wireshark.

 

is that you can still use the defaults on top of just about any other application you want. So you have OS X apps, all the Windows applications that run on macs (office etc), and X apps. Meaning on a Mac you can really run just about any application out there (not games, and not all X apps will run on the OS X kernel, but for the most part this is true).

 

Yep, however there's not a lot of non-native applications I want to run.

 

Sheesh talk about impulsive posting, bascule. A lot of people do this, it's very popular -- it's really the only reason to get a mac unless you like the clunky default setup.

 

I've been running OS X since 10.0. Apple has raped me on several occasions, but I keep going back, which is probably the canonical story among their customer base.

 

Which is all a matter of personal opinion, and you can keep the default desktop and still do this -- I just happen to like gnome a lot more than the standard desktop and only use a couple of the applications that came with the mac (like the camera). If only they could fix all the bugs, I like macs but os x has a long way to go.

 

I'll admit that OS X and Apple hardware in general has been fraught with stability problems. On platforms where a single vendor controls both the hardware and system software, I'm typically used to stellar stability. This went for Sun, SGI, HP, and Digital/Compaq. Not so with Apple. In the past year, I've experienced 2 bona fide kernel panics (one related to the Airport Extreme driver), 2 spontaneous reboots, and a gradual reduction to nothing but a spinning beachball. I've also experienced a sporadic boot failure, which was fixed by a long series of hard resets. In the same time I've experienced a single X11 freakout (fixed by ctrl-alt-backspace) on Linux and zero blue screens of death on Windows.

 

Btw just FYI I do have to disagree about what you say about Linux, but you're the one trying to go off topic, not me, so I'll stop there.

 

The Linux desktop experience has always paled to OS X, IMO. The lack of quality commercial software is a huge minus, and ports to Linux are generally inferior to the counterparts on Windows / OS X (e.g. Flash, Skype, Google Earth, Picasa [go Wine!])

 

What's a decent Linux counterpart to ProTools or Logic? Or Avid Xpress Pro or Final Cut Pro? How about InDesign or Quark? Illustrator? Photoshop? (if you say the Gimp I'm going to have to slap you)

[1veedo]

If you don't run X apps that's perfectly fine lol. I'm not telling you that you have to install the X server on your mac, I just suggested it. I happen to prefer abiword, eclipse, and bluefish for instance. There are quite a bit of games that wont run on macs w/o X support, too. And you can run giftd, one of the better file-sharing apps (still subpar to shareaza which only runs on Windows and wine). I'm trying to think, my mac is at home right now (I'm in a dorm) but I have streamtunner installed and I want to install banshee who's only competitor as a music player/organizer is amarok (amarok is actually better I think but it's qt, where banshee is gtk. There aren't a lot of differences between the two though.). Windows really lacks in the music department if you consider quality, how much systems resources it takes to play a song, and the fact that you cant run banshee nor amarok on it. Banshee should run on a mac just fine, provided X support.

 

And the default terminal for macs you even have to admit sucks. gnome-terminal is by far the best available on any platform.

 

It's cool though really, google about running X on macs. There is plenty of really good software running on X. In fact X holds de facto the free software market because most free applications run on and/or are developed for X. Firefox, pigeon, abiword, quanta, OO etc are all developed for X and their Windows counterparts and simply recompiled for Windows (actually I think if they're gtk then it's completely cross platform, I'm not sure -- there's a gtk version for Unix/X and one for Windows. qt is trying to do this too -- the next version of KDE will supposedly run on Windows).

 

It's not like there are hardcore platforms though. Many applications can be compiled for X, Windows, or Mac support. It's just that the vast majority of Unix applications (read: macs are Unix) run on X so you're kind of selling yourself short if you run a mac w/o X.

I run Firefox

Firefox is an X11 app. Firefox actually has a lot of issues on os x. You can get firefox-x11 for the mac though; it runs considerably better but doesn't look as well (this is mac's fault, not firefox, for not havn't the greatest X client in the world).

X11 has shipped with OS X since Tiger. There's no need to install it.

 

There's a few X apps I use which have no real counterpart, namely Wireshark.

X ships with it but is not installed by default. On most versions it was an optional package. I think on tiger you actually had to download it from their website.

 

And Wireshark runs just fine on Linux meaning it has X support.

The Linux desktop experience has always paled to OS X, IMO. The lack of quality commercial software is a huge minus, and ports to Linux are generally inferior to the counterparts on Windows / OS X (e.g. Flash, Skype, Google Earth, Picasa [go Wine!])

 

What's a decent Linux counterpart to ProTools or Logic? Or Avid Xpress Pro or Final Cut Pro? How about InDesign or Quark? Illustrator? Photoshop? (if you say the Gimp I'm going to have to slap you)

Well I just happen to have never used many of those, I'm sure some have good "alternatives" though. Maybe if I needed any of those applications I would be less inclined to use Linux. On the flipside one of the reasons I don't like Windows and originally didn't like macs was because I couldn't run a lot of [free/open source] software. Windows just doesn't have a lot of software for it compared to Linux, and neither do macs if you don't install X. The only reason I considered getting a mac in the first place was because it's unix so I assumed it could run all standard unix applications (little did I know that modern mac OS X doesn't run X. Even w/ X it's kind of buggy. Leopard is running gnome just fine for me, tiger had a few issues). Gnome is waaay better than the standard OS X desktop IMO -- the only problem I've ever really had about the mac desktop is that it's very non-standard. I like having an applications menu and a list of everything I'm running. Multiple desktops is a huge plus, too.

 

And when you close an application on macs they don't even really close! You hit close and up at the top the menus are still there. I don't know why but that's always bugged me lol -- it's like Mac dedicates itself to one application at a time with the whole menu bar thing at the top. If you want to open a menu from another app you have to first click on that application and then access the menu from the top. Linux has always been better when using more than one application compared to both macs and windows. In Windows and OS X you have to keep switching between applications which is really annoying. I love transparency when typing papers and such cause I can keep typing in abiword and read in document viewer or firefox. Windows wont even let you scroll another application if it's not your active window.

 

Anyway that's all I really have to say. I'm not that big on discussing different operating systems like fanboys or whatever. Linux is not a third world operating system though lol I remember Linux way back when Fedora Core 2 was coming out. Even some recent distros of Linux are still kind of backwards -- you have to understand unix to use it very well, but some distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu 7 work surprisingly... how you say automatic and/or elegantly. Things just work right out of the box. Windows which is supposedly user friendly doesn't even do this, as I've found out setting up my friend's Vista laptop (I've actually read a couple articles saying Linux is now more user friendly than Vista, and we're talking all of this has changed dramatically within the previous 6 months. I mean everything has been there all along but nobody had bothered to automate things or make guis before -- there's even a gui that sets up your X config file now which Linux has needed for a very long time. All it does is run X -configure and has a parsing script that'll change your resolution and stuff).

 

Windows is really a 3rd world country I have to say I'm sorry, especially Vista. Windows is always behind trying to play catch up. My porta rican friend gets so pissed off at Vista -- "why does it do that?" "It just does, Windows is like that." It does this weird thing where it beeps annoyingly for no reason and sometimes bluescreens. Nothing seems to work, either. His laptop is like twice as fast as my computer but it runs 4 times slower and I have all the "latest and greatest" unstable compiz fuzion running. Like I really don't understand it my computer does way more than his, runs faster, and it's running on older hardware. And add to that Windows is just plain ugly. Macs really don't look all that great to be honest with you but the theme goes together and macs are kind of flashy. Someone needs to port emerald to macs -- all OS X really needs in that department is a better window decorator.

[Sayonara]

Well I just happen to have never used many of those, I'm sure some have good "alternatives" though.

lol

 

Maybe if I needed any of those applications I would be less inclined to use Linux.

You sure would.

[bascule]

I happen to prefer abiword, eclipse

 

Abiword has a native OS X port. Eclipse is written in Java and runs on the OS X JVM.

 

I want to install banshee who's only competitor as a music player/organizer is amarok (amarok is actually better I think but it's qt, where banshee is gtk. There aren't a lot of differences between the two though.)

 

I really can't stand Amarok, but I've been less vocal about iTunes after Apple started sticking everything and the kitchen sink into it. iTunes 3 was wonderful though.

 

And the default terminal for macs you even have to admit sucks. gnome-terminal is by far the best available on any platform.

 

Terminal.app has always been underwhelming. I'm a fan of iTerm though.

 

It's cool though really, google about running X on macs.

 

As I said... I run X on my Mac... for Wireshark pretty much exclusively.

 

Firefox is an X11 app.

 

Actually, Firefox is built on a cross-platform abstraction framework, commonly known as "XULrunner". XUL has implementations in Win32, Carbon (one of the Mac application frameworks), and X11.

 

Firefox actually has a lot of issues on os x.

 

There were issues with Leopard and certain dropdown dialogs in Firefox, but those were resolved in the latest update.

 

You can get firefox-x11 for the mac though

 

Considering X11 is the slowest of the backends supported by XUL runner, I think it'd be pretty stupid to do that.

 

it runs considerably better but doesn't look as well (this is mac's fault, not firefox, for not havn't the greatest X client in the world).

 

Perhaps you're confusing an X client with an X server...

 

X ships with it but is not installed by default.

 

It's been installed by default since Tiger.

 

On most versions it was an optional package. I think on tiger you actually had to download it from their website.

 

Perhaps you're thinking of Jaguar.

 

And when you close an application on macs they don't even really close!

 

Try cmd-Q

 

it's like Mac dedicates itself to one application at a time with the whole menu bar thing at the top.

 

The shared menu has a number of excellent properties. From a human interface perspective they're trying to leverage Fitts' law. Beyond that it works like a fullscreen MDI window, but doesn't obscure the background with a needless gray box.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually, Firefox is built on a cross-platform abstraction framework, commonly known as "XULrunner".

No it isn't. No stable release of Firefox so far runs on XULRunner.

[1veedo]

It's been installed by default since Tiger.

X11 has definitely been an optional package. If you go to mac's website ( http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/runningx11.html ) they specifically tell you, "X11 is available as an optional install on the Mac OS X v10.3 Panther, and Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger install disks. Run the Installer, select the X11 option, and follow the instructions."

 

One version (though not server) doesn't even ship with the CD cause I remember having to download it once.

 

I know lol we had tiger and now leopard in one of the labs at school and none of them have X11 installed, though the professor says he's going to install it. The good thing about having X11 is that you can ssh to another computer and run X11 apps. (I found the computers rather useless w/o X. You can ssh but you can only run console apps.)

The shared menu has a number of excellent properties. From a human interface perspective they're trying to leverage Fitts' law. Beyond that it works like a fullscreen MDI window, but doesn't obscure the background with a needless gray box.

It's hard to multitask though. You pretty much have to use one application at a time and switch between them.

 

 

The funny thing about all of this is that Mac OS originally was running X. I don't know why or when they quit but the original purpose was something like X Operating System.

 

No it isn't. No stable release of Firefox so far runs on XULRunner.

True. You can't say firefox is "built for" XULRunner or X completely though.

 

I'm sure hopefully everyone knows this but just to clarify, when developing open source applications it's not like anyone specifically makes the application for something like X or Windows. Most of the codebase is independent of the specific implementation. Like on Linux and Windows firefox uses gtk but you can compile it w/o gtk and it looks really ugly. Almost all open source and free software is at least compatible with X, if not solely developed for X though.

 

 

Bluefish for instance is developed for Linux/X but this isn't done on purpose. If someone wanted to they could add support for Windows, it's just that nobody has.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

True. You can't say firefox is "built for" XULRunner or X completely though.

Firefox is built on Gecko and XPCOM. Gecko can render using Gtk, Win32, or Carbon widgets.

 

Firefox will eventually be built as a layer on top of XULRunner (rather than being directly integrated with it), which will include Gecko and XPCOM (meaning one XULRunner installation could run Firefox and Thunderbird and any other XUL app).

 

I'm sure hopefully everyone knows this but just to clarify, when developing open source applications it's not like anyone specifically makes the application for something like X or Windows. Most of the codebase is independent of the specific implementation. Like on Linux and Windows firefox uses gtk but you can compile it w/o gtk and it looks really ugly. Almost all open source and free software is at least compatible with X, if not solely developed for X though.

Firefox does not use GTK on Windows.

[bascule]

The funny thing about all of this is that Mac OS originally was running X. I don't know why or when they quit but the original purpose was something like X Operating System.

 

MacOS has never used X11. The "X" in OS X simply means 10, the last release of original MacOS X being 9.

 

OS X uses a display architecture originally stemming from NeXTSTEP's Display Postscript. The Quartz 2D graphics libraries in OS X use a PDF-like imaging model, sometimes referred to as "Display PDF"

[1veedo]

MacOS has never used X11. The "X" in OS X simply means 10, the last release of original MacOS X being 9.

 

OS X uses a display architecture originally stemming from NeXTSTEP's Display Postscript. The Quartz 2D graphics libraries in OS X use a PDF-like imaging model, sometimes referred to as "Display PDF"

No, I know the "X" wasn't what I meant. I went and looked it up though on wikipedia. There was some other operating system way back in the day who's entire purpose was to run the X server. Like, people thought it was a big deal or something. Not macs though sorry.

[bascule]

I'll leave any further debate to adequacy.org:

 

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.4.28.132234.276.html

[1veedo]

I'll leave any further debate to adequacy.org:

 

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.4.28.132234.276.html

Adequacy was the same site that had this ridiculously untrue article:

 

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.5.9.13031.15414.html

 

 

Comment from reader,

 

"Hi there,

 

 

I have been accessing your site regularly in view of finding accuracy and information.

 

I am however very disappointed to see your article "Exploding the Myths of Teenage Drug Use" as I have now lost total faith in all your articles and feel very concerned that such inaccuracy on your site may well have been prevalent in other articles that I trusted the content of.

...

Personally after this article of lies and rubbish with no facts whatsoever has caused me to never return to this site, as all other articles are probably just as inaccurate."

[Pangloss]

"Best OS" fights are so 1997.