# OK, OK, OK. X Windowing on Mac OS X



## chenly (May 6, 2002)

Cooly, calmly: What is the best X windowing system for Mac OS X and how do I install it?


----------



## ferris (May 6, 2002)

The Only windowing system (aside from what's built in) that I'm aware of for OS X is XFree86. There are lots of ways to install it, but the simplest is probably to use fink.

http://fink.sourceforge.net/

There's lots of info there to make it work, and it will download and install the correct packages for you. It's not bad. 

- ferris -


----------



## chenly (May 6, 2002)

What about Tenon's XTools? I know it's overpriced, but I know there are others. I installed XFree86 but it wouldn't let me launch anything outside of the menubar, so I took it off. Every time I tried to use the Dock, XFree86 would start up but the application wouldn't launch. I specified rootless mode, so, theoretically, anything outside the X windows would be ignored by XFree86, but no... Versions 4.2 and 10.1.4. What to do, what to do?


----------



## ferris (May 6, 2002)

I've never heard of it. Like I said, XFree86 is the only one I know of, and it worked the way XFree86 is supposed to work. 

I installed it because I wanted to use GIMP. Then I bought photoshop


----------



## chenly (May 6, 2002)

OK. Every shortcut in my Dock is within /Applications. The programs which were in this directory, and not in a subdirectory, would cause X to launch when their shortcuts were clicked in the Dock. I have put all of them into folders within /Applications and everything's fine. Now, what about the GIMP? The only download I can find requires Tenon's XTools and won't run without it.


----------



## chenly (May 6, 2002)

XDarwin malfunctions on my machine--the dock does *NOT* work. Every time you try to use the Dock, XDarwin starts up but the application does not launch. Anyone have any input on this?


----------



## chenly (May 6, 2002)

Now XTools won't install. Installer.app *says* that it's done, but there's nothing there. Does anyone know how to get some kind of X windowing system up and running on 10.1.4?


----------



## BSDimwit (May 9, 2002)

I used fink to install it.  you have to install the Xfree86-base and the xfree86-rootless packages.  Once you have those working, you should be able to install macgimp and that too will work.  

If I were you, I would also get the latest copy of oroborosx and install that so that X will interleave with the Aqua gui... works like a champ.  I got x and agua apps running at the same time, and on the same scream with a very similar looking aqua like windowing manager...  hell, I can even run an Xterm from my Freebsd box over my airport network and administer the FreeBSD box using its own Xserver... pretty spiffy stuff if you get it all to work.


----------



## chenly (May 9, 2002)

BSDimwit, the Dock doesn't work with XFree86 installed. When you click on an item in the Dock, it launches XFree86 instead and then does nothing. This didn't happen with the XTools demo, but I categorically refuse to pay $200, plus $100/year, for X windows. Do you know of any others, or have any leads on the bug? By the way, I did uncheck the "Switch to XFree86 when Clicking on Item in Dock" checkbox in the far right pane in the XDarwin preferences window.


----------



## knussear (May 9, 2002)

Im using xfree86 with oroborosx as my window manager, when I click the oroborosx icon in the dock it launches xdm no problem. Many other nice features in oroborus as well such as X11 apps minimizing to the dock, and apps launched via the osx menu.

You can get it here

http://wrench.et.ic.ac.uk/adrian/software/oroborosx/


----------



## sao (May 9, 2002)

Fink is really the way to go. It's free, has support 24/7 through the mailing lists, it's very reliable and doesn't install things all over the place. I installed with fink more than 200 packages and getting better all the time. You can download the installer from here:


http://fink.sourceforge.net/download/index.php

 Download the installer disk image:
 Fink 0.4.0 Binary Installer - 8.4 MB 

 Get all the info at the fink web site and you should check the mailing lists too.

 fink-beginners here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-beginners@lists.sourceforge.net/

 or fink-users here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-users@lists.sourceforge.net/


 If you have time you can check some screenshots I posted here:


http://homepage.mac.com/sao1/PhotoAlbum7.html


 Cheers...


----------



## BSDimwit (May 9, 2002)

When  you say the dock doesn't work, do you mean nothing will launch at all, mac os stuff or unix stuff, or do you mean it won't launch UNIX apps only?

My dock works with with X running but I use Oroborosx and when I want a unix app to launch I use the command line to fire it up... haven't tried to actually launch a unix app using the doc.... one caveat, when I minimize an app, unix or mac osx it does minimize into the dock like its supposed to.


----------



## chenly (May 9, 2002)

Clicking on a shortcut in the dock causes XDarwin to start up and nothing else. knussear, are you saying that if I install XDarwin AND Orobor the dock should be fine?


----------



## buc99 (May 9, 2002)

First off, the only X window system is Xfree86.
XDarwin and Tenon's Xtools are nothing more than implementations of XFree86. I personally do not care for Fink. The reason why I don't care for fink is because it is lazy and does not teach newbies where, why and how things are done in UNIX. This is my own personal opinion so go flame elsewhere. I installed Xfree86 and then I installed OroboroX on top of it. This run rootless. Some people have had troubles with getting OroboroX and Xdarwin to start up when they click on the icon. It is not because the program does not work, usually it is because folks did not add the Xfree86 directory to their Path. Then perform a rehash or restart. I have not yet found any Xwindows distribution for OSX to be easy "point and click" installations. Hopefully, someone will fix that one day. However, there is plenty of documentation on how to do this. A great place to begin your search is:

http://www.savagetranscendental.com/OSX.html

I could sit here and explain from start to finish how to do this but it is a long time consuming process and step for step details can be found at the page I mentioned. 

As for installing the GIMP. The GIMP is NOT an OSX application. Therefore you will not get "Point and Click" access to it. It must be run with Xfree86. I usually start this up from within an Xfree86 terminal. I believe you can add it to the toolbar in OroboroX and Xdarwin.

Good Luck. 
SA


----------



## sao (May 9, 2002)

buc99 wrote:



> *fink...it is lazy and does not teach newbies where, why and how things are done in UNIX*




 That's a really good joke,  


 It's the equivalent to saying that:

 Photoshop it's too lazy, it doesn't teach newbies where, why and how things are done in professional image-editing. Yeah, a good joke...


 Cheers...


----------



## buc99 (May 13, 2002)

I probably should not respond to the fink remark, but I feel I should clarify:

I've been looking for help and helping others on this forum and many others like it. I've been involved with helping other people and their Unix problems since "PB" because I love this OS. I'm no UNIX guru nor do I claim that OSX must follow some UNIX "Purity" doctrine. 

But since the release of "PB", I've noticed that a lot of questions could be easily answered if people took the time to learn a little about UNIX. Granted, not everyone has this amount of time and possibly a lot of Mac users never bothered working with Unix systems. I worked on many Linux boxes and dabbled in FreeBSD in the PC world way before OSX came out so I had a little understanding of the learning curve involved. Not every Unix flavor is the same. Heck, there is about a dozen + different flavors of Linux and they all have their little quirks.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Fink places packages on the system. But not all of the files needed by these apps are in /sw. So when I get my "millionth" "I installed this package with Fink but it does not seem to work ... Please Help!" question, I find that alot of these questions can be overcome by a little Unix knowledge. The thing is, Apple has made it very easy for people to use this OS without ever having to open the Terminal.app, yet these people still want to dabble in X and the open source software that is available. (Because it is free) And I can't blame them. But if they have not run the Unix learning curve first, then they have no business installing these apps with a Packaging device like Fink. They need to do a few "make" and "sudo amke install" commands to get the hang of what they are doing. Unix is NOT point and click no matter how hard developers like the good people at Fink try to make it.

Basically, don't come crying about something from Fink not working if you don't understand what it is Fink is doing. And this is not like saying "Photoshop is lazy ...". Photoshop is a grapic arts tool. Whereas you could probably make an argument for Fink being a tool, but I personally think it is a crutch for many.

Now for those of you who actually read all of this and take this personal. Don't. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just trying to clarify my personal opinion on Fink. So if you disagree, fine. But the next time you have problems with an app installed by Fink, let me just say "I told YOU So."

Thanks. 
SA


----------



## chenly (May 13, 2002)

Note: If that was for my benefit: I didn't use Fink. I don't see what the point of Fink is. Fink is on my system and I have no idea how to use it. 

Separately, here IS a problem with my system, caused by installing and removing different X windowing systems. Tenon's XTools won't even install now, much less run.


----------



## knussear (May 13, 2002)

Chenly

I have installed xfree86, and then oroborosx (follow the instructions here carefully) and I have no problems with my dock. In fact X11 apps will even minimize to the dock!


----------



## chenly (May 13, 2002)

Great. My system's broken. Have fun.

PS--there ARE no instructions for Orobor; once you decompress it, it's installed.


----------



## sao (May 13, 2002)

buc99,

 Relax, relax...take a deep breath...

 What are you talking about?

 Yes, I know...about your problems... with fink or without fink. About your love for this OS, about your help to other people in this forum. About Unix purity doctrine?

 All this sounds so romantic... 

But, problems you are going to have in any case, if you install in /usr/local or in /sw.

 "I told you so"

 Thruth is you will tell people "I told you so" because you really don't know how to help them, as you don't understand how to give solutions in that particular subject (fink).

 In future, if people has problems with some fink installed package (and especially ask for your advice), you better send them to where they understand about fink, like the fink-beginners list or the fink-users list, where the developers will help them in their way.

 And I can see then, you are not a unix guru...really, you better believe it,  problem is, by your words you try to look like one.

 Look, I know, you can help at your level, and you probably do a great service to absolute newbies. But just because you don't understand a subject, you don't neeed to come patronizing and saying "I told you so".

 Rather, learn a way around, and believe me, they are many ways to make things work. That you would not know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. To know your limits, is a much better attitude than saying "I told you so".

 You see, we have opposite experiences, I heard countless times about people having problems installing in /usr/local. The installers put things all over the place (look at Chenly's problems).Things they don't even know they exist. And then, writing over your previous installations.

 So, my personal experience tells me how much I love fink, and after installing over 250 packages with it, and enjoying a very clean, neat software installation in my Mac, I can only say thank you for such an excellent tool.

 Fink gives me 24/7 support through the mailing lists. It's reliable. It's free. And, just in case I would not need it anymore, it's extremely easy to delete from my system.

 You don't need to use it if you don't want it. Everybody makes his own choice. Same goes for OSX, you use unix if you want. Many people just don't.

 The good point for us is that...we are all learning Unix.


 Cheers...


----------



## buc99 (May 14, 2002)

First let me say, I was not posting that for you Chenly. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Sao,
I was chilled. Did you actually read what I wrote, or were you just looking for a target to flame? Cause you did the same thing last time I posted.

If you read what I had to say you would have noticed:
1. I specifically said that I DO NOT claim to be a Unix guru. On top of that, I would never mislead anyone to believe that I am. I have however come across many problems in OSX and either figured the fix myself or got help in fixing the problem. That is the only wealth of knowledge that I share with people in need of help. I try not to claim to be an expert on anything because "all of us are learning". That is life.

2. I never said that there needs to be some kind of Unix purity. I just claimed not to be one of those people that believe there is only one way to do things in Unix. The great thing about Unix, is that there is more than one way to do things in Unix. Your not limited. Which kind of builds up to my point, but I want to cover a few items first.

3. As I said before, I don't care whether you put software in /sw or /usr/local. Neither one matters to me, although it seems redundant to have items in both the /sw directory and the /usr directory just so you can support two different apps. (One installed by fink, and one fink has not packaged yet) If you have trouble with the "wasting Hardrive space" I just mentioned I would be more than happy to explain it to you in a little more detail. But then again, you know Unix don't you? 

4. I'm glad you had a good experience with Fink. More power to ya. I found that it wasted space some times, as described in 3., and that it was not always user friendly. This last part may have changed since I last tried it.

5. Wiping out stuff? Putting things all over the place? Fink puts things all over the place also, they just put it in directories under /sw instead of directories under /usr. Ive had stuff like, ooh I don't know, Python, MySQL, Xfree86, and a few other programs that would take a while to list here installed since 10.1. Apple has not managed to wipe them out yet and I'm running 10.1.4. Hmmm. Now I have heard of this happening to other people so I will concede this point to you and just say I'm lucky.

So finally, let me clarify my point one more time. I don't tell people "I told you so". I do however hint to folks that they should stay away from fink if they are having troubles with the packages they installed. I don't care if you or anyone else uses Fink. I don't have anything against Fink. (Begining to sound redundant again) Fink is good, when it works. Case in point, does fink install Xfree86 under /sw? Check it out. Check the redundancy of /sw and /usr one time. Open your mind to new ideas. The point is, if people have trouble with Fink, it is not because Fink is messed up, it is because they never took the time to figure out  WHY Fink installs things under /sw. That is the only point I'm trying to make. And I don't think they can figure out WHY fink puts things under /sw until they do a few make commands. Since you are such a UNIX guru, you do know that when you do "sudo make install" it tells you where everything is being installed, and there is a reason Unix installs these items in defferent directories? Since you are such a Unix guru, then you do understand that Fink installs these items in the same directories, just under /sw instead of /usr or /usr/local. What's the diff? The only thing I can see is that it may keep Apple's installer from wiping out what you installed. But, go read point #5 for more on that.

So really, don't take it personal, or do I don't care, but don't lecture me on how I should help folks, because I've been trying to do just that. I 've been trying to help Chenly on this post and the other one he has posted to figure out what is going wrong. Frankly I can't figure out why all of his Xfree86 installs are not functioning unless he removed something else that should not have been removed. Xfree86 does not just decide to work on one computer and not another. I've got it working on my Tibook and iMac not to mention I have it working on my old AMD K5 PC under Linux. Oh yeah and it is working under the virtual PC install of Redhat on my TiBook also. (No offense Chenly, this is not aimed at you) All installed manually with no problems. Whose to say, maybe he should try using fink and see if it tells him what libs he is missing, because something is definately screwy here.

So just relax. Pay attention. And don't be to mad at me.

SA


----------



## sao (May 14, 2002)

buc99,

 This is what you wrote:

 In one post you said:


> *But the next time you have problems with an app installed by Fink, let me just say "I told YOU So."*



 Then in the next one you said:


> *So finally, let me clarify my point one more time. I don't tell people "I told you so"*



So which one will be, buc99 ?


 I'm relax, I'm paying attention, and I'm not mad at you. I just disagree with what you say, that's all.

 And, here are some of the reasons why:

 First, I want to tell beginners to beware of package managers that install in the normal unix directories, as they will overwrite Apple's software.

Then, quoting a friend of mine who wrote it clearly about package installs in /usr:

<<I dislike package installs that put themselves in /usr 
why? hard to trace. i have no audit of what went where. did it ask for authentication so it could stomp all over what was rightfully there to begin with? 

I usually try and tell those package installs to put themselves in a benign place, offworld, so i can examine them and place them myself either in ~/bin or somewhere else in my PATH with copious documentation somewhere explaining where they came from. it's a real life saver in the long run. 

also, I want to examine these things for trojan horses. I trust nothing and want to examine all the code for sanity.>> 


And next, from the fink FAQ at the fink web site:

<<Fink doesn't install into /usr/local unless explicitly requested and doesn't require fiddling with /usr/bin/make or other system-provided commands. That makes it safer to use and reduces interference with Mac OS X and third-party packages to a minimum.>> 


*Why doesn't Fink install into /usr/local?* 

There are several reasons, but the common line is "because breakage will occur". 

Reason One: Third-party software. /usr/local is the well-established place to put software that is not part of the system shipped by the original vendor. This means that it is a good place to put stuff. However, it also means that other people will put stuff there, too. Most install routines will just overwrite what's there - this also applies to dpkg. One can, of course, choose not to install third-party software in /usr/local. Unfortunately, most installers don't tell you beforehand what they will install where. 

Reason Two: /usr/local/bin is in the default PATH. This means that your shell will find the install programs without additional measures. But it also means that you do have to take additional measures if you do not want to use the programs. In extreme cases, this can also affect the system itself - many parts depend on shell scripts. 

Reason Three: The compiler tool chain searches /usr/local by default. The compiler searches /usr/local/include for header files and the linker searches /usr/local/lib for libraries. Again, this is sometimes a welcome convenience, but it's very hard to disable should the need arise. You can easily disable the compiler by putting a garbage file called stdio.h into /usr/local/include. 

All that said, it is possible to install Fink into /usr/local. The installation script will warn you explicitly, but proceed once you acknowledge that you're doing this at your own risk.>>

 And by the way fink offers uninstall (which few *NIX programs do when compiling from source). 

 You wrote at the end of your post:



> Whose to say, maybe he should try using fink and see if it tells him what libs he is missing, because something is definately screwy here.



 Now, that's the first thing we agree. (Halleluya)


 Cheers...


----------



## buc99 (May 14, 2002)

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, or maybe you have trouble reading what is being written, or maybe our posts are becoming to far apart. You said:



> But the next time you have problems with an app installed by Fink, let me just say "I told YOU So."



But that was the last line of a point being made. I thought I was being somewhat creative in my writing by using the capital "YOU". This was directed at your post. It was part of an ongoing point of how I have heard of numerous complaints on Fink that could have easily been avoided had the person followed my point and investigated where things are put. My mistake on being too subtle.

I will not however just tell a person who asks for help "I told you so." As you implied in your post:



> But just because you don't understand a subject, you don't neeed to come patronizing and saying "I told you so".



I find this remark to be a personal attack.  You have no clue who I am nor what I know.  I could easily say the same about yourself since you ignored most of what I wrote again only to push your onesided opinion.

Now for what you had to say:


> First, I want to tell beginners to beware of package managers that install in the normal unix directories, as they will overwrite Apple's software.



Exactly my point. If they are blindly installing Apps, maybe they should stay away from Unix until they understand what is going on instead of hiding behind a crutch like Fink.

As for your friend. That is very sound security advice. However, when you do "sudo make install" from the command line. You are shown exactly where everything is put. And you should not be installing software that will wipe out some Apple Library. I do not believe this is possible when you install an app into /usr/local and this is the reason why third party software IS installed in /usr/local. My understanding of Unix, and once again I'll admit that I am not a Unix guru so there is no question, is that third party apps are installed in /usr/local so that they do not kill OS libraries installed elsewhere and so that malicious code placed here can only affect the User and not the root. This may be a generalization of the actual facts, but I believe it is the jist of it.



> Unfortunately, most installers don't tell you beforehand what they will install where.


That is not exactly true. This information is usually somewhere in the package. Edit the ./configure file if you want to put somewhere else.



> But it also means that you do have to take additional measures if you do not want to use the programs.



Huh? Then why did you install them. Once again, there is nothing wrong with installing elsewhere to test software. But once you install it in /usr/local/bin you should intend to use it.

Reason three just totally loses me. Ever hear of a config file. Granted it is not the easiest thing in the world to mess with, but if your going to plow around the inards of Unix,, I for one would like to be able to control it and not just blindly point and click a package manager.

Once again you have redundant code on your machine wasting space. 

You also have to edit your PATH to include /sw (which is not terribly inconvenient) and you have placed another directory outside the usr chain that all users will have access ( also not terribly inconvenient)

Most of what you are saying has nothing to do with newbies because they are not going to mess around with configurations and a simple:
./configure
make
sudo make install

will insuffice in putting the appropriate third party apps in the correct place where they will do no more damage than unpacking them in /sw.

Yes we do disagree. Your coming from a security, although this is still minimal risk, and a hacker type viewpoint. Most of the people doing this are just trying to install some third party freeware in Unix that they can now use on a Mac. Do you think /sw will be any less secure than /usr/local to a hacker?  Any software you execute in /usr/local/bin is going to be as limited as /sw/bin. You won't accidently launch some trojan horse when compile that affects root. (Unless you compile as root which is a big no no.) 

Granted your security issues are warranted and people should be aware of what they are doing, but they are no more secure using Fink. Unless you are implying that no one would ever be able to hack the Fink site and trick people into installing malicious software with Fink. Or that Fink is just as capable of filtering out malicious software as the original vendor.

Your losing me there. And if you read my last post you know where I stand on "breakage". And I have yet to see packages that break other apps libraries in /usr/local and if they did then they would do the same in  /sw.

So we are right back where I started. You have duplicated code in /sw and /usr or /usr/local. You still did not answer me where Fink puts Xfree86. You have gained nothing in security other than a place to try out the software. This can be done numerous of ways without Fink. (And teach the User a little something about Unix at the same time, which is my point) Basically you still seem to think that I'm dissing Fink based upon it functionality. Although I have used it's Functionality in examples, you are missing the point. Istated this in all three posts but I'll state it again a little more clearly this time. (Anyone reading this please do not be offended. This only my opinion, and my opinion has not been known to kill you) Fink started with the intention of being a tooll to allow Mac users install third party freeware on OSX. What it has turned into is a crutch. People are now installing this freeware without having to go through the Unix learning curve. Doing this in my opinion is a disservice to themselves. they are not exploiting the full power of OSX. That is OSX is the most powerful and prettiest Unix I have ever worked with before.

Now disagree all you want. But it is my opinion and I have a right to it. Just like you have a right to yours. So please do not misinterpret my posts anymore and read what I'm trying to say here. "Part of learning the new OSX is learning Unix. Don't avoid it. Embrace it."

Best of luck to You.
SA 

P.S. I sincerely apologize if my point was not coming across correctly. Oh well. One man's reality is another man's dream.


----------



## sao (May 14, 2002)

buc99 wrote:


> P.S. I sincerely apologize if my point was not coming across correctly. Oh well. One man's reality is another man's dream.


 Apology accepted.


 There is no point to continue this exercise.  With your permission, it seems we agree to disagree. Thanks.

 "For some a dream, for others...a nightmare."


 Cheers...

PS: Good luck to you.


----------



## buc99 (May 14, 2002)

Yes. I finally agree with you. We are going nowhere with this and we should agree to disagree. 

Best of luck to you. 
SA


----------

