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

[buc99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Best of luck to you.
SA