Thoughts on OS-X/UNIX/and MacOS

Hi guys,

Wow, what an intelligent and interesting discussion here!
As a graphic designer with some FileMaker (don't laugh!!!) developing experience, AppleScript knowledge and as someone getting involved with web design, I'm really interested in the way OS X is attempting to unite the Mac market niche with the vast galaxy of Unix. I'm really interested in learning Unix, although I realize that it takes long, very long to even be considered an elementary user (if such a category even exists for Unix)

I'm crossing over form the several other discussions I'm taking part in. I'm mostly arguing about how Apple is changing the GUI... for the worse.
'It seems really interesting to me how you guys seem uninterested in the intricate details of the Finder. On the other boards, there are really fierce discussions.

Right now, it seems like there are three groups.
One is those people who don't need to do hard labor on their Macs. These people are quite relaxed now, and they like the new GUI. They are wondering what else is good in OS X, casually comment on multitasking, and wonder when they'll be able to play DVDs.

The second group is where I belong: overworked people who take their Macs to the extreme (i.e. switching disks, locating an immense number of files of a lot of types, using a large number of applications, sometimes at the same time). We really depend on the ease of use, the good navigation features, and the intuitivity of the Mac experience, and are therefore really worried about Apple taking away a lot of the greatest GUI features like _any_ hierarchical menu, spring-loaded folders, pop-up windows, draggable application switcher, Finder windows that can be reduced to a very small size, with draggable folder icons and their title rows reflecting their contents.
We should be really vocal about these issues, because the first group isn't really interested in them, and neither is the third (I'll get to them soon). However, we are the ones who are afraid of _any_ change, and unfortunately, overworked as always, stay away from these discussions. I'm stealing time from my work, jeopardizing my company's greatest project just now...
At the same time, we are also the ones who could benefit a lot from the new OS features, being most of our apps true resource hogs (and crash-prone, too, especially considering our working habits.)

The third group is completely new to the Mac: it's the Unix geeks. Now, this platform inside a platform is very likely to result in some sort of a Mac civil war, but I believe a few "authorities" with enough wisdom will be able to make Unix geeks and Mac point-'n'-clickers unite in sweet harmony...

Both parties could learn from each other. And they should.
As a Mac point-'n'-clicker with geeky aspirations (currently belonging to the overworked -- stop laughing NOW! -- Mac tormentors), I think OS X should be everything for everyone, or it will die. It must be good for Unix users and Mac users, or what's the point?!

Okay, that was a bit too far. Actually: it really NEEDS TO provide GUI tools for anything anybody's ever going to use. Have you ever administered a Lotus Domino server? It has an incredible number of settings, yet Lotus went through the pain and put a GUI over it. Yes, it's ugly, and not very intuitive, but once you learn it, I'm 100%-sure that it's quicker than using the command line. At the same time, I agree: a GUI put on top of a cross-platform project should only be able to do stuff that is accessible in non-platform-specific ways too, i.e. it shouldn't be able to debilitate the application.

I'd really like to use the Apache server, and if I ever decide to learn its settings, I'm sure I'll feel very smart, being able to remember those obscure settings, and can impress my friends by sitting down to a CLI and edit a text file that doesn't make sense, yet the computer understands it. Gee, I can speak computer-ese!!
But on the other hand, consider this: a GUI, with well-hinted, well-organized, clickable tabbed windows, where every setting is accessible. If you're a Unix pundit, you'll see the exact same words that you're used to, except that you don't edit them, you select them from drop-down lists. If you're "your Grandma", you open the Basic Mode, and you'll be able to access a very limited number of settings (maybe "Wizards") that explain you, with nice icons, what you can do without too much fine-tuning.
And if you're someone who wants to learn (like me), you could switch on a "tutorial mode", where I see all the Unixy gibberish, plus a plain-English explanation, and a question mark that could bring up a brief explanation.
All this hypothetical GUI would do is write to the config file, but it would do so in an organized way. Heck, I imagine even Unix pundits would occasionally say, when point-'m'-clicking away at this GUI someone will definitely write one day, "Wow, I never remember what this setting does! So that's it!", and there, you've l;earned something about a config file by using a GUI, and you'll be able to use that knowledge the nex time you administer Apache on a Sun machine.
That's one of the benefits I think Unix geeks could gain from the Mac-Unix marriage.

As I have absolutely no Unix experience, I'm sure I've made some blunders in my discussion. But I'm wondering: does this concept make any sense to you guys? I'm really interested.

[Edited by p on 10-12-2000 at 01:27 PM]
 
P,

I am extremely glad you posted a message - you are exactly the sort of person I'm trying to fight for here......

I think the reason we may seem "uninterested" in the finder is because many are UNIX folks and anything is better then what they are getting now.... Also, that from what I have seen of Aqua the UI looks very well thought out.. I'm sure there are some things that need to be done better - and they undoubtedly will be.... Don't forget that many of the features you like in MacOS's Finder were not there in the original.... (THe reason I know this is because I run MAE (Mac Application Environment) on HP-UX just for fun and it doesn't even have contextual menus)... What you are speaking to are features - and there are some that are definately missing....

I use MacOS to run my business (accounting, contact management, email, etc..), for games, web design, and what little I know of graphics design, and as a terminal for all the UNIX systems (which we use for our projects, database servers, app servers, etc..)... My only problem is that I can only get so many things going on it at one time.... And sometimes it crashes... But, I'm willing to deal with that because it's very easy to recover when something does break... I also find that I am much more efficient (by a factor of 2, at least) over a Windows-based system.....

I only add this because I too want the features you want... It would be a God send if I could open up even more terminals and run even more apps... The problem though is right now I've already got 4 21" monitors on the system - I'm not sure if OS-X will support them (or even how many more it will support)..

The ui of Aqua I think is quite good - it could certainly be improved and it undoubtedly will be.... One of the things that always *ALWAY* irritated me about the finder in MacOS is that I cannot just "minimize" a window.. I'm constantly having to go "hide everything" or hold down a key while rolling it up (or whatever it is called).. I end up with 20 or 30 little menu bars all over my screen and I've got no idea what they are... Unfortunately, Aqua has made the problem even worse with the Dock.... I do not understand why they cannot put a text label with the icons (!!!!).. I hate icons, they should ALWAYS have a text title with them.... This frustrates me to no end - having to keep track of icons for 20 different applications and guess which one means "crop"....

I probably fall more in the 3rd group then anything else, though several years ago I recognized that MacOS had the best user interface which to me means I could get most things done more efficiently there...... Of course, having access to the UNIX system allows me to use those systems for what they are good at.. I suppose that's why I really don't need access to UNIX on OS-X.. I just want the stability....

I am glad we agree that anything that is expected to be used by an end-user needs a GUI - which is the point of this whole thread I think...... Your analysis of Apache is right on and exactly the way I think it should happen.... Well-hinted, with tabs and all that good stuff.... If I know UNIX folks (which I do - because I'm one of them) and if many of the posts here are any example -- you may not seem that for a long time to come, if at all.... The tutorial mode is a great idea, I think is a great idea....

As a prime example of just how great your idea is, one only has to turn to GoLive and the HTML database that it includes.. I constantly find myself referring to that to find out which browsers are compliant with certain tags and what options they have... Heck, I'll even use the gui to play with it until I get it right then print it into my server-side app..... It's a great way to work and both can definately learn a lot from each other....

- Greg

P.S. Thanks for helping us get to page 5 and for all your great comments!...
 
First, Let me tell everyone about this site that I'm building, It's at http://24.161.35.35/osx/
It's gonna be a osx screenshot post,maybe even a pic-post message board? If you check out the site(there's not much there yet) send me an email and let me know of any features you think I should add.

Why did I post here instead of in a new post?
I use MacOS to run my business (accounting, contact management, email, etc..), for games, web design, and what little I know of graphics design, and as a terminal for all the UNIX systems (which we use for our projects, database servers, app servers, etc..)... My only problem is that I can only get so many things going on it at one time.... And sometimes it crashes... But, I'm willing to deal with that because it's very easy to recover when something does break... I also find that I am much more efficient (by a factor of 2, at least) over a Windows-based system.....
Click to expand...

check out the screenshots at my site http://24.161.35.35/osx/screenshots/
especially the two tiffs, I think you'll like what you see.
I'm going to cut them up and write some stuff and then make a webpage out of them, but let me explain real quick what they are. The ones with the orange background are from my powerbook g3 series 233 with 160 megs of ram. Notice the extreme # of apps running at once! And it was useable, aside from the poor screen response. (I have only 2megs of vram!)
My point is that I not only took the screen captures, but I resaved them as jpegs and built that html page, immediately after the screen captures, while in OSX, with everything still running!
That's amazing!

The 2 tiffs are from my beige g3 at work. 233 also, with the same amount of ram. Open them in photoshop so you can zoom in on spots!

I can't imagine how cool this must be on a new g4!

Now, tho, On with my rants -
I too am a graphic designer, and while I have X on my machine at work, I still spend 99% of my day in 9. It's still beta, but I figured I'd see how it well it performed in the work zone.
Here's what I've found so far -

Startup is slow - It's a good thing it doesn't crash(as often anyway), because it would suck if it did. It takes roughly one cup of coffee to restart, with classic.

I know, it's beta! But, alot of key commands don't work, or worse, have changed.For instance, I'm getting used to the finder window,(I have some additions I'd like to see, but later) But, when I hit apple-n for a new folder, I get a new FINDER, which appears sometimes in the very same screen location as the one where I wanted the new folder, and to make it one tiny bit more annoying, is that it opens to the very same location where you wanted to simply add a new folder, without creating any folders. It's a simple interface rule(for me anyway!) that many software makers break, -

If you add a new option (new finder) - you make a new command (apple-shift-n would work) for that option. You can't take an old option(new folder) and assign it a new command so that you can use the now vacant command (apple-n)
for your new option (new finder).

Apple, can we get a really fast search box on our finder?

Anyone remember say, before sherlock, when you could hit apple-f, and start typing, then hit enter, and once the app popped up, it was already searching? That was fast. The current sherlock is extremely slow, you can't do that anymore with sherlock. I'm not saying get rid of sherlock, I say keep it, alot of folks must like it, or it wouldn't be there. I have a different idea. With the new finder, and those big icons, how about making them half their size (if they're icons, we should still be able to tell what they're for), and underneath them, put a super fast, old-school search. no more waiting for sherlock. don't even use sherlock, use the simple-finder or something. The point is to make it really easy-fast to find a file that you know you have, without having to load all the uselful(but I hardly ever use) features of sherlock.

On the topic if multiple users(I think)-

now - users are users - we all get the same apps, etc.

I want users, like *nix user - where the gui is at a bare minimum, and it's lightning fast. why waste cycles/ram/disk space on 32bit icons when you're a cli freak, and they look blurry behind the terminal? And on the other end, we have the graphics people(printing, design, desktop pub, etc) - and the internet people (mom, grandpa, junior). I don't think Apple will successfully be able to satisfy all of these groups of people with the same Os, if it maintains the same attributes like look and feel, simplicity/complexity of sysyem settings, software installers, etc across the board for all users.

Here's a quote from one of the designers I work with:

"Yeah, I think it looks cool,(osx) but I don't need all that cool looking stuff to get this work done."

I'm lost now, I just rebooted my powerbook into osx, and immediately I noticed another somehow related(i'm sure) issue:
The desktop in OSX is really messed up. When I download stuff in IE, I save it to the desktop, but it doesn't show up on the desktop. I have to poke around the Library/Desktop/ folder and find it. That's most likely gonne be difficult for the "first computer=new imac" user to figure out.Even the seasoned mac user might have trouble with that one. I'm hoping this is just a glitch in Desktop, but it's worth the mention.

I have to play with X some more now, I'll be back!

Check the screenshots!

http://24.161.35.35/osx/screenshots/
or
http://24.161.35.35/osx/ (real soon!)

 
I agree on the part of the ui..ok this is a bit abiguous :p
Let me clarify, YES on text beneath the icons in the dock so you know what the hell is what (especially minimized documents and folders),
and yes that people are afraid to move into something new.
While using OS < X (any MacOS less than X ) I tried using Graigs browser, but I found it innefficient because it was an application running on top of the finder which subconciously made it look weird... I really did not want to navigate that way.
Now that I have a copy of X in my G3, I <b>prefer</b> that method because it makes much more sense. You can go back and forward in your computer really fast and efficiently.
The "overworked" category that P is refering to should no, in my opninion, fear or avoid X because it's different but they should make it work for them. Granted not now, since businesses can't run on betas, but when the final version comes out. IN the mean time they can use teh beta at home and play arounf with it to learn it, just like people did when they first bought their first computer system ;)
(PErsonally I caused my mac many many many many many :)P) sad faces and corrupt system folders to understand how stuff works :p )

Going for page 6 ;)

Admiral
 
Well, I can't let this discussion go away so easily..... We aren't to page 60 yet.... ;-)

Admiral,

Of course you are right..... Experimenting with soemthing is awesome and occassionally things break..... Hopefully, OS-X will encourage the Mac users to wanna know more about UNIX... ;-)

At any rate, has anyone heard anything about what effect (if any) any of customer feedback is having on Apple?.... I'm just curious....


- Greg

P.S. There must be *something* else to discuss about OS-X, UNIX, and/or MacOS....
 
I'm surprised people are asking that the Terminal.app be turned off be default. I have never used a CLI before. Well, a long time ago I used DOS for a VERY short time (one day). After installing OS X, I played with it for a week before I discovered the Terminal.app. I opened it. realizing that it would do nothing without appropriate imput, I decided to experiment to see what it understood. My first experiments was HyperTalk (I was a HyperCard developer for many years.). No response from any HyperTalk commands. Hmmmm. Then I tried AppleScript. Nothing either. Then I tried the couple of DOS things I remembered. No response. Hmmm... I went to the store and bought "Unix for Dummies." Wow! I learned how to use the Terminal to manage the system.

Since the Terminal doesn't do a friggin' thing without the proper shell commands, I don't see why people are so afraid consumers are going to do something dreadful with it. Like they can't do anything to their system with the AppleScript Scripter if they don't know how to use it and understand the language.

Leave the Terminal.app alone where it is. Those who take the time and trouble to learn it, will be able to use it. For everyone else without knowledge the the shell commands, it will automatically remain unuseable.
 
I've been using OS X pretty intensively for the past month now. I've run most of my old Classic applications as well as the Cocoa applications that ship with OS X (Mail, TextEdit, Grab, etc.), and various 3rd party Carbon and Classic applications such as Explorer, OmniWeb, Seti@Home, iCab, etc. So far I have rarely found myself in the position of HAVING to use a terminal or CLI at all. Generally application installations are as simple under OS X as any earlier flavor of Mac OS, and in many cases, all I have to do to install an app is to drag its icon into an application folder (they even work from an "Applications" folder I invented, in my Home directory).

So while having a command line interface is definitely a cool and fun thing to have, I don't think it's going to be necessary for most users. I can certainly imagine my 60-year-old mother being able to use Photoshop under OS X without needing to know that Terminal.app even exists. I think Apple has done an admirable job of making Unix tools AVAILABLE, without making them NECESSARY
 
In general, I think OS X must have as much as possible AVAILABLE, with making as little as possible NECESSARY.
 
Been following the conversation for all of 3 hours now, reading it all.... I got bored... so... HERE I GO!

1: People have been trying to get the *nix platform used on desktop machines, many people have complained at the fact that *nix is not used on the desktop... what has Apple done? Brought a *nix based OS to the desktop of any bog standard user... complaining now ?
2. Terminal.app. This should be installed as default in the same place as it is on the PB... Sorry to refer to Windows, but Windows installs apps like del, deltree, format, ipconfig etc as default to provide for the people who prefer to use the command line... for all these programs, there is an equiv. GUI procedure... I understand that people want Apple to do this, but because there are soooo many command for *nix, it would probably take Apple an age to write the GUI
3. Apache. Any normal end user is not going to worry about the inner workings of Apache? I have Apache set up to share internet connections, but any normal user is not going to have to play about with installing PHP on Apache are they? Some users may not even know it is there until you say "oh, you are running Apache, how nice". Because it is an app that is used if it is needed (much like IIS on Windows), then the GUI only has the ON/OFF function and the "here are my files"... who will need a gui to do things like configure Squid or install PHP/MySQL? People who want to do that normally are "console jockeys" anyway and are confident enough to use the cli. The reason for the GUI on any OS is to perform many of the commands in a friendly way, KDE or GNOME by all means does not have a GUI for ALL *nix commands, so why should OSX?
4. Feedback... that is there for a reason... I know people have been using it... so have I. Dont like something ? Have a suggestion ? By all means, let Apple know... People will differ in their opinions and that is natural.
5. MacOS X has the GUI because it is designed for the desktop user, OSX Server was designed for people to run a *server... PB has the functions to run a *server IF YOU WANT TO... the people who want to will use the CLI... this is because the kind of people who set *servers up on *nix are using the CLI anyway... want a GUI to set up your *server, install Windows NT/2000 on a PC and use that.

I have been using MacOS X since it was released and I am finding myself using the CLI more and more... the Dev Tools means I will be using the CLI even more... I was a Windows user, still am, but even in Windows, I use the CLI... I have played with *nix before, but MacOS X is actually allowing me to learn *nix if I choose to... and I choose to.

As said in an earlier post, if a user runs a program, does not know what to do with it, they will close it and maybe trash it... if they want to use the CLI, let them... if they dont, who cares... the app should be there anyway.

You cannot stop people from using the apps that they want to, and preventing terminal.app in the final release is stupid... Windows comes with COMMAND.COM (in the case of 9x and ME) and NT comes with a COMMAND.COM stylee app that functions the same... If people use it then it should be there.
People who use the CLI will be *nix savvies (or suchlike) and you cannot chage their ways. Leave the terminal app there...

I also agree with many of the points in the previous posts, I just cannot be bothered to copy and paste em all !

Regards,
Russ...
ruzz@mac.com
 
Well, I couldn't let the previous post go without comment....... So here I go (again).. Hehehe..

You said:
"1: People have been trying to get the *nix platform used on desktop machines, many people have complained at the fact that *nix is not used on the desktop... what has Apple done? Brought a *nix based OS to the desktop of any bog standard user... complaining now ?"

UNIX has been used on workstations for a very long time... It also has been used in all manner of devices such as routers, etc.... Yet while using these devices (not counting workstations obviously) the user does not really need to know anything about UNIX - they are presented with an interface tailored to the application of the technology... It is a grand idea that Apple has decided to build their next leap in technology ontop of a UNIX kernel... It's something Microsoft should have done from the beginning, now Apple can capitalize on that gross mistake....

Of course then you had to go and say:

"2. Terminal.app. This should be installed as default in the same place as it is on the PB... Sorry to refer to Windows, but Windows installs apps like del, deltree, format, ipconfig etc as default to provide for the people who prefer to use the command line... for all these programs, there is an equiv. GUI procedure... I understand that people want Apple to do this, but because there are soooo many command for *nix, it would probably take Apple an age to write the GUI"

Well, here is the problem.. OS-X is a replacement for MacOS - *NOT* another UNIX operating system.... You wanna run UNIX on your Mac?.. Install AUX, Linux, or any of the other OS's out there that will do it.. OS-X has a *MUCH* higher level to rise to then Linux with the KDE window manager.... It *MUST* remain MacOS.... The terminal app should be an optionally installed utility (that I hope they do make available), but not installed by default... Additionally, under no circumstances should software be released for MacOS that does not behave like MacOS applications should.... If anyone does (as I said previously) they should have to use DOS 6.2 for 24 hours for each occurence.... Otherwise, I assure you, OS-X will become just "another UNIX" (of which there are over 3,000 different version right now at last count)... And it would not be the first UNIX of choice for someone looking for a UNIX system because it carries with it the overhead of the OS-X interface.... It needs to be MacOS and if it's anything less it will be a dismal failure....

Then you said:

"3. Apache. Any normal end user is not going to worry about the inner workings of Apache?"

------ of COURSE they will... Why would you think a MacOS user would not want to be able to configure virtual hosts, change the number of connections their server can handle, or create addition document roots for their web site?... Apache on OS-X is *MAYBE* 5% done in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as an OS-X application - in fact it's an embarrassment right now..... But, hopefully by the time it comes out this will be fixed... Also, someone graciously setup a method of installing Apache with PHP and MySQL, but you still have to go to the CLI to make it work... This is progress - but it's not MacOS - not even close...

I agree with #4, so I'll let it slide.. ;-)

However, #5 is perhaps the most intolerable comment on OS-X I have read to date:

"5. MacOS X has the GUI because it is designed for the desktop user, OSX Server was designed for people to run a *server... PB has the functions to run a *server IF YOU WANT TO... the people who want to will use the CLI... this is because the kind of people who set *servers up on *nix are using the CLI anyway... want a GUI to set up your *server, install Windows NT/2000 on a PC and use that."

MacOS Server is definately a lot different from OS-X (desktop).... However, to suggest that Windows should have a GUI to configure stuff and OS-X should not is a completely offensive comment to the history of MacOS (which is built on a GUI interface - have you noticed that when it boots it does not even have a "text-based" boot screen?... It's graphical with bitmapped characters..)... OS-X has to be just as easy to use as MacOS with the benefits that come from laying it on a UNIX kernel - it has to be better then (not worse then) Windows NT/2000 when it comes to configuring services.. It needs to redefine the experience - just as it did so many years ago.....

Mind you I am not saying your thoughts are invalid or without merit - just simply that they should not apply to MacOS... Apple is not building "another UNIX that's supposed to work on a desktop"... We don't need another Linux, we don't need FreeBSD ported to the power PC, we don't need another UNIX workstation, we need the next generation MacOS.... Ignore that at your peril - because your customers will not....

Even as much of a UNIX-head as I am - I would never want to see the Mac completely trashed like this....

*YOU* can go ahead and run the terminal app all you want - but as developers we should step a few feet above that and say "hey, we're targeting MacOS folks here - lets give them something that is worthy of their attention".... And I assure you suggesting to them that they should go edit configuration files like you do in UNIX is going to be an embarrassment, a complete failure, and destroy the respect that I hold for MacOS.....

Honestly, OS-X server is pretty nice, though it has crashed on me way more times then my UltraSparc - and it's clumsy to use..... It also is slow and doesn't have anywhere near the application support of Solaris - I certainly don't hear Oracle, Sybase, or Informix rushing to get their software working on it....

Before you murder MacOS with this outrageous agenda I would highly recommend you take a big step backwards and look at what the Mac is all about....



[Edited by devnul on 10-24-2000 at 05:03 PM]
 
Okay, Ruzz:

You're making an assumption that people willing to configure complicated server stuff like Apache and people who swear by the CLI are necessarily the same people.
Wrong.
You think that server admins use a CLI for Apache because it's better than any GUI could ever be. You think that a GUI would be a kind of an inferior way to administer Apache, that's why there isn't really a GUI for it.
Wrong again.

CLI geeks need to get something in their minds: a GUI is designed in order to provide shortcuts for whatever would take too long in a CLI.
Try to retouch an image by a CLI: it would be possible in theory; addressing memory space for each pixel, running calculations, etc. There are people who used CLIs in the past to code PostScript fonts. Some people believe in manually coding HTML.
However, using Photoshop for retouching an image and using Fontographer to edit and create fonts are bit more effective. Also, try manually coding a 20x20 HTML table, then try a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and compare your efficiency.

But if you take a better look: even compilers have GUIs. You could very easily have a GUI for Apache. You'd still have the exact same control, but could work way faster.

The benefits? Speed, efficiency, comfort, elegance, help and manuals just a click away, managing pre-sets, wizards, etc (of course, I'm talking about a good GUI).
The drawbacks? None whatsoever. The GUI app would write into the config file, so whatever you mess up in the GUI, you could correct using the CLI if you wish to.
So, why not have a GUI for Apache?

Stop the "it's not right to have a GUI for something that serious" nonsense, and face it: open-source projects, especially *nix-based ones, have no GUIs because those projects are never finished, and nobody seems to find the time to code a decent GUI. The *nix flavors don't really favor a GUI.

Mac OS X, however, has Cocoa, ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder. Creating a GUI for Apache is a no-brainer. It will be there, opening the world of Unix to a lot of open-minden Macheads (a minority, I know). They'll learn the settings, they'll eventually learn the CLI equivalents as well: OS X will teach them Apache, and as GUIs for other Unix apps appear, they will learn those as well.

In OS X, we could create a friendly face for Unix. Too bad that die-hard Unix hackers can't let go of their CLIs. Even temporarily.



 
P,

Just so you know I am definately a UNIX CLI junkie..... At the same time though, I recognize that MacOS has a whole different set of standards to live up to..... That's why I'm arguing so heavily against the majority of the posts I've seen on macosx.com - most of which seem to forget this principal........

That being said, your comments were right on and I couldn't agree with you more.....

It's an interesting idea that "open source projects are never finished"... I'm going to have to think on that one a bit - I'm certainly not a psychologist but it also seems as though part of the problem is that people will use what is available... Which is why I am arguing so heavily to make terminal app an extra add-on (if even adding it at all)....


Great points - at any rate...

- Greg

P.S. When are we gonna get to page 6?...
 
When I compared OS X with NT/2000 etc it was in a server sense... where 2000 is designed to be a server system primarily, it has gui's for it's server functions.

From what I understand, MacOSX is the follow up to MacOS9, so therefore, the user is lead to believe that it is a desktop system.. Whereas, taking into account the name, OSX server is designed for server systems (i cannot comment on OSXS as I have never used it).

I understand your points about Macs and the OS they run being different, but it having a *nix core, it basically is just another *nix with Apple's grooovay interface on top. Strip away all the Aqua and stuff, and you have a BSD based OS... which, in turn, is "another flavour of UNIX" (dont post comments saying "we know it is BSD" cos I know you know :/ )

When I commented about Apache and end users, I was referrring to the people who use their Mac for items such as document creation (Appleworks etc, which I am quite happy to see Carbonised). From wot I understand, people buy Macs cos they are a lot more "friendly", shall we say, than PC's... this is because, i presume, people do not want the hassle of Windows etc (cos we all know how much of a b*stard Windows can be at times)... if that theory continues thru the era of MacOS X then someone will buy a mac with X preinstalled and use it for the same job, writing documents... I highly doubt someone would kit out a school computer suite with MacOSX computers just so people could configure apache :]

I can also understand that people may want a gui for the configuration of items such as apache, but if X WAS designed for the "system admin running a corporate network", then i presume the sys admin would know unix and may find it quicker to actually configure the system thru the CLI rather than learning a new OS to find out where all the configuration options are hidden in the GUI application. Maybe I am wrong, maybe all those people who have configured *nix servers for commercial use would prefer to ditch all their previous knowledge and learn it all again.

I see OSX as a cheap alternative to OSXS, so I AM using it as a server at the moment, but I guess that is not the primary reason for the OS... as you said, it is a replacement for previous versions of MacOS, so it is designed for the desktop, home or business user. It has the tools available to run it as a proper server system, but many of the *nix servers I have seen run without a window manager, which means that all configuration is done thru the CLI.
If the server setup support is there as an added extra, I dont see why it should have a GUI, i know some of you may disagree, but if a user goes into the System Preferences to change an item, say, his screensaver, and is faced with thousands upon thousands of control panel items to configure things like apache, ipfw etc etc then it will be a pretty daunting experience. Also, if it was done the application route, with seperate apps to configure each service, think of the extra space needed to house all these extra programs...

Take a look at this, conversation with someone I had in light of all this... he configures and maintains several BSD servers for a corporate company...

ruzz`: if u ran a *nix server, would you want a window manager on it?
ruzz`: as in a corporate server
ruzz`: would you prefer to use previous knowledge and configure items such as apache, ipfw etc thru the CLI or would you prefer to wade thru windows of configuration options in an OS you do not know to configure it ?
madwill: NO
madwill: on bsd servers i use here, i dont add xwindows to it
ruzz`: why do you not add it ? performance increase ?
madwill: no
madwill: i dont need it
ruzz`: why dont u need it ? cos u find it quicker to use the CLI ?
madwill: i just dont need it
madwill: i do everthing from a shell anyway
ruzz`: so you configure all forms of services etc thru the CLI... ? why is that ? cos you know what you are doing ? cos it is easier/straight forward ?
madwill: any services i have running were all started and configured from a shell....especially apache

Nice note to end on...

Regards,
Russ...
ruzz@mac.com
 
Ruzz:

You are comparing Mac OS-X (a desktop operating system) to a BSD system that is a server... This is seriously flawed from the beginning... Let me try to explain....

BSD is a high-performance server operating system, adding a window manager to it would impact performance... In the UNIX world we call that "running the system headless"... We do it on Sun, HP, SGI, etc systems all the time (it is, indeed, easier to do on a real workstation then a PC because the PC's BIOS is not very well suited for that task)....

OS-X is the next evolution of MacOS (the operating system that defines the standard-to-be-beaten in interfaces)... Why would anyone want to run Apache on OS-X?... Well, the answer is simple: because they can... But, it's definately a far cry from Solaris or BSD because of the overhead placed on the operating system because it is a *DESKTOP*... It wouldn't be my first choice, that's for sure.. But (!) on the other hand of it it could very easily be used by folks who don't know UNIX that well, yet give them all the features of UNIX... It is just going to take people opening their minds up a little bit....

Your conversation with the individual is interesting in that it helps to clarify my point... Mac OS-X is *NOT* about running a headless UNIX server, it's about the next evolution of MacOS....

Don't turn OS-X into another UNIX operating system - we've got enough of them - and in fact NONE of them appeal to Mac users..... Indeed, that's a tall order for any operating system - but one that must be met in the next version of the operating system....

As for your argument about the complexity of control panels and stuff like that.. I disagree - that is why the Mac interface has lasted so long and is so easy to use - yet offers all the functionality of a CLI.... It's comprehensive, the tabs are explained and properly organized ,etc...

One of the problems (from a Mac perspective) is that most UNIX apps don't really have an interface to deal with.. Indeed, UNIX developers don't really seem to know how to design them..... But going off and porting all this UNIX stuff to OS-X is foolish without the effort put into making it work the way MacOS is expected to work... The reason: it will be lost on 95% of the MacOS market (which will not be very profitable).. Or even worse will turn OS-X into just another UNIX operating system....

Personally, I care passionately about this because I decided a long time ago that MacOS was extremely easy to use.. Just watch a novice computer user sit in front of a Mac as opposed to a UNIX or Windows system..... It is really quite amazing to see...... Don't loose site of this - the Mac has a market because of what it *IS* and now it can have an expanded market because of what it *IS CAPABLE OF*.... But do NOT lose perspective of what it *HAS BECOME*, or you will lose both markets... UNIX junkies won't like it because you have to use the GUI for many things, and MacOS folks won't like it because you can't use the GUI for everything....

As a developer it would be foolish to be cavalier about this subject....

- Greg
 
So, Apple is merging two diametrically opposite extremes into one platform. Who's going to use it?

Mac users will like the new power and stability. I'm just concerned that the changes in (or rather, replacement of) the Mac GUI will turn them off... but let's be more optimistic.
Then, people who like the Mac for some subjective reason, but needing something more powerful for work will probably jump on OS X: finally, they can do some real work on the Mac!

I wonder who else Apple is targeting. Markets where ease of use and power are both required. Possibly companies that insist on having a single platform for various uses, but where high-end computers were necessarily Unix or NT boxes?

After all, Maya is coming to OS X.

OS X will have a lot of potential... but I don't see how exactly it wants to enter new markets.

Another niche it could carve for itself is "Friendly Unix". Port a Unix app easily, after all this is Unix. Write a GUI easily, after all, Cocoa is supposed to be the easiest da*n thing to develop for.

Apple claims to have created DTP. Now, they are "creating" desktop movies. Maybe they're after something even bigger? Desktop Thermonuclear Fusion? Desktop Brain Surgery?

Anyway, my prediction is OS X will have three separate user bases.
70% Mac users who'd never open Terminal.app.
20% Unix gurus who'd insist on using Terminal.app in a lot of circumstances (like our friend Ruzz)
10% Cross-over, who'd realize the benefits of both approaches, and who would actually Think Different from both status quos.

Incidentally, look at how Apple wants to educate its users. How many die-hard Mac GUI idiots even know what a HD looks like? Now OS X icons teach them.
Notice how easily a G4 tower opens. Or a Cube! You can even open up an iMac and install memory at home.
And, of course, you have the Terminal.
Maybe Apple wants to do away with the stereotype of the "stupid Mac user"?
 
Seems like this post has rejuvinated itself lol ;) Good thing to see.
I am one of the people who thinks that HTML coding is much better done by sitting down infront of a simple text program or a WYSIWYG editor and coding, and I can debate the hell out of it but this is not the point of this post.
I want to disagree **sorry I cant remeber the guys name** with the person who mentiond HTML coding in his post. The thing is that even though I do do HTML coding the brute way so to speak and not through dreamweaver or some application does not mean that I will always or 90% of the time use the CLI in my OS X machine.
There are situations when a user has to make a judgement call and decide what is faster, more efficient or maybe plainly what's more worth while to him, using a CLI or using the GUI. This is a judgement call. Personally I go back and forth. Some tasks are better accomplished by running the CLI, and some are better ccomplished using a GUI implementation. I prefer using the CLI for my Java stuff for example, but I would really despise using the CLI to edit a picture in photoshop (good example by whoever posted it :) )
I think that the the people that are in the 20% and 70% in Ps post should really follow this approach. People can debate the merits of a CLI, or a GUI, but in the end it comes down to this:
We now have an OS that has both a CLI and a GUI (something that has not existed on an Apple Platform since the Apple IIgs). People should not just use the GUI and expect a GUI for every single UNIX command found in OS X, and people using just the CLI should not be bummed and should not b*tch about how the GUI is dragging them down and how it's better.
The 10% of the people left (from Ps post) are the wise ones that use both depending on circumstance. I think that the Hardcore old school GUI types should leave their attitude of "I will only use my GUI so to hell with the terminal" at the door of their nearet computer store when they go buy OS X final when it comes out, because this will get them in trouble. They wont be as productive as that 10%. I don't understand why people want to stagnate and not learn something new. I mean, when they first got their first mac that was new to them and they learned to use it and take advantage of it, and ever since OS 1, up to today the MacOS always sported something new in each release, and people went along and learned the new tricks, why should OS X be any different. ???

Admiral

PPC --> (Pos tPost Considerations :p ) Please, no one get offended! and #2, is OS X an actually unix branded OS, is it certified by that unix committee we were talking about in earlier posts, or are we calling it a unix because it looks and acts like one ??? and are we on page 6 yet ????? :p
 
People should not just use the GUI and expect a GUI for every single UNIX command found in OS X
Click to expand...

This is the point I was trying to get across when I said the following:

The reason for the GUI on any OS is to perform many of the commands in a friendly way, KDE or GNOME by all means does not have a GUI for ALL *nix commands, so why should OSX?
Click to expand...

R,
R...
ruzz@mac.com
 
I think CLI purists will just ignore the GUI if they don't like it.
GUI purists, however, won't ignore the CLI: they will loathe it, and call an exorcist to deinstall it.

Mac users are just like that. We're stuck with them. If Apple can change their attitude somehow, that'll be a huge achievement.

I'll definitely be trying to belong to the 10%, but the 70% will make or break OS X -- and ultimately, Apple's future.

Unless, of course, OS X manages to double Apple's market share, and original Mac users will end up being a minority.
 
Devnul stated:

"You are comparing Mac OS X (a desktop operating system) to a BSD system that is a server... This is seriously lfawed from the beginning... Let me try to explain...

"BSD is a high-performance server operating system, adding a window manager to it would impact performance... In the UNIX world we call that "running the system headless"... We do it on Sun, HP, SGI, etc systems all the time (it is, indeed, easier to do on a real workstation then a PC because the PC's BIOS is not very well suited for that task)...

"OS X is the next evolution of Mac OS (the operating system that defines the standard-to-be-beaten in interfaces)..."

I was recently flamed in another forum for describing OS X as Apple's variety of BSD. After reading this post, I was curious to see what, if any, was OS X's relation with BSD. I did a system installation. Upon clicking the "Options" button in the staller, I found the following options:
Base System
Essential System Software
BSD Subsystem
During installation I noticed, among the numerious messages, the following related to the acronym BSD:
"Preparing BSD Subsystem"
"Processing BSD Subsystem"
Using Sherlock, I searched for BSD on my OS X partition and found a very long list of things related to BSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
It appears that the version of Apache that comes with OS X is the BSD version, granted with some modifications. Same thing for Perl and Tcl. I just installed Python for OS X and noticed that the files revealed that they were BSD versions.

I noticed a new article recently that one of the lead Apple Darwin developers presenting an explanation of Darwin at a BSD conference. Apple themselves have mentioned that BSD apps can be ported to Darwin with little or no modification.

So the point is, what is Darwin anyway? Should it be seen as a new hybrid BSD with Apple technologies welded on top making it no longer headless? Should it be considered a new kind of BSD, or a BSD derivative? (Boy am I expecting some flames on this one.)

In 1984 Apple gave a face to operating systems with its GUI. Today it seems Apple is doing that again with Unix (not that they don't already have GUIs), but I guess that should be called a head, instead of a face. I'm interested to hear from people in the know what the exact relationship is between OS X and BSD.
 
From Apples website http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/inside.html
Mac OS X is Unix-savvy
Mac OS X supports POSIX file system semantics and NFS file sharing, as well as standard services like telnet and FTP, allowing easy operability with UNIX systems and applications. The system’s kernel — the part that does the heavy lifting — is based on Mach 3.0 from Carnegie-Mellon University and FreeBSD 3.2 (derived from the University of California at Berkeley’s BSD 4.4-Lite), the most highly regarded core technologies from two of the most widely acclaimed OS projects of the modern era. We also took the famous Apache web server — which runs over half the websites on the Internet — and made it friendly enough to use on your desktop for personal file sharing.
 
Faster, Standards Based Networking
Darwin incorporates the industry-standard BSD networking stack, the backbone of the vast majority of TCP/IP implementations on the Internet today. We provide built-in support for PPP, letting you easily access remote networks.
Click to expand...

How much more like BSD can ya get ?

R,
R...
ruzz@mac.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top