Thoughts on OS-X/UNIX/and MacOS

Pascal,

Thanks again for your well articulated comments and you did represent what I was trying to say very well...

As always, your comments hit the problem squarely on the head....

......

Jaded,

As for the whole virtual domain/IPNat issues.... Well, lets just say I disagree completely.... There is no reason why configuring a Mac OS-X workstation for IPNat should not be point-and-click easy.. Yes there are things that need to be explained, such as private address space, etc.....

I.E:
Enable IPNat? O yes O no
What ip addresses do you want to allow access to the Internet from you LAN
(appropriate easy-to-use selection method)

As for virtual domains, it could be just as easily explained and managed.. And YES, I definately think that Mac users should have access to this..

Remember: OS-X is competing with Windows 2000 *AND* Unix...
It needs to be easier to use the Windows while providing the power of UNIX.... And if it doesn't, it is not going to impress UNIX people and it's not going to impress Mac people....

Right now, if you want to use the features of OS-X that make it competitive to Windows 2000 you have to resort to UNIX....... And it's not a particularly great UNIX when compared to others that have been around for a very long time (although being built on BSD helped a great deal)....

So yes, it's beta... I realize that... But, it's also not as easy to use as NT (when one attempts to utilize competitve features) - to say nothing of MacOS, and it's definately not on the level of say a Sun 1000 workstation..

Casually dismissing these features as something a "mother would not want to do anyways" is what the problem really is..... Apple did it, you are doing it, and so far it looks like thousands of other people are too....

Yes, it's a tall order.... Yes, it's a lot of work.. Yes, it needs to be done.....

- Greg

P.S. THis is exactly what has me aggravated right now... How I read so many posts about "this doesn't need to be in the GUI" or "why would Mac users want to do that?"... It's just not a good argument to make when OS-X is suppose to be everything that MacOS was with the benefits that come with UNIX... This mind-set has got to change if anyone expects OS-X to garner the hearts and minds of native Mac OS folks...
 
Hmmm.

I'm probably rambling too much, as its clear you've come away from reading my post without the full context of what I said. My fault, I need to be more concise.

"There is no reason why configuring a Mac OS-X workstation for IPNat should not be point-and-click easy.. Yes there are things that need to be explained, such as private address space, etc..... "
.
.
.
"Right now, if you want to use the features of OS-X that make it competitive to Windows 2000 you have to resort to UNIX......."

Yes, -RIGHT NOW- you do. But will this be the case in January 2001, or whenever the release hits? Will it be the case in January 2002, or whenever Apple officially kills off OS 9 and starts shipping all its systems with OS X.5 or whatever?

"But, it's also not as easy to use as NT (when one attempts to utilize competitve features)"

I'd disagree there. NT makes me nuts because I can never figure out where they've hid the parameter that I need to tweak. It's in a window -somewhere- but where? In a *nix-esque environment (like OS X) I just open the config file and scan through it until I find the parameter I need to change.

Should I have to do that? Of course not. Apple (or someone) needs to eventually give us tools with the point and click ease-of-use, but more intuitively laid out than Windows is. BUT, if I'm configuring Apache on OS X, darnit, I don't want to learn a GUI. I know how to configure Apache; I've done it on Solaris and I've done it on Linux. I want to use that knowledge in OS X. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a GUI for it... by all means, give people that choice. But if you're going to offer an OS that will run software available across a wide range of platforms, don't make us re-learn the skills we already know. We need BOTH ways of configuring the tools. THIS is near and dear to my heart because for some odd reason, my place of business is running Apache on one NT box, and when something got scewed up the other day , I couldn't immediately fix it since the NT version either didn't use the config files that Solaris, Linux and OS X do. Or if it did, I couldn't find them...

"Yes, it's a tall order.... Yes, it's a lot of work.. Yes, it needs to be done..... "

And, OTOH, Apple is going to have to ship this product. Their resources are not infinite. So where should they focus their effort? On squashing bugs, polishing the UI for the parts of the OS that are going to be used most often and by the widest segment of the audience, or creating GUI tools for sys admins to use to do the same kinds of things they do now via text config files?

I mean, in a perfect world, I agree with you. Everything _should_ have a GUI for those who want to use one.

I suppose I'm mis-reading you, but it seemed to me that your initial post was triggered off by reading messages that folks posted about using the terminal app to get some open source software running, or to hack in support for features that aren't officially supported yet. And that doesn't seem fair to me. As an example take the "Airport Hack." I'm very glad someone figured that out so that I can use my airport card in the PB. But that doesn't mean I think it would be OK for Apple to ship the Release Version like this!! But you seem to project from one instance to the other.

I do think that under the release version some people will still be hacking in support for things like PHP or other Open Source projects. And as the OS matures, hopefully Mac developers will join these Open Source initiatives and build out nice installers and GUI interfaces so that less tech-savvy users can have access to these projects.

First we learn to crawl, then to walk, then to run. The tools aren't available to non-paying ADC members yet, and not even to some paying members. I think part of the reason Apple released this beta is so that the 'weekend developer' community would have some time to come up to speed and start cranking out polished ports.

Enough rambling.. as I say, I come at this from a very different angle than you. I hope, in the end, that we both get our way -- that for you, everything has a great GUI interface, and for me, I continue to have a shell to hack around in.

 
Originally posted by Jaded
Now, it has been my understanding the OS X is an acknowledged paradigm shift for Apple. When OS X comes out, OS 9 isn't going to disappear, right? Apple plans to take OS 9 to OS 9.5? (I read that somewhere but couldn't refer you to it off-hand.)
Click to expand...

I don't know of any plans currently to have an OS 9.5. I do know that OS 9 does still work for people not ready for X yet. I also know that for long-time mac users, this is going to be a hard switch to make... but they still don't need to learn the command line. Anything they would want to do as part of a typical Mac setup is available in the GUI.

I'm running OS X on my iBook right now. I installed it last weekend and haven't gone to 9 since, unless you count running Classic apps. I haven't fired up the terminal yet, insofar as I can recall.
Click to expand...

I have... but that's mostly because DVDs aren't working in X yet, nor is my printer (no not even under classic) or my Palm's HotSync function. I didn't want to play Diablo under classic either. But otherwise I've had no trouble with X and have been using it for everything else.

I have used the command line, but not for anything that can be gui-configured. So far with the command line I have:

1) telnetted into my other systems so I could use my shell accounts (something I use Nifty Telnet for under 9)

2) Setup sshd access.

If I were to set up a web page under X, I don't need a command line. If I were to set up ftp access, I don't need a command line. If I just wanted regular telnet access, I wouldn't need command line. (I just happen to not like the idea of people sniffing my password when I'm telnetting in so I enabled ssh instead.)

Why isn't there a gui for the apache configuration? because this is an end-user product, not a server product. it has all the functionality of the "Personal Web Sharing" setup in 8.5 and above. It has an on/off switch and a setting for where your files are, and that's all it needs for an end-user product. If you want to put on your system admin hat and set up multiple domains, you have that option but it's not something that the average user is going to do. And if you need a gui to set up virtual domains on apache, then that's probably not something you should be doing anyway.

PS Before the PB came out there was a lot of speculation about whether it'd even contain the terminal.app. Was that just idle speculation, or did Apple seriously consider not including it?

My guess is that when the final comes, the terminal will be there, but stuck someplace obscure where an average user wouldn't stumble upon it. Like (sorry to do another Windows comparison on you) RegEdit in Win98.
Click to expand...

I don't think there were ever plans to not include the terminal app. It's part of the appeal for the end user, and it's not something that the basic user ever needs to worry about. really, the worst thing that can happen with it is some user is browsing through their applications folder and finds this thing called "terminal," launches it, doesn't know what to do, and quits again. part of the good news of a command line is that you have to know what to type in order to use it. :)

Please, people keep this in mind: We may be going into the command line a lot here because we're power users and we want to do things that are above and beyond the basics. The average user will never need it. The average user can get on with hir point-and-click life with all the menus and control panels sie will ever need. Apple won't even support using the command line, because it really is something that you don't need to use for basic use of the computer. Hell, I don't even need it for network tools like pine and traceroute because there's even a gui app for that (NetProbe). I can do anything with OS X that I could do with OS 9 (results of the beta release aside; once it's finalized I'm sure my remaining limitations will be removed) plus I have a command line to work with, which I think is just great because I'm one of those people who prefer one to a gui.
 
I, of course, respect the past two posts.. But, I think my points (and indeed my view) have been seriously mis-characterized...

First of all, I *love* the command line interface.... I'm a major UNIX-head and this is the way *I* like to work... You must understand that first and foremost...

Secondly, I recognize there are not "infinite resources"... However, given the resources that are available (including both of the previous posters - I might add) there is simply not sufficient resources being put into ensuring that OS-X is going to appeal to MacOS users... And - if you think otherwise that's fine, but 2 years from now when this comes back to bite you - please let me say "I told you so".... MacOS users are *NOT* going to tolerate this sort of thinking in their operating system... And if you think they will - we're never going to progress beyond OS-9... (which, BTW, everytime I see I think of a great operating system from Microware)...

.. now onto random comments...

You said "Yes, -RIGHT NOW- you do. But will this be the case in January 2001, or whenever the release hits? Will it be the case in January 2002, or whenever Apple officially kills off OS 9 and starts shipping all its systems with OS X.5 or whatever?"...

Well, from whjat I am seeing - yes it is going to be the case.. Because very few people seem to be acknowledging the problem.... As an example, I'll use a quote from the post following yours:

"Why isn't there a gui for the apache configuration? because this is an end-user product, not a server product. it has all the functionality of the "Personal Web Sharing" setup in 8.5 and above. It has an on/off switch and a setting for where your files are, and that's all it needs for an end-user product. If you want to put on your system admin hat and set up multiple domains, you have that option but it's not something that the average user is going to do. And if you need a gui to set up virtual domains on apache, then that's probably not something you should be doing anyway."

I don't really need to say anymore then that.... This whole "line" of thinking is not at *ALL* in-step with the way Macintosh users expect their software to work... It would almost be better to not "port" Apache to OS-X at all, but to wait for someone to develop a real web server that works the wway MacOS users expect it to...

If you think I'm wrong, that's fine... This is one of the biggest problems in the UNIX industry - we've been severely out-of-touch with this whole issue and many of the responses here just impress upon me the same problem....

So, I don't really care.. that's the bottom line.. I don't.. I use MacOS because it's MacOS.. I use UNIX because it's UNIX.... If Apple, with the assistance of forward-thinking developers can make this happen the "right" way (dare I say, a "different" way?..) then you've opened up a huge market that never exists and opportunities for MacOS, UNIX-heads, and everything else to compete squarely with Microsoft....

If not, then a couple of years from now when OS-X basically has become the "NT" of Apple and everyone is still using OS-9 on their desktops I guess I'll be able to say "I told you so"... WHich, make no mistake, I don't want to do.... So please start looking at this from a higher level or everyone - Apple, ISV's, and users are going to suffer...

If not, OS-X will become the "OS everyone installs because they heard it was cool, but then removed because it didn't work the way it was suppose to"...

- Greg

P.S. Make no mistake --- I hope I am proven wrong and only time will tell... But, the outlook is indeed dismal if this is the way you see the problem...







 
Well see I am probably the most pro mac person you are going to find but I think UNIX+Mac is a great combo.
Why you ask???
OK.. let begin with OS X's features...

1) International... Just love the way my menus and programs change to display the Language I want, and I am sure this will be an international hit! Imagine that you dont have to install a localized version of the OS if you live outside of the USA or an English speaking country (English is my promary language but I prefer from time to time to change the language just to practive other languages I know)..

2) The interface... I for one like the Aqua interface, I like the dock, its a quick launcher for my programs (The launcher in my opinion under OS 9 and less was an eyesore so I never used it.

3) The new finder I like, its very fast and easy to navigate ( like Craigs browser for OS 9 and below)

4) The Terminal, while I agree 100% that it's NOT geared towards novices, I like it. Why? Because recently I had to learn UNIX in order to use the Sun machines at my University for my CS classes, and since I learned UNIX, I find it intreaguing and worth playing around with and apple SHOULD keep it. (Before my UNIX classes I was tottaly again CLIs mind you )
I think that Apple should have a slightly better interface so that novices dont have to meddle with the CLI to get some things done. But at some point those novices, in order to take full advantage of what they have under the hood of their macs.

5) Classic...Classic rocks!, it's the reason a UNIX system will succeed on a PPC platform.
OS X has something that LinuxPPC and BeOS didnt... the ability to use existing apps with the new OS.
LinuxPPC had MOL but it ran as en emulator, BeOS plainly didnt have this, and the BSDs for Mac didnt.


There are other reasons why OS X ROCKS, but these do it for me, UNIX is a positive influence in my opinion..


C'est tout
 
LunaMorena -- Thanks for jogging my memory. Truth be told I did use the command line to install the Airport hack, so I lied when I said I'd never used it on the iBook.

Thanks also for correcting me on some factoids I'd picked up from forums (that Apple intended parallel development of OS 9.5 & OS X, and that there was talk of not including Terminal in the PB).

Devnull, if I am, or appear to be, mis-characterizing you, I apologize.

And if Apple plans to suddenly start shipping all new Macs with OS X in January, then I'm willing to swing way over towards your point of view. I was debating based on the (potentially incorrect) assumption that there was going to be a lengthy over-lap between the two OS's, giving OS X time to mature and become more polished.

"However, given the resources that are available (including both of the previous posters - I might add) there is simply not sufficient resources being put into ensuring that OS-X is going to appeal to MacOS users..."

Agreed, but again I want to point out that we don't have the tools to do anything about it at this point. Granted we could plan projects, but without knowing the capabilites of the system from a developer point of view, its tough to do much more than speculate...

"Make no mistake --- I hope I am proven wrong and only time will tell... But, the outlook is indeed dismal if this is the way you see the problem..."

And I'll make this point one last time... _it seems to me_ (and I may be wrong) that you're taking the experiences and attitudes of a small group of early adopters (the people on this forum) using an incomplete beta product with, at this point, no good tools available, and you're projecting those experiences and attitudes onto the Apple team and the Mac development community.

But if you look around at 3rd party apps that are already available, and I'm not talking about open source ports, I'm talking about OS X apps, I suspect you're not going to see any mention of the CLI. BUT IF YOU DO then please point them out to me and I'll _happily_ send them an email urging them to change their attitude.

And keep using that Feedback form at Apple's site -- I know I do -- pointing out the rough spots in the UI, the places you might find where you have to open Terminal.app to do what you want to do, the places where you find yourself unsure of how to proceed. I mean, that's what a beta is all about...
 
devnul is absolutely right when he writes :
This is exactly what has me aggravated right now... How I read so many posts about "this doesn't need to be in the GUI" or "why would Mac users want to do that?"...
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that some (but, allow me to insist : not all) Unix geeks look down on classic Mac users as a stupid bunch of idiots. The fact is that most Mac users like to use their computers, not work on them. They see the computer as a tool to achieve a goal, not as a goal in itself. This fact alone colours the relationship between the computer and the user.

But the lack of interest for autoexec.bats, win.inis and other registries does not mean that Mac users are devoid of intelligence : it only means that they are not interested in the computer as a hobby. Probably in the same way that most car drivers do not have any interest in tinkering with their car's motor on a sunny Saturday morning. :eek:

A good example of looking down on the classic Mac user can be found in the following quote : :(

We may be going into the command line a lot here because we're power users and we want to do things that are above and beyond the basics. The average user will never need it. The average user can get on with hir point-and-click life with all the menus and control panels sie will ever need. Apple won't even support using the command line, because it really is something that you don't need to use for basic use of the computer
Click to expand...
Everything, I insist, everything that can be done in a CLI can also be done in a GUI. Sometimes, coming up with an efficient GUI for a particular use (for instance, the Apache web server) can be hard because it requires dissecting the interactions between the user and the application. A good ergonomic design is not always easy to come up with, but it is feasible.

As a user, I do not expect that I will have to adapt myself to the computer (or minimally so). I expect that the computer design will be adapted to me, the human, the user, the sole reason this machine was brought into existence in the first place.

:mad: Who are these people to decide that I am not allowed to use a given programme because I am not a CLI user ??? Hey ! I am a visual guy, give me a break ! (Huh ! I meant : give me a window ! ;) ) And, I insist : I do not need to be “protected from the computer” because of this ! Not being interested in the inner workings of a computer does not mean that I must be kept under guardianship.

On a final note : some of you have the feeling they are power users because they have full grasp of the Unix workings of OS X. It is true, that fact allows you to be referred to as a power user. But that does not mean that there is only one kind of power user. Look at the graphic artist and try to do everything s/he does in PhotoShop and Illustrator. That artist may not know an extension from a daemon, but s/he still is a power user in her/his own right. Only not of the same type as the first. And both are valid. So why dismiss the second type as having a “point-and-click life” ? This is Apartheid, clearly. :eek:

I remember, in 1984, a lot of “computer experts” looked at the Mac and said “Gee, look at that new Fischer Price toy !” Funny that nowadays, even Linux geeks feel the need to install an X-Window of some sort on their machine ! So maybe, just maybe, a GUI is not as bad as some want us to believe. :p
 
I just want to add that I do not hate anyone on this forum. I simply do not agree with some of your posts... ;)
 
"But the lack of interest for autoexec.bats, win.inis and other registries does not mean that Mac users are devoid of intelligence : it only means that they are not interested in the computer as a hobby. Probably in the same way that most car drivers do not have any interest in tinkering with their car's motor on a sunny Saturday morning. "

Actually, this illustrates my point very well.

*IF* you decided that you wanted to dig into the "guts" of your car as a hobby, you could learn to bore out the cylinders for more performance. Adjust the fuel mixture. Tweak the suspension. You could do all kinds of things if you felt the urge to 'get your hands dirty.'

But, following your OS X arguement, that would mean that the car manufacturers should include an easy interface to doing these things. You want total GUI control of every aspect of the OS, right? And you want to make every possible modification to your car by pushing a button as well?

Then the question becomes, is it economically practical for the auto-maker to build in this functionality for the small percentage of people that have need of it? And my feeling is, the answer to that is "No." At least not now.

OS 9 is a workstation OS. OS X is a workstation AND a server OS. You should definitely have a slick GUI interface to all that parts of the system you will need in order to USE YOUR MAC AS A TOOL! I definitely agree with that. And in an ideal, infinite resources world, it'd be great if you had a GUI to set-up your Mac as a DNS server, or an LDAP server, or whatever. But for the small percentage of users who are going to need to use their Mac as a DNS server, it doesn't make sense for Apple to dump a lot of time and money into creating a GUI interface.

Can you folks give some examples of the kinds of things you're not able to do in OS X without resorting to the CLI? Maybe we're arguing apples vs oranges, no pun intended.

In the end, we probably just have two camps here who'll never see eye-to-eye. But it is interesting to see how the other half lives, so to speak.

Pointless anecdote: I work for a publication that has a fairly high percentage of Mac users. Personally, I'm a web developer, and I have a P-III and a G3 on my desk. I'm a 'native' Windows user. Before OS X, the G3 went weeks without being used except to test pages on our site for MacOS compatibility.

I work closely with 3 others guys, all of home are long time, dedicated Mac users. Two of them have a bitter hatred for all things Microsoft, including Mac IE which is, in my opinion, the best "mainstream" browser on either MacOS or Windows.

Now OS X beta shows up. Suddenly my G3 is my main machine (since I spent a lot of time connecting to *nix servers). One of the Mac guys -- he's straddles the line between designer and developer -- grabs it, runs with it and is having a ball digging into it. He's like a kid in a candy store. He and I are constantly swapping URLs and tips and stuff.

The other two Mac users -- both fairly 'pure' designers -- took one look at OS X, groaned and walked away. Clearly they are -not- looking forward to a time when they have to make the switch and learn a new OS. And I can't blame them. They aren't "hobbiests," they're overworked graphic designers who want to get their jobs done as efficiently as possible.

So we have two camps at work, too. Though since we all drink beers together on Friday afternoons, we're still friends. :)

To me, OS X is a web developer's dream. You get all the best graphics and page creation tools, and you have a *nix shell to set up a complete test environment on, or to give you seamless access to the servers that host your site. And you finally have Java2.
 
I agree on the argument of customization.
Customization is something personal, sothing that makes your computer unique.
If you want your computer to reflect your personality, or accomondate you better
you shouldnt expect Apple to provide everything.
How many of you knew most of apples KB shortcuts when you bought your mac ??
Probably no one, but through time you learned them to make your work, or play,
go much faster and be more efficient.
The terminal is like that, if you want to meddle with it and make your computer more
customized, maybe faster etc etc then by all means use it.

One other point is shareware. everyone uses shareware to "better" their computer,
There will be shareware for OS X just as there were for OS 9, 8, 7, 6 and other OSs...
There is an apple menu, there is a control strip, there is a NeXT style dock.... there are
many many things to make your computer more "likeable"

The car argument goes well with me and whoever uses shareware on their computer does indeed
"look under the hood" of their compuiter because shareware is something non-apple, non-factory
so if people say "I dont experiment" or "I dont want to experiment" and use shareware, they are
kidding themselves.

Back to Java HW :p
 
Wow, you guys have been pretty busy with this topic!

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

I'm a Mac sysadmin for an Information Technologies department at a major university. As you might imagine, I'm sorrounded by hardcore W2K and *nix users. We provide excellent Mac support to our students, but we have always been treated as a third-class OS by networking operations, web developers, email admins, etc. MacOSX is changing their perception. I've enlisted the help of some friendly Unix support people in our organization to take a look at the underpinnings of OSX; what version of SSH, services activated by default, etc. They have all been tremendously impressed. They're not Mac users and they are not Mac haters, they just love the power of *nix (well that, and they hate MS). If they had the machine requirements, they'd jump at the chance to start running OSX. The company that mastered user interface is now running it on a rock solid OS.

I think that everything that a typical Mac user expects with their machine will be there with OSX Final, they'll finish the GUIs for everything that has been part of the user experience in the past. But I dearly hope that they keep the Terminal. I've been wanting something terminal-like for the MacOS for years, there are just some things that are much more efficient to do from a command line. While the typical user might feel more comfortable setting up their IP address from a graphical interface, I'd be happier doing it from the command line and editing a text file. It's a preference for efficiency.

At this point, Apple has the opportunity to really have an impact with hard core services in both business and academics. Most non-Mac people have no idea what OSX is all about, but I'm pretty sure that they'll catch on fast enough (if my *nix friends' reactions are any indication). By leaving the CLI installed, it really opens up the opportunities for expansion. Users who would never have used a Mac before will go with OSX because of the obvious power and efficiency underneath a really slick graphical interface.

If Apple wants to prosper, they will leave the Terminal.app installed.

-jonathan
 
Originally posted by devnul
"Why isn't there a gui for the apache configuration? because this is an end-user product, not a server product. it has all the functionality of the "Personal Web Sharing" setup in 8.5 and above. It has an on/off switch and a setting for where your files are, and that's all it needs for an end-user product. If you want to put on your system admin hat and set up multiple domains, you have that option but it's not something that the average user is going to do. And if you need a gui to set up virtual domains on apache, then that's probably not something you should be doing anyway."

I don't really need to say anymore then that.... This whole "line" of thinking is not at *ALL* in-step with the way Macintosh users expect their software to work... It would almost be better to not "port" Apache to OS-X at all, but to wait for someone to develop a real web server that works the wway MacOS users expect it to...
Click to expand...

Okay, allow me to put this another way then... if they had a GUI interface for all of the powerful server products already included in OS X (such as apache), then they wouldn't have any means to sell OS X SERVER. Why buy a $500 server product when you can get a $100 workstation product that is just as powerful? THAT is why I said the above. Not because end-users "wouldn't need it" necessarily but because if they do include something like that, their server software becomes pointless. Even with ASIP and the inclusion of AppleShare over IP in OS 9, they had to limit it somewhat so there was still reason to sell their server product. With Apache they can't build in such a limitation since it isn't their product in the first place, it's an open-source one, so they can limit it by limiting the gui instead.
 
I've read most of the posts in this thread with interest. I must commend everyone on their comments - it's been a very interesting discussion.

There has been much debate about the lack of certain functionality in the GUI. Put another way, one might ask, how usable is the GUI, how "enabling" is it for the average user? What can they do and accomplish? What are the limitations? How does a user (not a tech-weenie that has been anticipating OS X for years) respond to the interface?

I'd encourage everyone to introduce the interface to people they know. Just watch over their shoulder and see how they work. Of course, somethings will need to be explained, but I think you'll find the experiment enlightening. Clearly, much thought and research has gone into the design.

Re: Incorporating many *nix functions into GUIs: In deference to those suggesting that most *nix functions should be in the GUI, I'm not so sure. I agree that the shipping OS should include more GUI control; however, it could easily become bogged down as well (perhaps basic, advanced, admin panels of each GUI would be in order).

I like the other suggestion much better - encourage developers to develop Mac-like GUIs to their ports. As users upgrade their systems to add more functionality, these additional GUI elements could be added.

It seems an impossible task to add GUI elements for every possible task someone might want to do. Linux sure hasn't done it yet, and even the GUIs that do exist aren't necessarily so hot (like gtop - crash-o-matic).

Anyway, good discussion! Thanks a bunch!
 
Let me start by saying that I am truly enjoying this “conversation”, because every participant here shares his or her opinions quite frankly. Like I said earlier, I do not agree with everything written here, but hey : this is a forum ! And this is exactly for these kind of exchanges that the Greeks invented the thing ! ;)

AdmiralAK wrote that :
The car argument goes well with me and whoever uses shareware on their computer does indeed "look under the hood" of their computer because shareware is something non-apple, non-factory so if people say "I dont experiment" or "I dont want to experiment" and use shareware, they are kidding themselves.
Click to expand...
Sharewares could also be seen as decals on the car's body... ;) Seriously, playing with sharewares or any other commercial system utilities on the Mac has always been a clean, safe and painless game : no need to get your hands dirty : if unhappy, simply put the offending software to the trash and restart. Of course, I understand that by “sharewares” you were thinking about extensions and control panels, and not about standard apps. The latter I would liken to stuff in the trunk, on the back seat or in the trailer ! ;)

OS 9 is a workstation OS. OS X is a workstation AND a server OS. You should definitely have a slick GUI interface to all that parts of the system you will need in order to USE YOUR MAC AS A TOOL! I definitely agree with that. And in an ideal, infinite resources world, it'd be great if you had a GUI to set-up your Mac as a DNS server, or an LDAP server, or whatever. But for the small percentage of users who are going to need to use their Mac as a DNS server, it doesn't make sense for Apple to dump a lot of time and money into creating a GUI interface.

Can you folks give some examples of the kinds of things you're not able to do in OS X without resorting to the CLI? Maybe we're arguing apples vs oranges, no pun intended.
Click to expand...
Jaded, I agree with you, as far as specialised software goes. When I wrote :
Indeed, this is - ironically - a truly positive aspect of OS X : it is now possible to quickly port apps from any other platforms to OS X, provided they are Unix source codes, while the Classic Mac OS's reliance on a GUI rendered any porting of applications a difficult task.
Click to expand...
this is what I was trying to say (not with a lot of success, apparently ;) ). And I am serious about this : for the first time in the Mac history, one will be able to devise a quick hack, test it, and if it works OK then design a GUI for it.

My understanding of devnul’s arguments, and what I have been trying to say also, is that while this way of thinking might be okay for a software destined at a specific and limited sub-group of users, it will not be acceptable for distribution of software to the general public. Once the “quick hack” moment of a given software will be overcome, I firmly believe that Mac users will demand a GUI.

Let us take a specific example : the PPPoE hack. At this moment, it is totally acceptable that the PPPoE software distribution has no installer and no GUI. First of all, there are no installers available on OS X as far as I know, so it sort of pushes that problem aside. Secondly, a single knowledgeable person compiled the PPPoE software as a service to others that had the same problem he had. The rest of the problems with that hack were solved in the context of a forum exchange such as this one. This is absolutely great. This is wonderful. This I hope will remain and continue. But, and here is the point I was trying to make, stopping here is not acceptable. In the Linux world it would be perfectly OK to leave the hack as is : after all, to use Linux, you have to be a programmer. On the Mac, however, this is not the way of doing things. To use a Mac, you are not required to think “computer”. So even if one insists on asking me to type “ls -askiewisd pppoe” every time I want to access the internet : forget it ! No way ! I’ll go back to OS 9 or I’ll search for another company that offers me a graphical method to get there.

LunaMorena wrote :
Okay, allow me to put this another way then... if they had a GUI interface for all of the powerful server products already included in OS X (such as apache), then they wouldn't have any means to sell OS X SERVER. Why buy a $500 server product when you can get a $100 workstation product that is just as powerful? THAT is why I said the above. Not because end-users "wouldn't need it" necessarily but because if they do include something like that, their server software becomes pointless.
Click to expand...
This is really something I had not thought about. And it probably explains the current limitations of the file sharing part of OS X in a more realistic way than the preceding proposed explanation (“it doesn't make sense for Apple to dump a lot of time and money into creating a GUI interface”), because the day is coming quickly where we will have “one family, one web-page server” (an example can be found here : http://caslis.com/). So as far as I can understand, there is no good reason to make web publishing unreachable to the un-initiated.
 
On a topic related to this thread : devnul has written twice that OS X was not a very good Unix, while everydayJ seems to say that his Nix friends are impressed by the underpinnings of OS X. Could both of you explain the goods and the bads of the Unix foundation of OS X ??? (or anybody else, of course !)
 
I was under the impression that n order to be qualified to be called a UNIX OS, you had to
exhibit certain traits or features... like the ls command for example, and that you had to be certigfied, or approved of being called a UNOX from a board, panel, or whatever.
So under those factors a UNIX system is a UNIX system underneath no matter what, on top of that UNIX system you can have all the X-tras that the OS maker wants to put on its OS.

This at least was my understanding of UNIX
 
WoW, so much to respond to.. I don't know where to start......

AdmiralAK,

I just wanted to point out that you identified 5 things you like about OS-X... Only one of which has anything to do with the UNIX aspects of OS-X.....

As for your second post:

"Customization is something personal, sothing that makes your computer unique. If you want your computer to reflect your personality, or accomondate you better you shouldnt expect Apple to provide everything."

The reason Apple has to provide this is because: they always have and that's why people have purchased their products....


Jaded,

I'm glad that we generally agree.. I'm not attempting to be overly critical - I merely want to make sure that this issue is recognized and dealt with..... But, it seems there have been more people posting messages, on this very thread, defending the use of the CLI instead of recognizing the need for a Macintosh-interface to it.... This is what has me troubled, it's the attitude of "we don't have to do it , because it's something only 'power users' would want to do anyways"... The Macintosh has *NEVER* been like that and now is not the time to start bringing these UNIX-isms to the Mac world.... I knew if this thread carried on long enough that eventually this way-of-thinking would be expressed... And it is being expressed in a way that is very unfortunate for existing Macintosh users....

That being said, I agree with you on all of your points in your first post.....

However, your second post leaves me troubled....

"*IF* you decided that you wanted to dig into the "guts" of your car as a hobby, you could learn to bore out the cylinders for more performance. Adjust the fuel mixture. Tweak the suspension. You could do all kinds of things if you felt the urge to 'get your hands dirty.'"

Mac users have never had to do this before..... I'll feel very good when I see a control panel for an "open source" initiative, such as Apache, Postgres, or IPNat - because then I'll have the sense that this is as important to developers as it is to Macintosh users...... But, I'm just not seeing it.... I also, by the way, frequent many message boards on this subject - I just find this one to be a step above the others in quality....

Perhaps it would be better to say:

"*IF* you decided to buy a car and wanted to get the upgraded radio, you shouldn't have to learn about electrical engineering just to be able to install or use it. The operation of the radio should be the exact same way a radio has always worked, just with new features."

Also, as far as I know there are two versions of OS-X.. At least I am running OS-X (server) here, which is very much UNIX like - it does not have Aqua, etc, etc, etc.... I'm not sure if this model will continue into the future or not.. But, we are, in fact discussing the workstation (not the server) product......

"And in an ideal, infinite resources world, it'd be great if you had a GUI to set-up your Mac as a DNS server, or an LDAP server, or whatever. But for the small percentage of users who are going to need to use their Mac as a DNS server, it doesn't make sense for Apple to dump a lot of time and money into creating a GUI interface."

This exemplifies the problem... Macintosh users have never been willing to give up functionality... And, mark my words, they aren't going to start now.... If these features are available only to people who "want to use a CLI", then the whole point of MacOS has been lost and this product will, simply put, be a failure both economically and in spirit....

I don't think we need to give examples of things you have to use a GUI to configure, you've given several yourself ... ;-) So lets start with this list:

apache
ldap
dns
ipnat

....

One last comment....

"Pointless anecdote: I work for a publication that has a fairly high percentage of Mac users. Personally, I'm a web developer, and I have a P-III and a G3 on my desk. I'm a 'native' Windows user. Before OS X, the G3 went weeks without being used except to test pages on our site for MacOS compatibility."...

I don't think that's pointless at all.. You see, the issue is that MacOS users do NOT see the world the same way you do, being that you come from a Windows environment.... And they've flatly rejected the WIndows way of doing thing as being inefficient for them.... To them, UNIX is going to be even worse.... That being said, you should consider checking out "iCab", a web browser that works only on MacOS..... I always used browsers for testing in much the same way you do, but there's an error report that is just an incredible feature.... Frankly, I've not found one site that I've ever visited that is "truly" HTML compliant..... I think you would really like it, as a developer... Oh, it's also very small (1.3mb download) and very fast... It's javascript support is not 100%, though it's worked with everything I've used it with...

You can find it at http://www.icab.de

Pascal,

As always you are right (again) in my opinion.... But our points seemingly are getting lost in obscure references to "boring pistons in automobile engines", which is a different subject entirely...

I don't know what to say or add that would add anything to your message....

My own random comments again:

There seems to be a lot of talk of using the CLI to tweak the system... In the UNIX world I guess we'd call this "tuning".. And I actually agree on this!... If someone wants to "tune" their system, like for example tweak the kernel then the CLI makes a lot of sense.. But, it seems arguments are being made that the CLI should be used for other purposes because it falls into this category of "tuning"... Well, lets just say that I think that is the wrong attitude to take..... WHen someone bores out the cylinders of their car motor they are not adding adding programs to it and configuring those programs - they are tuning it for maximum performance -- not functionality.... SO the car analogy is probably not as good as everyone might think...

I've only got one more point to make.... Even HP-UX has a GUI interface to configuring these resources - it's not at all Mac-like of course, but they have one... You can configure virtually everything..... We aren't even meeting that standard yet, much less MacOS standards for a user interface.....

Yes, I am aware, that installing and configuring Apache on HP-UX requires the CLI... THat's fine - it's UNIX.. OS-X is *NOT* UNIX, it's the next version of MacOS and we need to keep that in mind!.....

- Greg
 
WoW, there are 3 pages now instead of just 2.. What a spirited discussion!.. thank you everyone!...

Everyday,

yes OS-X can definately garner the respect of UNIX admins now - that's for sure.... Being able to do 'ps' on a Mac system to a UNIX admin is a dream come true...


I would love to see MacOS people learn UNIX cuz they want to and it engages their imaginations - not because they have to... That's all...


LunaMorena,


"Okay, allow me to put this another way then... if they had a GUI interface for all of the powerful server products already included in OS X (such as apache), then they wouldn't have any means to sell OS X SERVER. Why buy a $500 server product when you can get a $100 workstation product that is just as powerful?"

There is no reason that I can think of that OS-X workstation users should not be able to install and administer Apache, LDAP, DNS, etc.. You can do this on UNIX workstations all day long with no difficult what-so-ever... I think the server product should be geared to a completely different genre - just like it is in UNIX.........


Synaptojanin,

Yes that is what I have been trying to articulate...As these applications are developed the additional step of developing a GUI interface to them should be done... WHen the app is installed the gui to is added too, sort-of like a control panel in earlier versions of OS-X I guess.....

MacOS is the pinnacle of user inteface in my opinion... that's it's greatest asset - so lets not loose that to a bunch of UNIX commands..... We'll regret it - if we do...

Pascal,

Once again you have outdone me....

"My understanding of devnul’s arguments, and what I have been trying to say also, is that while this way of thinking might be okay for a software destined at a specific and limited sub-group of users, it will not be acceptable for distribution of software to the general public. Once the “quick hack” moment of a given software will be overcome, I firmly believe that Mac users will demand a GUI.

Let us take a specific example : the PPPoE hack. At this moment, it is totally acceptable that the PPPoE software distribution has no installer and no GUI. First of all, there are no installers available on OS X as far as I know, so it sort of pushes that problem aside. Secondly, a single knowledgeable person compiled the PPPoE software as a service to others that had the same problem he had. The rest of the problems with that hack were solved in the context of a forum exchange such as this one. This is absolutely great. This is wonderful. This I hope will remain and continue. But, and here is the point I was trying to make, stopping here is not acceptable. In the Linux world it would be perfectly OK to leave the hack as is : after all, to use Linux, you have to be a programmer. On the Mac, however, this is not the way of doing things. To use a Mac, you are not required to think “computer”. So even if one insists on asking me to type “ls -askiewisd pppoe” every time I want to access the internet : forget it ! No way ! I’ll go back to OS 9 or I’ll search for another company that offers me a graphical method to get there. "

These are words every OS-X developer should live by and understand..... If not, then by all measurements OS-X *will* be a failure economically and in spirit to the existing MacOS...

As far as my comments about OS-X not being a particular good UNIX.. I'm not really saying it's a bad UNIX.. It's based off BSD , which is a *GREAT* start.... And it certainly will make it easier for software developers such as Oracle to bring thier software to it...... What I mean though, is that it's certainly not the first OS that comes to mind when someone is considering a UNIX database server or an application server..... Although, OS-X (server) from what i have seen could definately get there, but the two products should definately be distinguished....

The reason why UNIX fiends (sorry, I like the word 'fiend' better heheh) like OS-X is because the UNIX commands they've always used are there, they can telnet into a workstations computer and add a user, kill a process that has locked up, or remotely use the resources of that workstation... Windows 2000 has some of these features now as well, but OS-X definately gets a solid 5 points in my book on implementation....


Sincerely,

Greg


 
Ugh. I just spent about 30 minutes composing a reply and somehow caused IE to crash or quit (unsure which it was, might've been errant keystrokes on my part). Damned beta software! :)


And i don't have the ambition to type it all out again, so I'll encapsulate.

The 'gray area' where I disagree with Pascal and Greg is actually fairly narrow.

I totally agree with Pascal when he says:

"while this way of thinking might be okay for a software destined at a specific and limited sub-group of users, it will not be acceptable for distribution of software to the general public. Once the “quick hack” moment of a given software will be overcome, I firmly believe that Mac users will demand a GUI. "

And that has been my argument from the start! If I've given the impression that I think its ok for some task or module or program that is going to be used by any significant portion of the Mac community to rely on the CLI to install or configure, then I apologize for that. I don't feel that way at all.

And when Greg says:

"There seems to be a lot of talk of using the CLI to tweak the system... In the UNIX world I guess we'd call this "tuning".. And I actually agree on this!... If someone wants to "tune" their system, like for example tweak the kernel then the CLI makes a lot of sense.."

I certainly agree with that.

But here's where we diverge:

"But, it seems arguments are being made that the CLI should be used for other purposes because it falls into this category of "tuning"... Well, lets just say that I think that is the wrong attitude to take..... WHen someone bores out the cylinders of their car motor they are not adding adding programs to it and configuring those programs - they are tuning it for maximum performance -- not functionality.... SO the car analogy is probably not as good as everyone might think... "

The argument, I guess, that every executable in OS X needs a GUI interface, and that every obscure piece of software that we d/l needs one as well. That I don't believe. To quote Pascal again, I think that its ok if the 1.0 release ships with no GUI for certain "software destined at a specific and limited sub-group of users" (and I'd definitely throw running a DNS server in this category. NAT/IP forwarding, not so much... plenty of people have home networks to share their cable modems, so that should in fact have a nice GUI. I stand corrected on that point after considering it further. LDAP? Probably not... Apache? It already has a GUI to get you up and running... if someone were to extend this it'd be nice, but you can host a website via the GUI as it stands.

Greg, if your take on the Mac developer community is accurate, and no one has any interest in crafting GUI's for shareware/freeware tools, then I'll stand beside you and start carrying your torch. But I think what we're seeing is just the initial euphoria of geeks with new toys. "Can I port this?" and "Can I compile that?" No one is yet thinking of "OK, now let's make it slick and easy to use." I guess I just have faith that that attitude will come, but maybe I'm giving people too much credit.

And in part, unix folks are just throwing out answers the easiest way they know how. For example, on another list someone asked how to change the default shell in Terminal (dangerous example, of course!) and a unix wonk told him to go to the .tschrc file (I think that was it) and edit it and blah blah blah. And that was accepted wisdom for a good few messages until someone came along and said "Open NetInfoManger, click on Users, then on Your Name, then in the bottom panel of the window there's a line where you can select your default shell." My point being, sometimes the GUI way is there and no one has noticed it yet since they know the Unix way.

synaptojanin -- I've done a bit of that "user testing" thing with my girlfriend. She's not a great example since she's a webmaster and fairly comfortable in Unix. But what I found from doing that is that it wasn't a GUI or lack of GUI that stumped her. It was the whole new Aqua interface and figuring out what Apple had put where. In fact, in her case the CLI might be a huge boon as she could just do things the Unix way rather than digging around in the GUI. :)

I think, and its just my thought with no real facts behind it, just a gut feeling, that Apple is going to take a lot more heat / lose a lot more customers over the radical change from OS 9 Finder to Aqua, than they are to the fact that you can't configure virtual domains in Apache without going to the CLI.

One last point to Greg:

"I don't think that's pointless at all.. You see, the issue is that MacOS users do NOT see the world the same way you do, being that you come from a Windows environment.... And they've flatly rejected the WIndows way of doing thing as being inefficient for them.... To them, UNIX is going to be even worse...."

Agreed! But do you think we can cover up OS X's Unix-ness with a GUI? (I don't mean that in a leading or rhetorical way.) I just see, already, people irritated about the whole concept of users, and having your own home directory. They want to put things wherever they want to put them and hate that the OS is limiting them. But that's just Unix, right? I mean, can you GUI a way around that without, y'know, just hiding big chunks of the directory structure?


I'm going off on a tangent here... sorry.

Today I downloaded OpenUp, which is a archive decompressor for OS X. I thought of you guys then... I had to go to the CLI to install it. That was bad...

(OTOH, as CLI's go, this one is awfully easy to use... try dragging a document into Terminal sometime... it auto-pastes the path and filename of the document into the CLI. In the case of this OpenUP, I cut and pasted the instructions from the html page where I d/led the tar file into the CLI, and it worked like a charm. I KNOW! that this doesn't excuse things... I'm just pointing out what I thought was a neat OS X feature.)

It'll be interesting to see how things work out. I'm looking forward to getting the Dev Tools to see if I can build a GUI front end for Apache config files. :)
 
Did everyone catch the thread pointing to the http://www.resexcellence.com/ page?

An un-named developer says that Apple plans to yank the CLI from the release version of OS X. Now of course we have no way of knowing if this is a legit message, but, for the sake of argument, let's accept it at face value.

What say ye? Yea or Nay?

Does this make you feel more confident about the future of OS X?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top