Thoughts on OS-X/UNIX/and MacOS

devnul wrote :
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.....
Click to expand...
I may be overly idealist, but couldn't OS X be a good UNIX and a good "standard" workstation (à la OS 9) ? In other words, what would prevent OS X from being considered a nice everyday Unix ? (Or the base system in a nuclear facility, for that matter... ;) )

[Some people might wonder what is going on with me, so I might wish to make things clear : I am not against the existence of the Unix underpinnings of OS X. I only wish that this transition to a Unix system will be done without losing the qualities that have made a Mac unmistakably a Mac. In an ideal world, I would like Mac OS X to be perceived as a marriage of the best in both worlds...]

Meanwhile, Jaded wrote :
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I cannot tell you how happy I am to see it was only a misunderstanding ! :D Once again, I would like to stress that I am not against the very existence of a terminal window in OS X : in fact, if you search elsewhere in this very forum you will find posts by yours truly defending the existence of the terminal. So, once again, I am not against anything that could even remotely look like a command line. (Isn’t that what’s AppleScript, after all ? :p He ! He !)
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.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. (My God, what’s going on with me today ?!) My fear, at the moment, being that if the importance of the GUI is not stressed enough, the importance of having a GUI for a given application might not be perceived by the Unix newcomers. They come from a culture where this type of thing is more like icing on the cake, while in the traditional Mac community, the GUI is no icing at all : it is part of the cake.

Maybe the basis of our non-agreement lies in the perceived importance or lack thereof we see in the Apache software. You seem to think that the Apache web server is something not important, whereas I perceive the presence of such a powerful web server in the guts of the OS an element of utmost importance for the integration of the OS to the Internet. This is, in part, what the future will look like (Steve J. says the other part will be movies, but I have my doubts). For me, there is no point in hiding it from the user because this software is empowering. That’s why I think that what should be available to the normal user is much more than on or off. Managing options should be easily accessible. Then again, as LunaMorena wrote, this may be a (bad, IMHO) marketing decision…

<FONT SIZE=-2>By the way, Jaded, I always write my answers in Word just to avoid these @#$% crashes. What takes longer than typing an answer ? Typing it all over again !</FONT>

On a final note, could someone answer AdmiralAK’s post ? I would be interested to know a little bit more on this…
 
Nay.

As long as the terminal is not necessary to use OS X on a daily basis.

Because the lack of a terminal window is going to decrease the charm of the OS to the non-traditionally Mac crowd.
 
FWIW IIRC the command line and BSD layer of OS X will be purely optional install packages on the final release of OS X.

Developer packages PB/IB will be downloadable from Apple's dev site ala MPW (don;t see anyone bitching about MPW, and it seems to be pretty CLI oriented to me...)

In any case the short of it is that CLI is NOT intended for end user use, and should NOT be required to manipulate, install, remove, etc ANY program on Mac OS X as Apple will nnot, and does not guarantee that the CLI will always be available, and it defeats the purpose of the GUI. (Well, to some people, but that is debatable as it is purely subjective. I guess a better way to phrase this would be to say that it defeats the philosophy of the Mac OS...)

I have been using OS X since DP 3 on both an iBook (airport/160M/3G hd(need to fix this....it getting to be annoying)) and a G4/500/192M/40G. Various Apple developer articles that I have read, and conferences that I have been to, while not explicitly spelling out the fate of the BSD layer & CLI implied these idea heavily.
 
Pascal -

"My fear, at the moment, being that if the importance of the GUI is not stressed enough, the importance of having a GUI for a given application might not be perceived by the Unix newcomers."

Ah, that _is_ a good point. I keep thinking in terms of Mac developers who're used to taken a GUI for granted. Ironic that I should forget about the prospect of Unix fans moving over to the OS X platform,since I myself am a recent immigrant! :)

"Maybe the basis of our non-agreement lies in the perceived importance or lack thereof we see in the Apache software. You seem to think that the Apache web server is something not important, whereas I perceive the presence of such a powerful web server in the guts of the OS an element of utmost importance for the integration of the OS to the Internet."

Well, Apache is just an example, but in any case I'm saying that, as things stand now, you can set up apache and start running a website with the GUI. What you can't do is set up virtual domains and such, and in order to use those you need a static IP and a registered domain name. They're of no use to cable modem or DSL users since the provider won't support them. So probably the only users who'll be setting these up are network admins.

Still, that's a wobbly soapbox I'm standing on in the case of Apache, because there are other things, like the look and feel of the directory browser, that you can't at this time configure from the GUI, and you should be able to.

That's why I've started to angle my arguments over to the DNS Server issue, as presumably the only folks who'll need that are an ISP.

cutterjohn, thanks for the input on the CLI situation. That sounds like a pretty decent way of handling it to me.

Consider: if Apple ships new Macs with OS X without a terminal.app or CLI, then no one developing software will be able to assume the existence of these tools on the end users system, and so every product that expects to get any kind of widespread acceptance will have to have a nice GUI interface.

But hacker-types can d/l the tools for amusing themselves, tuning the OS (to quote devnull's example), and for any other niche reasons they might have.
 
Originally posted by cutterjohn
FWIW IIRC the command line and BSD layer of OS X will be purely optional install packages on the final release of OS X.
Click to expand...

The BSD layer will not be an optional install; it is the base of the OS. The CLI I haven't heard anything about it being not included, but that one could potentially be optional. My hope is that the development tools will be an option as well so I can run my BSD applications on the computer. I don't see why it wouldn't be, especially if Apple intends to draw in the unix crowd.
 
Pascal,

What I meant by OS-X not being a "first choice" has nothing to do with it's potential.. The potential is definately there - especially if they can at the same time bring down the cost of ownership of a typic UNIX system....

Yes, it could also be a good UNIX workstation.... ;-) The question is: Will it be a good MacOS?.....

Also, what message of AdmiralAK are you referring to?... I'll try to answer if I can...

On the subject of terminal..

OS-X server, absolutely
OS-X workstation, should be a patch for "geeks to play with"... It should include development tools too... If a developer releases something that requires a CLI to use, install, or configure they should have to use a 386 running DOS 4.0 (and nothing else) for 1 month for each occurence of the offense...

Jaded,

Once again we almost agree.... ;> I see absolutely no reason that OS-X could NOT be used as a fully-featured Apache web server and a DNS server... Especially since it has such a strong (BSD) UNIX architecture.... Just imagine how much popular OS-X will be if a "typical" Macintosh user *CAN* set all this stuff up using a GUI interface that is as concise as the Mac has always been.... Apple will, once again, re-affirm their position as THE user interface to beat..........

"Consider: if Apple ships new Macs with OS X without a terminal.app or CLI, then no one developing software will be able to assume the existence of these tools on the end users system, and so every product that expects to get any kind of widespread acceptance will have to have a nice GUI interface."

As much as I dislike the idea of limiting software, I too have to agree that this seems to be the bet way to handle this.............

- Greg

 
Should Terminal.app come pre-installed or as an extra downloaded *utility*?:

Installed. I don't understand why it should be hidden. I've read the arguments about developers being forced to have a GUI installer if there is not a default CLI. But, I think that by not having the CLI, it would remove usability options. With OS9 (and earlier), geekier stuff like ScriptEditor came preinstalled. How many of our moms played around with ScriptEditor?? Users also have had the option of different Views in the GUI, as icons, buttons, lists, and now as multiple panels. All different ways of navigating and manipulating the environment, some more graphical than others. The Terminal is non-graphical. So what? It should be there as an option to anybody and everybody.

Having the CLI gives us the option that both Windows and *nix users already have. Having to use a solely graphical interface dumbs-down Mac users in the eyes of many non-Mac users. We know better than that, of course, but it is a tough battle to change the other side's mindset and we MacHeads could use all the help we can get.

-jonathan
 
Just throwing my two cents in:

In my opinion I think the Terminal.app should be left there as it is, perhaps it should be made better by giving us a few more shells, and some color (before you shoot at me, I have not experimenented with color on my Terminal )

Why do I think this?
I am one of those people that has to telnet to a Sun machine to get work done. I have to do everything online to make sure it works properly, but with the terminal (and the Java DK ) I could do all the stuff offline, make sure it works, and then upload everything to the Sun machine.

On the non-programmer side of things, the terminal is an alternate way of doing things, and there is a demand for it, before OS X when I wanted a CLI on my mac I used some mac dos program, and a macshell program to have a CLI on my mac. It is just better for somethings in life.

I admit that I dont use it a lot, but when I do use the CLI it's damned convinient, and I am sure that other mac users will find it convinient when they start using it.

Admiral
 
devnul wrote :
Also, what message of AdmiralAK are you referring to?... I'll try to answer if I can...
Click to expand...
The message can be found in the first third of page 3. It was posted on 10-08-2000 09:15 PM.
 
Greg, I think "almost agree" is doing pretty good for us. :)

Let me just say this: If devnull software released a slick GUI interface to allow users to set up a DNS server, or full apache features, or -anything- I certainly wouldn't jeer at them! I think it'd be great, in fact! But, if some open source initiative released a "fubar" package that ran on Darwin and didn't have a GUI, but let experienced users do something [what, exactly? I dunno, some obscure function, ergo the 'fubar' placeholder name] that up to that point couldn't be done on a Mac, then I wouldn't discount the package because it wasn't GUI configurable.

And if the 'fubar' became popular, I'd expect that devnull or someone would code a GUI frontend for the package eventually.

But I still think that, given non-infinite resources, there are certain tools or apps that will be used infrequently enough that its ok to ship them with a CLI interface, if the alternate option is not including them at all.

And now, to totally muddy the waters....

What about compatibility? So The Fubar Group creates this great new 'net service via its Fubar tool. Fubar runs on Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, HP-Unix and OS X. Everyone runs Fubar on their server! It's the new net sensation! But the Fubar server package depends on a command line for installation and configuration.

Now Jaded Software remembers this thread and thinks "That ain't the way it should be." They get a build of the Fubar open source and they rip into it. Six weeks later is an OS X specific version of Fubar with a very slick GUI interface. The Mac Community heralds Jaded Software as "just a great buncha guys." Everyone converts to the new version, dubbed OS FubarX.


But Jaded, being a flake, decides that BeOS is where its at, and he disbands Jaded Software to go work on BE stuff.

Six months later, a notorious cracker discovers a security flaw in the Fubar server. This gives him root access to any server running Fubar! The Fubar Group quickly issues a patch to plug this hole. The patch works on Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, HP-Unix.... but not on Jaded Software's OS FubarX port! There's a quick scramble for the source, but when its found, the Mac community is horrified to see what sick minds the Jaded Group had. The code is convoluted, undocumented, and just plain ugly. It takes 3 months to retrofit the patch, during which time all OS FubarX servers have to be offline.

The moral of my story? If Mac developers are going to port open source projects, I would urge them to build a nice GUI installer for it, and I would urge them to build a separate GUI interface that essentially 'punches buttons' on the generic open source machine. That way, as the Open Source folks update the guts of the software, the patches should be able to be applied to the OS X versions without much effort.

Take for example Apache. Write a GUI that just writes standard apache.conf files. Don't actually make the GUI part of Apache itself. (Hmm, actually with Apache you could probably write some kind of a mod package, but for the sake of argument lets ignore the 'plug-in' nature of Apache.)

And a bit more mud...

DEFINITELY don't remove the CLI interface to these packages. We don't want an OS X sysadmin to be helpless in the face of having to configure Apache on Linux. So make sure there is always the option to use the 'standard' CLI way of configuring the software -- that way OS X users can know how to do it that fast and easy way in OS X, and also the more obscure way on other OS's.

BTW, on the CLI issue and the release version. Someone pointed out to me that a member of the Applescript DevTeam on another forum mentioned that "You can't (apple)script the Terminal YET, but that ability will be in there." which would sortof imply that Apple plans for Terminal.app to be around in some shape or form.
 
Originally posted by everydayJ
Should Terminal.app come pre-installed or as an extra downloaded *utility*?:

Installed. I don't understand why it should be hidden. I've read the arguments about developers being forced to have a GUI installer if there is not a default CLI. But, I think that by not having the CLI, it would remove usability options.
Click to expand...

How about simply having Terminal.app as an option in the installer, which is, by default, turned off? Then the developers couldn't assume its existence, and you, as the user, could still have easy access to it.

Krishen

[fixed typo]

[Edited by asterizk on 10-09-2000 at 06:10 PM]
 
Pascal,

I went back to page 3 , top 1/3rd and did not see a question from AdmiralAK anywhere... ;> Can you please repaste the question?....


Jaded,

Yeah I suppose that is pretty good for us... BTW, I should point out that your ideas for the "gui" interface is exactly what I've been talking about and suggesting..... THus making your "scenarios" virtually a non-issue....

The only thing we disagree on is the important of that GUI for adoption by MacOS users... ;>


I think the CLI should be there for developers and admins who like to use it as a tool to administer their systems.... But nothing, and I repeat nothing, should require the use of the CLI from an average-users perspective - or even a "power user" perspective... Or even "my mom who knows next to nothing about configuring DNS, Apache, or sendmail and wants to run a web hosting company on a network of 4 or 5 OS-X servers"...

(well, okay, maybe that last one is pushing it just a bit - but that is what we should be aiming for... Don't you think?...)

- GReg
- Greg

[Edited by devnul on 10-09-2000 at 06:34 PM]
 
I think Pascal is talking about the "What makes a UNIX system a UNIX system" talk on page 3.
** not 100% sure though :p **

I would like to throw this question at you guys.
I used to have LinuxPPC on my mac and I used it a lot before erasing it to install OS X
on that partition. Do you guys think that eventually there will be other, hmmm what's the word I am looking for here.... GUIs available for Darwin ?
I was pondering the question of OS X on intel (which I emphatically oppose )
and I was wondering "They have ported Dawin to X86, Apple continues to refuse to bring aqua
to the "dark side", and someone ports windowmaker, or gnome or kde, what are the chances that people on the PC side of things are going to want ot use Darwin as much as they want to use/have it now????


Admiral
 
"(well, okay, maybe that last one is pushing it just a bit - but that is what we should be aiming for... Don't you think?...)
"

Yes, I -do- think that's what we should be aiming for! But I wouldn't hold off the release of OS X until we arrive at quite that point. :)

AdmiralAK -- Is this Intel port of Darwin something anyone can get ahold of? I might like to try that out on an old PC...
 
To be quite Honest I do not know where you can get a copy of Darwin for Intel, I will look into it though.

A lot of people claim it's been ported (on osxonintel.com and some other sites ), so it's either true, or one huge conspiracy lol :p

Will get back to you on the whereabouts of Intelized darwin



Admiral
 
AdmiralAK wrote :
I was under the impression that n order to be qualified to be called a UNIX OS, you had toexhibit 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.
Click to expand...
So : could any one comment on this ?

(I mean, with a little perseverence, we could push this thread well into its fifth page ! ;) )
 
On the subject of OS-X on Intel:

I don't think it's ever going to happen.. Microsoft has embedded themselves too much into the hardware side of things and trying to convince developers to write drivers for another OS running on Intel hardware will be very difficult.. Especially with such non-sense as Winmodems, etc.... Personally, I think the Intel people have let themselves get screwed - which is why I don't use them.... Microsoft has been bad for consumers - because they have muscled every software and hardware manufacturer right and left..... OS-X would be seen by consumers, the media, and software developers as a dismal failure on Intel - always been compared to "Windows" (just like Linux is)... I think it would be a really foolish marketing decision to port OS-X to the Intel platform... It would just "downgrade" OS-X success - actually...


Pascal,

Actually this is, I believe, one of the most active discussions on this message board (this will be reply #56!!) and it's been read over 1,000 times... What a great group of people do be discussing such an important issue with - I must say...

"I was under the impression that n order to be qualified to be called a UNIX OS, you had toexhibit 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."

This is also why HP-UX is not HP-UNIX and IRIX is not SGI-UNIX, etc... In order to be called UNIX it has to be licensed as UNIX (which I believe is currently SVR 4.2)... OS-X is not a SVR version it's a BSD version (though, it could be called UNIX I guess because BSD is a direct descendent of the original UNIX)...

But, that wasn't really the bigger picture... UNIX is an industrial-OS.. The swiss-army-knife of operating systems, it can (indeed) do almost anything if you can just figure out how to string it all together..... OS-X is a replacement for the easiest-to-use desktop-class operating system... It just has the benefit of sitting, now, on an operating system that has proven itself in the most demanding environments (and in fact, not only proven itself - but excelled at it)... UNIX is build from the ground up to be robust - multi-user & multi-tasking, protecting applications from each other, robust virtual memory system, etc, etc, etc, etc (one could talk for days about what makes UNIX so nice...)... Additionally, UNIX has had a very long time to strengthen the operating system.... As new services are added to UNIX the core of UNIX remains mostly unchanged...... It's the same way all services are added to UNIX - consistent and reliable...

Contrast that with NT.. An operating system that still has to be able to run DOS-based (single user single-tasking, no virtual memory system, etc, etc, etc.. Basically 99.95% of the things UNIX has - DOS does not)... The Windows approach has been to build on that platform and add functionality... As new services are added to NT it's like every new service is a whole new exploration - exposing another nest of snakes in the NT core that need to be resolved......

So where is it today?... In my opinion NT was built like a pyramid - only upside down.... It's wobbly and can't stand up very well.. Once you start stripping down it's exterior you realize the interior is pretty much mush......

UNIX on the other hand has it's strength in foundation, allowing other services to be added to it without screwing everything else up.... It was built the way you would expect a pyramid to be built...

Evidence of UNIX's strength is that Apple can even *CONTEMPLATE* what they are doing with OS-X.... You can take the UNIX core and build something as sophisticated as Aqua ontop of it and gain all the benefits of the reliabiltiy of UNIX... Such a feat would be virtually impossible with NT - where would you even start?.... I guess you could go back to DOS, that's about the best I could think of.....

I could write more about this, but I'm already gettin' all misty eyed... ;-)


- Greg


[Edited by devnul on 10-10-2000 at 06:26 PM]
 
WindoZe, in any form, whether it is NT or regular sUx :p...
I had so many problems with them... all these runtime errors, and error of this, and error of that...
I liked LinuX but the problem was software... I did not have the time or energy to just get rid of my old mac software... MacOS X has the best of both worlds (an pretty much no errors to upset users :p lol )

Now I only wish I could get online with my OS X ;)


I am wonderig how many traits of OpenStep were brought over to the Mac side in the OS (Hardware wise we see the Mac G4 cube as a reincarnation of the NeXT cube) ???How compatible is OS X with OpenStep ? and in general how compatible is OS X with other Uniex - faux unixen systems ??? would a simple recompile make programs for other systems work ???

And just a question to throw out, since I am a big fan of emulation, I was wondering how likely is the prospect of having people make "emulators" or "kaleidoscope" like apps that make OS X look and feel like you are on another machine ???? ( Questioning looks, and maybe compatibility here )


Admiral

PS: Devnull how old is you cube ? (NeXT)
 
Admiral,

I definately like the looks and technology in the new Cube, although much smaller then the NeXT Cube (obviously) it's just as beautiful to look at (if not more)...

On the subject of emulating other environments, in UNIX it would not be very difficult at all.. However, with Aqua it might be more difficult... I'm not sure how engrained the interface is into the operating system (I'd imagine it's pretty integrated)... But, OS-X is not really suppose to be UNIX.. :>

My guess is that most NextStep/OpenStep stuff would port very easily to OS-X.. Also most BSD-type stuff should port very easily as well..... Someday when I get OS-X I'll bring a bunch of my NeXT stuff over and see how it goes....

As for the age of my Cube I bought it in early 1990...... When I bought it originally all I had was the laser printer and default monitor, later I added the Dimension board and a 21" NeXT color monitor (I can't remember the model # and I'm at a client's site right now..)... It's got the 33Mhz 040 CPU in it...

I wonder if we made it to page 5?..

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