Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

More Switching Stories 647

Posted by michael from the pick-one-and-stick-with-it-already dept.
serendigital writes "Unix guru Simon Cozens wrote about his "conversion" story in the UK Unix User Group Newsletter. He touts: OroborosX and XDarwin. This gives you a rootless X server and Aqua-like window manager. He also seems to like the libraries: the NeXT approach of separating libraries off into their own subdirectories and separating out library versions makes for a much tidier filesystem arrangement than simply bundling everything in /usr/lib. One of the more controversial "differences" in OSX." And on the other side of the switch, there's Wil Wheaton does Mandrake.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Switching Stories More

More Switching Stories

Comments Filter:

  • I gotta agree with wil... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer@@@subdimension...com> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:34PM (#4307852)
    Mandrake has been very good to me. I have helped many people i know move from windows to linux and Mandrake is about twice as easy as anything else i have found. With the latest version 9.0 its even better and i would advise checking it out. As much as people like to flame Mandrake for not being a "hardcore" distro i say i dont care. It is distro's like Mandrake that bring in new people and it was what i used to switch over.

  • the underlying OS is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:41PM (#4307884)
    Most users don't care whether you're running FreeBSD or Linux underneath. What they see is the shell and the GUI.
    • Never forget that "most" users are not "all" users and those that do care about the underlying OS are probably the ones who will decide then to make or port all that nifty, attractive, customer inducing software for it.

    • Re:the underlying OS is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:54PM (#4307945) Journal
      And so Apple has made a system then for all users. For the most users, there's a nice easy to use, intuitive GUI. For the other people who do care what's underneith, there's BSD and darwin.
      • For the most users, there's a nice easy to use, intuitive GUI.

        If they had done this GUI on top of an X windows system even I would seriously consider switching to Mac. Of course they could have extended this with features to achieve better performance, just like everybody else does. It should come with the option to either present a login dialog, or just automatically log into a fixed nonroot account.

        I see the irony: The major lack in OS X is actually X.
    • As always, there's a lot of misinformation about what Macs can and can't do, allow me to address a few of them in one go:

      There's no X windows
      That one's actually addressed in the article if you had followed the link, there's an X server available, and a window manager that makes your X apps look like regular apps.
      It can't login automatically
      Yes it can.
      You can't keep it from logging in automatically
      Yes you can.
      The unix is non-standard and hard to use
      check out fink.
      Apple hardware is expensive
      I shouldn't even address this one, but compare an apple system to a dell optiplex and look for the price difference. the apple will be cheaper.
      But there's only one mouse button
      So plug in that USB trackball you like, it'll work, scroll-wheel and all.
      That puck mouse is gay
      Yes it was. It's dead, long dead.
      It only has one desktop!
      http://space.sourceforge.net
      OS X is not free!
      Darwin is free, the GUI shit is not, who cares? AIX, Solaris, IRIX, HP/UX, and W2K are all completely non-free. OS X is partially free, and it still runs Office, Photoshop, Illustrator and such. A hell of a nice compromise, I'd say.
      OS X is expensive
      $199 for a five-computer license is not expensive. Neither is $130 for a full version of an OS.

      Additionally, there's the really nifty things, like the excellent interoperability with the iPod, digital cameras (both video and still), and such.

  • /usr/lib (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LordChaos ( 2432 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:42PM (#4307892) Homepage
    This could be interesting - the mess in /usr/lib was what made me scream when I first picked up linux 5 years ago.
    I thought that I'd escaped it when I left windows - mind you in some ways windows is worse, because you've got c:\windows\system, and those nice little apps that stick their dlls got knows where..
    But anyway, a cleaner version of /usr/lib could be a godsend, as long as all the programs stuck to the format.
    ldconfig in linux is hard enough to manage, with libraries randomly disappearing, or being in the right directory - with ldconfig refusing to see them!
    Argh.

    • The Linux filesystem is well designed. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @05:17PM (#4308440)
      the mess in /usr/lib was what made me scream when I first picked up linux 5 years ago.

      According to the LSB, there's no mess about it. If its needed to restore your system in the event of an emergency, (ors its a config file of any kind) it should go in / (rather than /usr).

      Beneath this, files are sorted by what kind of file they are, rather than by what application each belongs to. Proper library versioning

      This makes sense.
      • It means all your apps are in your path all the time
      • It means ldconfig only needs to list a couple of directories to work properly.
      • It means you can use Linux's nifty mointpoint based storage system to distribute your storage needs but only need a single filesystem to recover.
      • It means you can back up /etc, /home, and /var and have all the information you need to reinstall a system, prvided you've got the original packages (good sysadmins know how to make source RPMs and thus don't have `make install' throwing uninstallable, unqueryable, and unverifiable files from non repeatable nonstandard installs all over their system).
      • It means that you can run a system with only /var and /home mounted read-write and noexec locked down, and have a functioning system whose configuration can't be changed without a remount. Be aware that badly designed non FHS apps (eg, DHCP clients that put temporary files in /etc will break this ability).

        • Linux is unique amonst Unix's in that it actually has a filesystem with some real thought behind it. Unfortunately most Linux users never read the goddamned FHS.

          If they did, applications which try and break the rules by dumping all an applications files into a single directory would be frowned upon as they should.

      • Re:The Linux filesystem is well designed. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @06:24PM (#4308640)
        Well I am glad that the /lib fits your needs. I personally dont like it.

        These arguments makes sence too.

        "It means all your apps are in your path all the time"

        The problem with that it makes it much more diffult to hold different versions of software. (which comes in handy when you are doing development and need to check for compatability)

        "It means ldconfig only needs to list a couple of directories to work properly."

        well ldconfig is designed for the UNIX layout. If you dont have a unix type layout then you dont need ldconfig.

        "It means you can use Linux's nifty mointpoint based storage system to distribute your storage needs but only need a single filesystem to recover."

        This means if something happends to your mount point you could loose control of most of your applications. So during the backup process the system is down until everything is resorted. Compared to restoring aplication by importance.

        "It means you can back up /etc, /home, and /var and have all the information you need to reinstall a system, prvided you've got the original packages (good sysadmins know how to make source RPMs and thus don't have `make install' throwing uninstallable, unqueryable, and unverifiable files from non repeatable nonstandard installs all over their system)."

        That dosent say anything about the LIB directory.

        "It means that you can run a system with only /var and /home mounted read-write and noexec locked down, and have a functioning system whose configuration can't be changed without a remount. Be aware that badly designed non FHS apps (eg, DHCP clients that put temporary files in /etc will break this ability)."

        Good Idea in theory but as you said there are apllications that break the rules.

        Your arguments are still valad but the /lib setup is better suited towards Server systems. While desktop systems needs to be more flexible to the user and expecting applications to be added and removed more often. the Lib setup is more for a signal install and useage. As for usability having a different structore is more useful so you can see what application is using what files so when you are updating or removing an aplication you know what to get rid of so it dosent break the rest.

      • The problem with the filesystem is this: you are pretty well forced to make srpms (or similar packages for other distros), or keep your make files (so you can do a "make uninstall" which most configure-generated makefiles have). But even if you make srpms and install every package with rpm, what you can't do is quickly see how much space each package is taking up, and remove useless space-hoging cruft that's no longer vital when your disks are getting full.

        As far as the "everything being in the path" argument goes, yes, this is a useful thing ... but this can be accomplished with symlinks, not the actual files themselves. Apps like GNU Stow try to accomplish this (each package goes into a directory, and symlinks are made in the relevant directories in your path).

        And of course, with a Stow-based or similar install system then you can still have the benefits of the linux filesystem (only /var and /home mounted rw, etc) without the /bin and /lib bloat. It doesn't create any more insecurities or problems, and instead it tidies things up enormously!

  • here. [nyu.edu]. It's the monkey one pointed out on TechTV the Screensavers show.

  • Like a one legged cat burying a turd (Score:5, Funny)

    by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:47PM (#4307915) Journal
    And, incidentally, no, I don't find it a problem having only one mouse button.

    Well, now we know he's been paid off. ;)

    Seriously, the more I hear about OSX, the more interested I get in trying it out. Who knows - my next PC might be a Mac :)
    • Honestly, The biggest problem with the one button mouse isn't that it has only one button but rather that it has one BIG button. It feel awkward because you only use ONE finger to push down with, yet 2 of your fingers fit on the one button mac mouse. So when you push down it's awkward. If they want only one button mice.. then why not split it in half like a 2 button mouse and have the left half be the button that people click and the other half not be a button? I think then it wouldn't feel so weird.

      • So what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by CoolVibe ( 11466 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:13PM (#4308006) Journal
        Buy a three button USB mouse, and plug that in your Mac. I have this Logitech Mouseman+ (the one with a wheel) and all buttons function and the wheel works too. No problems at all.

        Stop spreading FUD already :)

      • " then why not split it in half like a 2 button mouse and have the left half be the button that people click and the other half not be a button?"

        Because most people who use Macs haven't really used computers with 2 or 3 button mice. To them it is the natural state to have one big button, and they probably use both fingers to push it.

        Plus there is the symmetry--it's ambidextrous
        • Additionally, Mac mice, particularly the "hockey puck" aren't the type of mice you're supposed to wrap your entire hand around. They're far more effectively and ergonomically manipulated with fingertips.

          In this case, it's natural for only one finger to actually be touching the button.
    • Heh, go to the store when you get some free time and say "I'm thinking about buying a mac, can you let me try yours out". Beat the OS to a pulp and see if you can break it (without doing something overly retarded that requires knowledge of it being bad to perform).

      I've seen 4 people who were "mild" linux users switch in the past three months, and one "hardcore" gamer (he has consoles for gaming he finally realized).

      One has to wonder with the constant growth of apples marketshare when they are going to hit critical mass again (and people will stop discounting them offhand before they get to see it in action). I know at least 10 people who are "eyeing" my iBook, and I wouldn't doubt with enough salesmanship all of them would seriously consider a purchase inside the next year. More people become impressed each day, and our IT department has gone from 0 to 4 Mac laptops in the past year alone.

  • Will Switched? Off? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Myriad ( 89793 ) <myriad AT thebsod DOT com> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:49PM (#4307921) Homepage
    Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access to this document on this server.
    Apache Server at wilwheaton.net

    Wrong button Ensign Crusher! :)

  • 24th Century OSes (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) <<ten.elcychtneves> <ta> <kram>> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @02:59PM (#4307962) Homepage
    And on the other side of the switch, there's Wil Wheaton does Mandrake.

    Stuff like this makes me wonder what some of the names of 24th century operating systems.

    Microsoft apparently gets more powerful over the years, and decides to name it and all the companies it acquires "The Federation." Galaxy Class Starships run Windows 2.35k Service Pack 4.

    (FYI: Klingons run Linux 3.5.7 kernel. Not much work has been done on it since the 22nd century, where the kernel dev team finally went bonkers and decided to started growing ridges on their heads. The penguin has been replaced by a Targ, and every year there is a festival which commemorates the burning of plush penguins).

    This is the true reason Wesley left. He got tired of all the Computer Lockouts and Copyright protection. So he travels back in time to try and push Mandrake, changing the course of history into something that looks more like Firefly.

    Oh God, all this acid is making my head hurt. I'll stop now.

    • No the enterprise D and E both run LCARS. Riker mentioned that its highly distributed and resembles a neural network, alot like a brain in one of the episodes. Its setup so if one part of the computer is damaged or busy, another can take over. This is how the computer could gain intellegence if hacked or how someone can upload and connect their minds to the computer system. If nano-technology ever takes off, my guess is this may be the future OS. Future clothes that upload their new styles and nail polish that changes colors will all be nano based and will be highly distributed in an advanced neural like network.
    • FYI: Klingons run Linux 3.5.7 kernel.
      Makes sense. A true Klingon would NEVER run a stable version of the kernel! The Ferani are running a bootleg copy of Mac OS XX that they stole from the Romulans.

  • Problems with 'switching' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RawDigits ( 456594 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:15PM (#4308015)
    Apple's hardware is expensive.

    It is understandable that they have to be a bit higher priced to support development costs, as their market is smaller, however the fact that I can buy a very capable product, often for half the cost of its mac counterpart is always the first problem I run across when considering the switch.

    OSX is not free.

    As much as Apple likes to tout their new position as open source loving folk, the fact remains that they will be charging for this OS. While I do not disagree with this business model, it feels as though Apple has taken a lot more than they have given back.

    OSX is amusing.

    Unfortunately, I think that after a few months with it I would long for a nice X server with WindowMaker. (more NeXT than OSX anyway ;) While it is true that I could run Linux on my shiny new powerbook, I can also continue to do so on my shiny Thinkpad, which is just as solidly built.

    Steve Jobs scares me.

    He does.
    • You obviously didn't read the article, not he talks about price commparisons, and in terms of portables, Apple is very very very competative.

      I'd say apple has given a lot to the OSS community, namely credability. Like it or not, commercial support of OSS is a good thing. It makes you seem like you have something to offer.

      You can also run X server on OS X
    • OSX is not free.

      But Darwin, but commodity, is. Unreal2003, or the engine, is free. Doom3 is not free. Why do we expect OSX to be free? This is absolutely rediclous. Again, I understand how something like Darwin makes sense being Open Source, but Apple puts millions of dollars into OSX - why should they give it away for free. This isn't Old Russia.

  • Since Apple's "Switch" campaign has been underway, there have been three different market analyses to claim that Apple's market share is even lower than it had been before. Giga Information Group says that Apple sunk to a new low of a mere 2.6 percent market share, while RedSheriff and OneState.com put it even lower, at 2.2 and 1.43 percent, respectively.


    Apple, those Switch commercials are quaint, especially with the quirky music and all, but it's your own users that you're portraying as idiots. Your rejection by the marketplace reflects this. Better come up with a new ad campaign before those numbers drop to zero...

    • Idiots? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PythonOrRuby ( 546749 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:35PM (#4308089)
      Everyone who isn't a trained actor looks like an idiot when a camera is trained on them. That's the point. Real, goofy, quirky, neurotic, normal people, not paid actors.
    • Seeing as how the tech marke twas ina slump, does it suprise you to see that they're *SALES* (market share is the number of computers used, AFAIK) wne down? And where are the numbers about Dell? And Compaq? How about Gateway? Notice how the numbrer of name brand computer vendors is shrinking?

  • Wil linked the wrong screenshot! (Score:3, Funny)

    by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:32PM (#4308077) Homepage Journal
    Wil linked this screenshot of GNOME [gnome.org], as an example of what the desktop in Mandrake looks like.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can see Alan Cox's fuzzy head over on the 'Projects' icon.. and prolific Linux hero or not, I can't see Mandrake coming with an Alan Cox icon. ;-)

  • open -a "Microsoft Word"
    open -a "Adobe Photoshop 7.0"

    'nuff said.
    Not that I don't support the development of open, Free alternatives, but when you want to use two of the most common and powerful commercial programs out there, tapping those commands into the Terminal does come in handy..
    • open -a "Microsoft Word"

      There is no reason to use MS Word anymore, it is a dying project and good riddance.

      TWW

    • For those of us who don't have Macs, can you explain how this is different from simply typing in the name of the program you want to use?
      • Actualy the usual use of the command is "open filename". It performs the same action as double-clicking the file. I think the -a switch forces the file to be opened using a given program rather than the default? Not sure what it means when you provide -a but no filename, probably it runs the appliation as though you double-clicked it, but you could also achieve this by "open blah.app" where blah.app is the .app directory containing the MicroSoft Word or whatever you want.

        I hightly recommend that the KDE/Gnome guys get together and make a Linux "open" command, so we don't have to parse all their files just to figure out what a double-clicked file means. Even Windows does this (they call it "start") but for some reason the Linux guys, despite such familiarity with the command line, have not come up with this.

        There is a stupid problem on Apple which is why you cannot just type the name of the program. All clickable applications are in ".app" directories, with the exectuable and support files all in one directory. This is a good idea but the implementation sucks:

        First of all, if there are no support files they should allow a single exectuable rather than a .app directory, this is how Windows and KDE/Gnome handle files, on OS/X a compiled executable cannot be double-clicked from the finder, which is stupid. It also makes it a pain to write portable programs that can be run from the command line.

        Second they should get rid of the ".app" suffix so that they don't have to special-case a "hide suffix" operation in the finder. If you rename any directory .app it screws up, this is probably a bad idea. They should also fix it so that exec can run these, right now to run such a command from the shell you have to type command.app/command to run the executable inside it. Again, pretty stoopid.

    • Re:Two powerful commands on the OS X command line (Score:5, Funny)

      by MalleusEBHC ( 597600 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @04:10PM (#4308205)
      My two favorites were:
      rm -rf /Applications/Internet\ Explorer.app
      rm -rf /Volumes/OS\ 9/Applications\ \(Mac\ OS\ 9\)/Microsoft*
      Then I just used an .smi and a CD to install Appleworks and Mozilla. Nothing better than removing all traces of M$ from my system with the shiny new command line (this was when I first got OS X) and then getting to still use my lovely GUI to put on better, cheaper (or free) alternatives.
    • The KDE equivalent of the open command is kfmclient. Unfortunately, it takes URLs as arguments, not filenames or urls with no protocol prefix. Here's a little script called 'k' [tothink.com] that wraps kfmclient with a more friendly interface.

  • My vote goes to... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kzinti ( 9651 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:53PM (#4308145) Homepage Journal
    Wil. Not because he switched to linux, but because his story included a pointer to pr0n [camwhores.com]. Get your head in the game, Apple, you're losing serious points here!

    --Jim

  • I'm on an iBook now.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SwedishChef ( 69313 ) <craig@networkessentials. n e t> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @05:26PM (#4308455) Homepage Journal
    Ok... normally I use SuSE Linux with Gnome for everything. But we do schools and schools do MACs so here I am with OS-X on my (messy) desk. Right next to me is my LCD monitor which can show me my Linux GUI or my Windows GUI. I can compare all of them with little effort.

    What do I like about OS-X?

    1. I like the size and convenience of the iBook. It has Unix on it and that makes it useful for me to carry to clients' sites and check out their network. Normally I carry a Linux laptop for this but the P-120 laptop (my wife's old machine) is too slow for a useful GUI.

    2. I like the GUI. Heck, I was laying in bed the other night playing games on this thing and it was damn fun. (Well, fun for me, my wife was annoyed at the bleeps and whistles... sheesh.)

    3, I like that it's Unix... BSD rocks (although I generally prefer Linux).

    What do I not like???

    1. Yeah, the mouse. One button. I like to surf using new windows for links and then close 'em down to go back for more links. A single-button mouse doesn't do this and it's a pain in the butt to carry a mouse with me.

    2. One desktop. Damn! How can I work with only one desktop? On my Linux box I have 4 desktops; one for email/calendar (Ximian Evolution), one for web browsers, and two for misc apps I pull up (Open Office, GAIM, etc.). How anyone can do useful work without having multiple desktops (accessible with alt-F keys) is beyond me. Is there a way to do this on the MAC. I dunno yet.

    3. The keyboard on this iBook bounces... some letters in words appear twice in a row. This annoys me. Although, to be frank, it might be just my untrained fingers on a new keyboard.

    Generally, however, I like the iBook and I like OS-X. I would recommend this product to any client as long as the apps they need are available. But I'm not switching yet.

  • I switched (even without a two button mouse) (Score:4, Informative)

    by actappan ( 144541 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @07:30PM (#4308810) Homepage
    Like many of the die hards in my office, I thought OS X was an improvment over Mac OS, but I stuck by my linux installation as my primary work station for quite some time. A couple of weeks ago- with the release of 10.2, I decided I would switch over on an experimental basis. With OroborOSX and XDarwin, as well as the Mac OS X developer tools, I'm pretty much sold at this point.

    I now have a workstation that runs most (if not all) of the Unix ish apps I need to do my work, as well as the propritary applications I used to have to switch to windows for.

    Sure, I still have three boxes on my desk (Linux WS, Mac g4 desktop, and cheesy little windows laptop) but I'm increasing using ONLY the OS X system. I'm pretty much sold - as are most of the other's on the engineering/it team I work with.

    'course at home - I still run linux - but I don't need MS Office as much there. I'm still sold on Linux as a platform, all but a very few server installations I'm working with at this point are linux, and I'm not about to get rid of it all together - but the next machine I'll buy will be a tiBook (though if you're listening apple, we need a damed two button mouse)

  • Don't do themes with 10.2 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:40PM (#4309171) Homepage Journal
    Do NOT install MetamorphX or other theme-switching utilities with 10.2 I installed the BeOS MetamorphX theme on OSX, and it caused the OS to become unbootable! It would get to the login screen where I'd choose between users, then it would get snagged.

    Fortunately, there was this nice option in Install CD to install over the current OSX, but keep the users files and preferences. Nice, but still a pain in the ass.

    The desire for alternate themes shows the deficiencies in OSX's current theme. OSX's Aqua effects make it look like a two-dollar whroe. I personally preferred the OLD OS 9 appearance much more; I also like the std. BeOS appearance and the NeXT appearance much better. A GUI is supposed to help me get things done quicker, not impress me or get in my way.

    Apple has dropped the ball in a number of UI areas in OSX, though overall its an improvement.

    1. No labels on dock icons unless you move mouse over them. Dock icons should be labelled with labels to the left/right if the dock is on the right/left side of the screen; if its ont he bottom, the labels should be tilted.

    2. No separation of the grouping of running applications from favorites on the dock. All running applications should be in the same place on the dock, not mixed in with your favorites.

    3. Lack of serious configurability. This has always been a problem with Mac. Jobs, get your head out of your ass. Everyone is different; different people will want it set up different ways. I find these Aqua-effects and transition effects, as well as animations, to be completely useless. I want instantaneous responses. Here in the real world, people want to get work done, not be distracted and annoyed by genie or scaling effects.

    4. Ability to view folder as pop-up has been lost. That was a good feature w/c Apple got rid of.

    5. Old Mac menu dismantled. The old mac menu with an application pull-down menu where you could list *all* of your applications and with a menu where you could list *all* of your control panel items is gone. Replaced by a new and inferior Apple menu. Jobs, the dock is great, but its more suitable as a complement for the desktop, not a complete replacement for the Apple menu.

    6. Loss of old applications switcher menu.

    7. Loss of ability to label different folders/files different colors. Another good feature thrown out the window for god-knows-why.

    8. In the dock, if you place a folder there, you can only navigate 5 sublevels deep. You should be able to navigate the entire hard drive through a folder menu bought up from the dock.

    9. Option clicking on a folder should allow you to navigate from that folder via a menu.

    10. When is Apple going to realize that tabbed windowing is superior to other styles of maximization? Tabbed windows, as are used in Mozilla, effectively allow all windows to be maximized, but still allow you to see the other apps running.

    12. Window management. Arranging windows in ANY OS by Apple is a bitch. You have to manually drag the windows to be a certain size. Hey, Apple, ever heard of tile horizontally/vertically or cascade? Give us predefined ways to arrange windows.

    13. When is Apple going to give us the ability to make the universal menu at the top of hte screen hide-away? And when are they going to give us a universal tool-bar to go along with the universal menu? Why does every instance of Finder need its own tool-bar?

    I have more suggestions for Apple and anyone else making a GUI here

    http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/WM-features.h tm l

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close