Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2912 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Sometimes Linux makes me crazy.
  • From: Danny Sauer <suse-linux-e.suselists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:01:22 -0600
  • Message-id: <200502261101.23088.suse-linux-e.suselists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Friday 25 February 2005 10:10 pm, Chris Carlen wrote:
> Kastus wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:17:48PM -0800, Christopher Carlen wrote:
> >>Too bad they didn't build the Mac OS X on X Window System. Just think
> >>of the synergy if all Linux X apps could run directly on that, and
> >> Apple software on Linux PCs.
> >
> > I would disagree on that. Aqua is much more polished than X11.
> But isn't X11 just the low-level API? I mean, you could build *any* GUI
> out of X. That's why we have KDE and Gnome, because QT and Gtk are
> higher level APIs that abstract the lower level X into something more
> approachable and amenable toward developing a consistent UI.
> Thus, I don't think there is a technical reason why X couldn't have been
> the underlying GUI platform.

X11 provides a network-transparent means of displaying windows, but the
equivalent to X11 in OS X (quartz, right?) provides things like the alpha
blending, etc in ways that are nicely integrated with hardware acceleration
and quicktime. Does it use display postscript? I thought that was one of
the big reasons Apple bought NeXT...

Sure, Os X *could* have been built on X11, mostly, but it would've been
slow, and Apple would've had to rewrite big pieces anyway, and X11 would've
gotten in the way as much as it helped. Someone probably has a more
technical reason, but that's the overview.

> > But if you need to run an X11 app on Mac OSX, you can easily do it.
> > Apple provides its own X11 based on XFree 4.3, you can also choose
> > OroborosX, or Xorg through Fink. I quite often run X11 apps from
> > SUSE 9.2 box with display on iBook.
> So you are saying that X can run under OS X effectively? Where does
> aqua go when that happens?

Apple's X11 runs in a "rootless" mode, where X11 apps sort of run next to
the native apps - with no root window. There's a window manager called
oberon, IIRC, that makes X11 apps look similar, but I haven't used X11
since 10.3 (X.III ?) came out.

> >>I'm hooked on multiple desktops, CLI (when it is the better tool, not
> >>because I have to fix some quirky problem), and the fact that it's not
> >> MS.
> >
> > I don't know how to do multiple desktops in Aqua, but Expose
> > compensates for that lack. Apple's Terminal is nice.
> What does "Expose" do?

It sure doesn't compensate for multiple desktops. It's just an extension
that will shrink all of your windows in differnet ways so you can see them
all and more easily find the one you want.

> What kind of shell runs in the terminal? Can you run Bash? Are all the
> UNIX command tools basically there? If so, I might like that.

The default shell in 10.3 is bash (it was a c shell before, but bash was
available). The tools are the BSD variants. I've been installing fink to
get the gnu tools that I know and love, though installing them via portage
might be something worth trying.

> >>Maybe I'll try a Mac next time I'm in the market for a new PC.
> >
> > Believe me, you won't regret.
> Interesting.

You'll likely regret spending twice as much or more to get a machine that
uses a less-supported architecture (x86 code doesn't always port straight
to ppc, due to the endien-ness difference, among others). On top of that,
the machine won't be as fast as an x86-based machine, properly configured.
Yes, I have some new Macs (with shiny dual processors). They cost 2 arms,
a leg, and an ear, and they're not as fast as the ~$1K dual athlon MP
system - about 1/3 the cost of the Mac. Sure, the mac comes with an OS
that's easier to set up. That's a real benefit for some people, but it's
the only benefit, and IMHO, not much of a benefit. KDE has had drawers and
the ability to put the menu for all apps on the top of the screen for
years. I'm looking at dynamic drop shadows, really nice integration,
transparent menus, and real virtual desktops in KDE 3.3.2 right now. Mac
OS X? Well, it's got that awful file system layout ("awful" largely
because I'm used to something else), and is based on NetInfo (which is very
nearly the single worst *nix innovation ever, in my not so humble opinion).
OS X hides the "complicated" stuff, which is fine, until you want to do
something complicated. Then you're working around the system, instead of
with it. I find myself working around OS X more than working with it,
largely due to a lack of detailed documentation. If you want to know how
to check your mail with, though, you're all set. Unless you want
to change folder locations, or use multiple profiles, etc. Just behave
like the "typical" user and things will just work. Typically. :) </rant>

> Ugh. It's so ironic that I actually have to say "I am stuck using Linux
> because of such&such application." I have a circuit board program that
> really works well under Linux, that I'd like to stick with. Don't think
> there's a Mac version.

Anything that runs on X11 can be displayed on an OS X box using X11's
network transparency - presuming you keep that linux box around.

> But still, it's worth checking out next time around.

Make sure you do more research than reading a Mac magazine article or
listening to one mailing list post (including just me), though. For the
money, though, you can get a lot more with a Linux solution. The trade-off
is some time configuring the system and learning Linux. But you already
know how to use Linux...

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups