MacOSX and XFree86 run side by side 94
proclus writes "XonX has announced interoperability between Xfree86 and MacOSX. Relatedly, Xfree86 now supports the Darwin platform and XFree86 binaries are available. Many thanks to Torrey Lyons, Gregory Robert Parker, and everyone else involved! Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release? I think I'll have a look at some of those new fast Macs!"
quicktime streaming server. (Score:1)
it runs on darwin (mac os x sans graphics layey) and has been ported by the open source community to linux and nt
not quite, but here is the real deal (Score:4)
Re:If apple is dead... (Score:1)
"The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain
--
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:1)
Intel-based architecture on an OS? How do you arrange that?
But I do agree with what you mean
Re:I thought (Score:2)
--
Re:getting rid of my Linux box (Score:1)
--
Re:Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:1)
Sincerely,
Joseph23578413520634815@aol.com
Sure! (Score:1)
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:1)
Intel-based architecture on an OS? How do you arrange that?
Place a PIII motherboard on top of your iBook.
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)
This isn't an Apple attempt to horn in on the supposed "coolness" of Xfree86 (what a laughable concept). Apple has a graphics subsystem in Quartz that is by far superior to anything XFree86 will produce in your lifetime, or probably in anyone else's. XonX is a nice bridge between the world of X - bound, X-ridden X- strangulated Unices and the Mac desktop world. There have been some free Xservers for Mac before, but they really sucked even worse than X itself. ...
For one thing, X on OSX, allows Unix admins GUI based administration of a Unix network from their pleasant and speedy Apple desktops. So much nicer than a Linux desktop system on whatever cpu
But in the larger sense, OSX offers people the hope (a hope so long hoped for in vain on Unix itself) of running powerful desktop applications side-by-side with network services in a stable environment with a coherent user interface, conveniences and bonus multimedia programs (Quicktime, fullscreen hw accel DVD, iMovie) that Unix users have long ago had to resign themselves to never having. Add to that the availability of the world standard for office document creation and viewing - which Linux will never have. .
I expect if you open the hood on OSX you'll also find a scheduler tweaked to provide workstation/office desktop users the responsiveness they expect and need from their work tools, not the ponderous, balky multitasking of a truck-like server OS optimized to handle hundreds of concurrent processes adequately over the Internet rather than 2 dozen processes or so with speed and ease on a local desktop
What was that about Apple selling something you can essentially get for free? LOL - With OSX and X11 for OSX, you can get everything that Linux/bsd have to offer the deskto user and Apple's own multimedia powers, plus the ability to run graphics applications WITH WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, plus MS-Office and Internet Explorer. So the question you should be asking is really this: how does Linux justify its existence going forward as a contestant for desktop seats, now that its big claim to fame (stability) is anything but a unique feature in a world of OSX and W2K-Professional? It's Free? Whoopdy fucking DOO! What can you actually D O with it? Being fair in comparing desktop Linux with MacOS and WIndows the answer still is what it was 2 years ago: relatively little - and almost nothing at all without blood sweat and tears.
If you like rebuilding lawnmower engines then desktop Linux is for you (it's unpaid greasy work and the end result is not pretty even whe4n successful). If, on the other hand, you'd rather have it "just work" or "just fucking work now please"[1] and also avail yourself of a much wider range of better performing desktop applications, then MacOSX is a much better option for you. It's easily worth it - especially, if you know anything at all about how much time people burn trying to make various basic hardware and applications work in Linux. If they only knew (!) - "it's worth it" and several times over to most people.
[1] Come on Linux users be honest! You say something like this almost daily, don't you?
How about a real-time OS? (Score:1)
Re:OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:2)
It's quite possible Apple could develop an X86-based machine for OSX to run on. It simply wouldn't work on non-Apple X86 machines.
The PowerPC is a superior architecture, but lack of interest from IBM and (especially) Motorola make it a shakey proposition in the long-term
How Apple will manage the PR backlash is hard to say - this is the company that strapped a Pentium onto the back of a snail after all. But at least they could get chips in quantity and probably save a few bucks in the process.
But you're right on one thing: Don't expect OSX to be running on clones any time soon, at least until Microsoft blows up or something. They can't afford that kind of competition.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Re:I thought (Score:1)
No. It would be suicide for Apple. (Score:2)
Yes, there have been rumors of a port already existing - don't hold your breath for this to ever see the light of day. No one wants to have to deal with the umpteen combinations of hardware in the X86 world - even if Apple wanted to release the code, it could never adequately support it.
Re:How about a real-time OS? (Score:1)
"crufty" is my new favorite word.
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:2)
Apple is dealing with it by using dual processors, but that will only help for so long. The megahertz gap is widening, and while it doesn't mean everything, it certainly doesn't help any. The PowerPC may per-Mhz be faster than X86, but it's certainly not twice as fast as Apple would like you to believe.
Let me disclaim myself before you flame me: I'm typing this on a PowerBook G3, have been a Mac user since '84, and intend to remain one for the forseeable future. And no, raw speed is not everything (a good user interface is worth more than a fast chip IMHO), but let's face facts: Motorola and IBM just aren't pushing the PowerPC architecture fast enough...
- Jeff A. Campbell
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:1)
My sole criterion for liking an OS is... (Score:2)
I do everything I can on Linux because Unix is fun. I'm not asking for perfection, only a tool that is a pleasure to use.
I work with Windows day in and day out, and I detest it because while I may be having lots of fun, you can bet none of it is related to working with Windows. Windows is alternately boring and balky.
OS X looks like it is going to be a lot of fun to use, so I'm prepared to like it.
you're missing one point (Score:1)
Cut+Paste b/w Aqua and XFree86? (Score:1)
Re:OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:1)
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:2)
OSX takes a modern Mac UI, and the ability to run Mac apps, and puts it on top of a modern kernel with preemptive multitasking and all that other BSD type goodness.
It's apparently also a good development environment, though I am a crummy programmer and can't address that.
OSX is basically a Mac OS that has Unix guts. That is the added value. If you don't care about Mac apps, by all means stick to Linux and the Gimp.
Would I buy a Mac to run Apache? No, that isn't the best value. FreeBSD on Intel hardware is a high-value solution for that kind of thing. But if I wanted a "real" desktop type OS that had a strong Unix foundation, I would use MacOS X. (And yes, I have used today's free GUIs... Debian, for example, has a long way to go before it is as easy to install and use as MacOS X. OK, go ahead, mod me down... but you know it's true.)
Re:Bad news, for Microsoft (Score:1)
Like Karma doesn't matter...
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
Re:If apple is dead... (Score:3)
that was damn funny. (Score:1)
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)
--
Xfree86 on PPC? (Score:1)
Of course, who knows how long OS X is going to stay PPC only... ?
--
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:2)
It's really pathetic when some pinhead has to ask someone else to explain every noun in a posting to him - I mean, this IS "News for Nerds". Go show some damn inititive.
Hint: at the lower left of the window is a box with a search button next to it...
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:2)
No, I think you are trying to make a point where there isn't one. Name 3 truly useful apps that require X and don't have equally useful alternatives that don't.
Got 'em? Took you awhile, didn't it? OK, now describe what sort of person will be wanting those applications and will also want a Mac in place of a more powerful and much cheaper PC.
I'll bet that was even harder, but you still came up with something, right? Well then, now the hardest part: Tell me, with a straight face, that there are more than a handful of these people in the world.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Re:Aqua/X (Score:1)
Maybe when X can do translucancy[1] properly.
Isn't this what the new Xrender extension in XF86 4.0.2 does? After the distros start including 4.0.2 along with Xrender-enabled toolkits, we'll all have translucency.-----
Re:How is it possible to run NeXTStep on intel (Score:1)
Your best bet is to load up darwin/BSD/or gnu/linux, add GNUStep, and windowmaker. FreeBSD has windowmaker as a default desktop choice.
Re:X -- Time to move on (Score:1)
...which is exactly what Apple did.
--
Get real. Apple is nowhere in the enterprise. (Score:2)
Re:X -- Time to move on (Score:2)
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:3)
I'm using a mac (imac, os8.1) right now, and while I think teh gui is quite nice, what really impresses me (as compared with my linux box at home, p200 usually running windowmaker or kde2) is how well the filemanager is integrated into the desktop, and how _fast_ it is. None of the filemanagers I've used under linux (and I've been using it for4 years as my only OS... I'm visiting my parents now, hence the mac) even come close to how responsive it feels.
GMC is very slow, nautilus even slower. Konqueror can be decent once it's started and image previews and everything else is off, but it's still far, far slower than the mac filemanager.
Re:Bad news, for Microsoft (rebuttal) (Score:1)
2) I don't own Linux stock - I just think Linux kicks ass. And yes, I've tried several other OSes. As for BSD - it's pretty damned good; System V schemes are better. Enjoy!
Like Karma doesn't matter...
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
Re:X -- Time to move on (Score:2)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; the protocol has its flaws but it also has its strengths (networking support)
Re:getting rid of my Linux box (Score:1)
still, i check MacOS X hints and didn't find any references in there. i'll look harder tomorrow, but if in the meantime anybody has the URL handy, send it to me!
anyhow, thanks for the tip!
- j
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:1)
If that is true, I'm afraid that most of you will have a very long wait indeed!
proclus
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:3)
Here are 3 applications that require an X Window Server to use, and for which there are no useful alternatives:
1. XEmacs
No, I don't want XEmacs running on my Macintosh
and displaying there too. I want the copy of
XEmacs that runs on my team's shared Solaris
development host to display on my Macintosh.
And no, I don't consider running 'emacs' in a
telnet window to be a useful alternative.
2. Admintool
Yes, I want to administer that Solaris host in
the telco closet from the comfort and relative
safety of my Macintosh. No, I don't
consider telnet to be a useful alternative
here either.
3. Perfmeter
Nothing like having a nice little running
graph of the resource load on your favorite
headless server horses. This is a cheap and
dirty tool and there is no substitute. Gotta
have an X Window server for it to display.
Oh wait, you probably think I'm crazy because I want to use a Macintosh for writing documents and I don't want a whole other stupid computer on my desk just so I can run an X Window server on it.
Surely there's only a handful of people like me. Guess what? The reason not so many people are running X Window servers on their Mac OS 9 boxes and using them to operate software on Unix servers is that you have to get purchase order signed to buy the Tenon X Window server.
Sure, I guess I could toss out the Macintosh and switch entirely over to Windows NT or Windows 2000 where I can easily get an X Window server to run, but then I'd have to give up my Macintosh.
Fortunately, with this XFree86 news I have TWO OPTIONS for getting X Window clients to display on my Macintosh. And that allows me to continue using all the really good Macintosh software without having to buy a whole other computer to run an X Window server.
Why is this such a bad idea?
Re:Sure! (Score:2)
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:1)
Can the P3s used in notebook PCs run fanless if used in a decently ventilated case?
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:3)
This part is easy. With X, you can run apps remotely and display them where you are. So, for me, anything I want to run on a Linux box at work but view at home is such an app. Now, I expect that's not the answer you were expecting, but if X doesn't immediately suggest to you the possibility of remote apps, you're missing the point.
Nope; that part was easy.
Well, I'm married with two kids. My wife vastly prefers the Mac interface, and an iMac was decent enough looking and quiet enough to put out in a public place, saving additional bucks for one of those "hide the ugly PC" computer thingies. Now, I do kick myself for not waiting another 6 months and getting the iMac I got for $500 less, but that's the PC life...
No, that was still pretty easy.
Now the funny part of this is that even though I live in Columbia, Missouri, a metro area with a population of 130,000 or so, I already know a handful of people like this. But so what? Why should I care how many other people use computers like I do? In the bad old days, that might matter because software was expensive and and closed source; not these days. I can have a Mac, a BSD box, a wireless network set-up, a DVD player, and all the comforts of a quiet-to-silent PC for a price I was more than willing to pay.
Nobody can tell me I'm not happy.
Re:Aqua/X (Score:1)
Re:AQUA and Xfree86 (Score:1)
Any OpenStep library calls or code that coincidentally works in OS X does so only because it's something Apple didn't change.
And Apple is not going to open up any kind of Aqua/Quartz documentation like they did with OpenStep any time soon anyway (and that was technically NeXT that published the Openstep spec, not Apple).
Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:2)
To manny companies (MS comes to mind) stick on a linear path, never stepping outside of their legacy. With Aqua Apple has made their first big step since the introduction of their MAC line of computers.
-Angreal
P.S. RC5 on those fast MAC's is going to rock.
Not Aqua Support (Score:5)
This is NOT Aqua support! This is XFree86 running on Darwin! So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen. Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.
Aqua/X (Score:5)
No. At least, I'd put a large amount of money on it being a *long* time before X is extended to cover Aqua. Look how long it's taken for display ghostscript to catch on (hint: it hasn't)
Maybe when X can do translucancy[1] properly.
[1] Trans-lunacy?
Re:I thought (Score:2)
Wheee (Score:1)
!-!_!-!_!-!
I thought (Score:1)
Re:Who fucking cares (Score:1)
The interface shares more with NeXTSTEP and OpenSTEP than it does 1985 Mac/Lisa/crApple interface.
Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)
2. consumer apps (m$ office, photoshop, quicktime, etc)
3. new development (drivers install on the fly, advanced smp, etc. no we havent solved these yet)
Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:3)
This is the exact opposite of what most of us really want!
Let's take slow, over-priced hardware and replace the great GUI it has with a crufty hack that's older than jesus. Yeah, great idea.
News flash: Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.
Re:Xfree86 on PPC? (Score:2)
--
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:4)
--
Is this an X server, or full X? (Score:1)
I never used the product, and you mentioned you did. Just pumping you for info
FYI: netatalk is like Samba's filesharing, but for Appletalk/Macs. Also does printer-serving, i think.
OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:1)
3.9Mkey/s on a G4 450 cube (Score:1)
Re:Aqua/X (Score:1)
Every pixel of every window has a translucency value associated with it (Classic and Carbon Apps just get every pixel defaulted to 100% opaque). This does slow down the rendering, but Apple has been working overtime to improve this (DP4 to PB was a big step, and I expect even more for the next round), and they have been working to get ATI to use some of the 3d rendering hardware to pick up these calculations, so that the CPU can do other things (and there has also been a lot of Altivec'ing of this code.. watch things on a G3 vs on a G4, the difference is astounding).
Putting this into X11 would be a lot of work, and would require a big increase in the amount of data flowing around. This is one of the reasons Apple has not been talking about remote displaying of Aqua, but has been talking up (in developer info) the use of remote methods to create client-server'ish apps....
OSX on PCs would be suicide for Apple (Score:2)
Re:OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:2)
Apple is already on shaky ground with ISVs - moving to a new architecture would be suicide.
Apple can't afford to revisit the pain of the 680x0 -> PPC migration.
Added to which, the main point is that Steve Jobs abhors the PC platform, and thats why Apple will never move to PCs.
that's what Xrender does though (Score:1)
Interested, then not (Score:2)
That's the really cool thing about MacOS X: It has all of the UNIX-y goodness with all of the sexy OpenStep apps and all of the trusty MacOS apps.
I don't need to download X!
--
Max V.
Re:getting rid of my Linux box (Score:1)
Re:AQUA and Xfree86 (Score:2)
Oh, they already are. GNUstep [gnustep.org].
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:2)
And some people [gnustep.org], instead of just hoping, are trying to deliver it.
Re:OSX - or - Aqua will never see intel based (Score:1)
Except, of course, that the definition of "PC platform" is so nebulous. How about a system with the same peripheral bus and drive interface as the Mac, the processor bus of an Alpha, and a processor whose oldest ancestor is seven years old? (The chip? An Athlon.)
Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:1)
And then alongside X, something that actually _does the job_ in a competent and polished manner. Like Quartz.
Seriously, why not have both ? CLick X-11. Click back to Quartz. MI/X Xserver for Mac worked like that, except it was unmaintained crap. Tenon's Xtools might be even better as a model since they nest X-11 app windows with the Apple Coregraphics server. Anyway, the future of newtworked applications is clearly not in pushing pixels or pushing drawing primitives down the wire at clients, is it? It's already XML, and even html interfaces, Java, and Corba compponents.
X is certainly not useless, yet, but it's basic premises even the ones behind its virtues, are being superceded even as its rough spots are shown up more and more by so-called stupid people's OS.
Exemplary graphics applications just will not come to Linux with the graphics of X as they are, that much should be clear by now. (No, 3d apps using OpenGL don't count - they push X aside in order to get at the hardware direcl;ty) XFree86 on OSX and especially Xtools shows the way it could be better for Linux in the future or could have been already if people had been planning ahead for a Linux worthy of workstation/desktop use.
Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:2)
As an OSX user... (Score:2)
If technology like this can be integrated into the next (or even the first? Steve?) release of OSX, the implications for developers and users alike would be incredible.I aggree that this OS is going to do great things for Apple- maybe we Mac users combined with the open source community can finally toss that sledgehammer!
Ok, so maybe that last comment was a bit idealistic, but seriously, I feel like it's 1984 all over again (though, to be fair, I was 3 yrs. old at the time
AQUA and Xfree86 (Score:3)
so in other words, yes, we can run xbill, but "HELL NO" to running bubbly UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD. (they won't even let us create look-alike skins!)
Re:Old news? (Score:1)
If apple is dead... (Score:4)
tcd004
True Enlightenment [lostbrain.com]
added value of OS X? (Score:2)
Running Xfree86 is something other *nices do too.
To what extent does it offer anything better, improved, "more something" than the alternative unix/linux OS brethren?
I've got this vague idea that Apple is trying to sell something that you essentially can find somewhere else for free?
Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:1)
Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:5)
Er, no, it's running on CoreGraphics, aka "Quartz". Quartz is not part of Darwin.
So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen.
Or you can have both. [noaa.gov]
Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.
No. The above link works for free now, XTools [tenon.com] works for money now, and direct support in future Darwin XFree86's is planned.
getting rid of my Linux box (Score:4)
X-Windows running alongside (and inheriting the window widgets of) Aqua in MacOS X is about the only thing keeping me from using MacOS X on a regular basis. i can't wait to compile and install this new patch to see how close i can get to seamlessly using UNIX and Mac applications side by side.
despite how much i hated Aqua and many of the changes of MacOS X at first, it's definitely grown on me as of late, and my "wishlist" is mostly comprised of nit-picky features (but damn how i wish i could put the 'dock' on the right side of the screen like i did in NeXTStep). once i can run X applications in a satisfactory manner, i will have absolutely no need for my Linux box (except, perhaps, as a toy).
i won't be able to install this for at least a week however, as my Mac is too important for "real" work to start installing new patches to a beta OS. but i'm dying to know: does anybody have a screenshot of this particular implementation running on their OSX box? i'd love to see how well it integrates into Aqua.
..and serious "Kudos" to all the people involved in this project. after my current contract is done, perhaps i'll take some time out to help them with the code.
- j
Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:5)
Re:If apple is dead... (Score:1)
i always though that Twain quote was "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated," but i guess it's a case of a morphing quote.
this page [twainquotes.com] says that the first instance of this quote was written as: "the report of my death was an exaggeration." doesn't really have the same "ring" to it, does it?
- j
Re:getting rid of my Linux box (Score:1)
You can switch back and forth via the keyboard...
C.
X -- Time to move on (Score:2)
It's time to have a clean break from legacy platforms. When the time comes to vote, say NO to X!
Re:Who fucking cares (Score:1)
mod this fscking shit up.
Re:Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:1)
The UNIX underpinnings will attract the technical crowd. The usability and style will attract consumer/home users. The only thing remaining is the business desk -- and Windows itself proved that if people walk into an office wanting a certain machine the comapny will follow. This was how PCs replaced Wangs and other terminals on corporate desktops in the '80s.
All in all it's good.
Re:No. It would be suicide for Apple...really? (Score:2)
Of course, I've heard this refrain for years now. It's as if there aren't any companies making money selling an operating system for x86 machines.
Didn't Bill something-or-other start a company that does that?
W
-------------------
Dock orientation hack may be hoax (Score:1)
In short, the proponents are claiming that the dock's orientation can be changed like so...
defaults write com.apple.dock orientation Left
...but that it only works on the "Cheetah" build of OSX, which is only available to paying members of the developer network.
Screenshots have been posted, but there are irregularities, not the least of which is the return of the Apple Menu in one of these shots. Come to your own conclusions:
http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/Forum3/HTML/00213
Incidentally, I confirmed that it doesn't work on my copy of the Public Beta. Additionally, I checked the dock binary and "orientation" is nowhere to be found, although the other well-known settings are there.
Re:No. It would be suicide for Apple...really? (Score:1)
With the former it is Apple propriatary and they make all the money from the hardware. With the latter their hardware sales vanish to the cheap clones; and their OS Sales have to overcome the manufacturer's reluctance to start shipping other OS's. Look how hard it was to get hardware suppliers shipping Linux on their boxes!
The former is also technically easier for Apple as they then have solid control over the hardware of the boxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is this an X server, or full X? (Score:2)
Re:Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:3)
I think that the big seller with Mac OSX is going to be its 'look and feel' and general good looks. Apple have made all their big breakthroughs in the past on a similar basis, and I don't think things are about to change, really.
I know I'll be getting one when MacOSX comes out! I have a Linux box too, but I love to relax sometimes on a Mac (Its like going to eat out at a nice resteraunt - everythings so easy;) and I really like the graphics software on it, too.
Bad news, for Microsoft (Score:4)
Until Linux reaches the ability to be a powerful desktop system that's easy for almost anyone to use efficiently, Macs may come to fill that void in the business sector. Apple has made a series of incredibly smart moves over recent years (the iMac - a computer for the general masses, the G4 - a slower clock speed, but 128 bit channeling making it capable of handling significantly more non-dependant data than say of 32 bit chip of a clock speed twice as fast), and a few other things to boot. They've adopted less expensive RAM, all the systems within a series use identical parts (a wonderful dream for any IT pro), and, well, they're just getting to be a lot better than they were, though I think I've said that.
This interoperability with X makes it a great value for large corporations with *nix (especially Linux) servers. I think that over the years, Apple will make its Macintosh series have a comeback. GO APPLE!
Oh yeah, to make the subject makes sense, what OS is currently most-used as a workplace desktop? M$ Windoze...what would be displaced? Figure it out...
Note: I have NO affiliation with Apple Computing - I don't even use one of their computers regularly. However, I still believe from what I've seen lately that they do have a good shot a taking back market share...
Like Karma doesn't matter...
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
Re:question.. (Score:1)
--
Re:I thought (Score:1)
--