On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 01:44 PM, Ben Barrett wrote:
> justin bengtson wrote: > >> On Wed, 2002-01-09 at 12:15, Jim Beard wrote: >> >> >> so theoretically you can use sawfish and gnome on OS X? awesome. >> gotta >> go knock off a couple of convenience stores so's i can buy a mac... >> > I wanted to point out here that using xwindows on OS X seems to *ruin* > the beautiful seamlessness that OS X tries to give you -- as a technut, > I can follow a demonstration and see that the interface is usable, but > for some Mac user, the context switching would be all too much!! I > refer to the UI contexts, whose separateness becomes painfully evident > if you use such features as viewpane/virtual desktops. Jim pointed out > to me earlier that the native Mac apps are effectively "sticky" and > appear on all virtual desktops; the xwindows apps don't fit into the > desktop quite right IMHO, either -- the window manager you choose > defines what the window frames & controls look and operate like. > Also, when using an xwindows app in the foreground, you can't bring > your wharf/dock back up until you click on an OS X part of the screen > to give UI control "back" to xwindows. As an xwindows user, again, I > can follow the logic, but it's enough to give non-techies the willies!! Actually this is only partially true. OS X ports of XFree86 offer two different modes to run in. The mode that I use, and that ben is describing is XFree in "rootless" mode. Rootless mode allows you to have Aqua and X apps running together with everyone happy. Basically the X server lets Aqua controll the background, and they share event handling. If you have an X app in the focus, the X handles the I/O events. So if an X app is in focus and your X allows multiple virtual desktops then running the mouse past the screen will scroll to the next X desktop, but the Aqua ( really I should say carbon now, carbon is the set of libraries used be traditional [non-nix] Aqua apps ) windows will stay put, only the X desktop is switching contexts, not the Aqua desktop. However, you can run XFree in full screen mode, Then you are able to switch back and forth between the Aqua desktop or the Full screen X desktop which has complete control and offers the standard feel of XFree... > > I see a OSX-native VNC client as a better solution: I'd rather have my > xwindows apps be more seamless (this would be difficult for frameless > apps like xmms or gkrellm) and appear as part of the OS X > environment... so I'd run them on another box!! ouch. > Not to say that OS X doesn't push the envelope... just that I'm not > excited to buy into the hype yet. One thing that should be mentioned is that all this talk of X and Aqua is in regards to XFree86 and XDarwin ( the carbon part of X windows server ). XDarwin is an open source project. There are commercial alternatives. I used XTools for a while ( trial license expired ) and it used carbon libraries to do all the windowing. It was increadibly seemless, and ran a hell of a lot better then XDarwin in my opinion. > > .... > >>> I used macs back when I was in high school, but I haven't even really >>> touched one since mac os 7.2 or so. But os X has converted me back. >>> >> >> same here. i've done a _little_ tech support in OS 8, but that's as >> far >> as i've gone. if i could afford one, i'd love to get a newer Mac, but >> right now i'm stuck with what i have. >> >> i suppose i could grunge around for or build some really spiffy looking >> case, install OpenBSD and pretend i have a mac... >> > Uhh, huh-huh. Check the [just-closed] slash poll: looks like the > winningest name for the the imac is "iDoorStop". Spiffy indeed, to > [/.'s] public opinion... Don't give up to vanity! Everyone on slash hates macs cause you have to use proprietary software. Jobs does a great job of summing up what a lot of people feel about apple and it's 5% market share. He relates it to BMW in the auto industry. Proprietary, very trend setting, a bit more spendy, but top of the line :) Jim
