On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Simon Urbanek wrote: > On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 05:11 PM, Don MacQueen wrote: > > >> The really native version doesn't really need to depend on X11 > >> anymore since the use of X11 on Mac OS X was meant for applications > >> that are not properly ported to OS X yet. Once Quartz and RAqua are > >> complete there is no need for X11. > > > > Except for one major flaw in Aqua--the absence of "focus follows > > mouse", as it is sometimes called in an X
> Yes, this is indeed a very nice feature (I've been using it on unix all > time), but it can be disastrous at the same time. MS Windows has an > undocumented registry key which allows you to enable this, but once you > do that you'll realize that a lot of applications assume > 'topmost-has-focus' state and are almost unusable if the > 'focus-follows-mouse' is enabled (example: if you have a mouse over a > toolbar your document window is inactive - most applications can't deal > with that). I'm not sure about this in OS X (since we can't really test > it ;P), but something similar might happen. It's a documented part of TweakUI, and I find it very usable. After all, it I have my mouse over something on the toolbar, I have deliberately moved focus there (just as in CDE), and it is very natural to someone used to this from a good Unix windows manager. Only a very few applications cause me problems (most notably the Visual Basic IDE). > > Jan cited "Gerben Wierda's i-installer" as a source for jpeg, png, and > > teTex. This source is somehow more "official" than fink? But, > > considering what Jan says, i.e. "everything needed in /usr/local will" > > be included with the installer package, it doesn't matter to the end > > user. > Exactly, that's the point :) We don't want to assume things that are > non-standard. We should provide them if necessary. > > There is still one issue to consider in this context: source packages. > A really 'plain' Mac OS X can't be used to install source packages > as-is, basically because there are three missing things: Dev Tools, g77 > and latex. The first one is official, so we could require that (and > probably have to). G77 is really just a few files, so the installer > could add it if necessary, but I'm not sure about latex. Is building > packages w/o latex documentation an option? It could be. Checking them is not, though. > The direct use of source > packages seems to me as the greatest benefit of OSX being unix-based, > therefore i wouldn't like to miss it, even if I was pure Mac user... At DSC we seemed to decide that we would need a binary packages mechanism for the GUI MacOS X port. I suspect you underestimate the difficulties (or overestimate the abilities of the users concerned): the Windows experience is that is hard to overestimate the ability of the users to make stupid errors and not realize what. As for this being `just another unix version': if only! Simple things on any other unix-alike like making a Rlapack dynamic library became major headaches on darwin, only, and that is still not fully resolved. -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
