DFM desktop put MAC to shame
Forum: User Feedback
Topic: DFM desktop put MAC to shame
started by: jpeters
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 25 2007,00:04I just got to play with a new imac. The pros were that with some effort you can tap the power of unix (I had to install X11 from the OS disks to run scripts, etc). You'd have to know about Vim, TCLTK, etc., because they're not listed in the apps menus. Although I thought MAC had drag and drop, nothing dragged & dropped for me. Also, if you write a script and click on the associated icon, it doesn't know what to do (or opens the cheezy mac editor. I didn't find a way to associate a command with the click (right click gives you a bunch of nice graphic info that only allows you to change the name...not very helpful).
Forget about multiple desktops, etc. I tried to click on Firefox (my friend was told by Mac support to download Firefox when she was getting all kind of pop-ups with Safari......the Mac Support guy didn't know about PithHelmut, I guess)....anyway, MAC only allows one copy of FF to be running. (vs having multiple copies on different desktops in DSL..... I don't believe that's an effort to save on RAM, either). Summary....lousy desktop on top of a potentially useful Unix kermal.
After installing X11, putting a few aliases into 'bashrc' (you'd have to be familiar with it to know it's there, and change permissions to write to it) you can run scripts via the terminal, which is buried away in a utilities folder in the apps folder. I don't think it's used much.....an old UNIX throwback......I couldn't find a way to hotkey anytthing, although there might be some third party software around for that.
On the positive side, it's good for connecting to an *IPOD and lots of colorful stores. You can also look at your own mug on the screeen (which probably won't appeal much to anyone much over 26).
*Edit: ..oops, spoke too soon. My friend just reported that her imac crashed twice while trying to load itunes (...had to be shut down from the back) ..Perhaps that's to be expected with only 1 gig of ram .
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 31 2007,03:53You're probably just unfamiliar with the OSX interface (which I assume you are using). I've found it to be a very pleasing experience.
- multiple workspaces is included via Spaces in Leopard, or you can probably use 3rd-party tools
- FireFox is probably configured that way by default because it's a tabbable browser
- I suppose you mean kernel, and iirc it's based on BSD
- .bashrc is a hidden file as well...
- you can connect an iPod to any PC
- crashes can happen anytime to any program, since none are virtually bug free
It seems that you are trying to load your own familiar utilities, things, etc. ... I'd just suggest for you to go with the whole OSX experience, or just install your own distro.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 31 2007,07:12
OSX uses a hybrid of Mach (microkernel) and BSD (system calls, etc.). Explanation about which does what here:
< http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html >
Posted by chaostic on Jan. 06 2008,04:32
Sounds like your both unfamiliar with OSX (Or just to used to your favorite linux distro) and you been reading one too many macs are teh ghey jokes.
First, for OSX, the Terminal.app program is the main way into the unix underpinnings. You can also do it with Applescript or X11, but X11 is not needed. As far is it goes, any terminal apps are not listed in a "apps" menu because they arn't used in the GUI.
Now drag and drop, it tends to be limited from Finder to X11. Mostly just draggable text. In terminal, dragging an app or an icon just inserts its path to the command-line.
Bash scripts arn't executable in Finder because they are not used in the GUI side. Applescript is the primary scripting language for the Finder, which allow you to call/run terminal scripts. (The reverse can be done from terminal) allowing command line and gui access from either side (How many linux distros are able to move a x11 window around from a command line script?)
Multiple desktops have been around in Mac since system 7, just now being supported by Apple directly.
OSX tends to take a Application centric approach, unlike Windows and Linux which tend to take a Window/WindowManager centric approach. In a GUI, why would you really need two instances of a program? In the GUI, if you need another copy of the program running, you would need to copy the program, or go into $PATH/$ApplicationName/Contents/MacOs/ and click on the $ApplicationShortName
Sure, its a bit complicated in the GUI, but in the command line, it is no different then what you would normally do.
Oh, and the terminal is there without needing to install X11. And if you were in the Mac scene, you would see that is used as often as the terminal is in any linux distro, depending on what you need.
Posted by roberts on Jan. 06 2008,15:41Interesting about the MAC. I too thought MAC had more/better drag-n-drop. Interesting that cli apps are not even presented on the menu and MAC is application centric.
Perhaps, that is why DSL 4.x has had so much resistance with both Windows and MAC being application centric. My goal for 4.x was totally drag-n-drop, document centric driven. I liked the concept of MOS which later became RISCOS. I liked their extensive use of drag-n-drop. I did not like their very wide task bar. I put together 4.0 by using swm, a menuless window manager. Doing so, forced me to think and support DND. I would have kept SWM in DSL if it weren't for the fact that SWM was a bit quirky. Even now, I use FLWM with virtually no menu.
Interesting comment about how the MAC handles CLI. Yet, in DSL, we have many CLI programs and we host them via an xterm in the menu. Even the 4.x framework with autocreation of icons I am able to handle this. A generic icon with a hosting xterm to start the CLI program. It would had been easier for me to also ignore CLI and expect users to manually initiate them via commands in an open aterm.
Also, I read an interesting article about the UI for MAC vs Windows and how it came to be. The law suits between Microsoft and Apple is why the MAC uses a top task bar and all window handling is done via this single top task bar. Whereas Windows places the task bar at the bottom and each window has its own controls via title bars. The article goes on to say that these past lawsuits represent what MS is talkiing about concerning Linux and patent violations. That KDE is really the layer on Linux that is most closely copying MS. That Gnome has changed and now uses a top task bar like MAC. (Will that imply that MAC will one day threaten Linux/Gnome?)
It wasn't my goal to mimic Windows or MAC. Both of them still operate mainly by menus and a few application launchers. With JWM one can make DSL's UI more like a MAC, as Lucky13 has done with borderless windows controlled from a top single task bar, to the default Windows like bottom task bar with MS like window controls in the title bar of each window.
I would like to make the MyDSL extension system work much more document centric. Being that I developed it with 3.x in mind it remains mostly application centric. Although, they, MyDSL extensions, are supported in a menuless environment.
Still in all, DSL, is very interesting for its tiny size and even the stark differences from DSL v3.x vs DSL v4.x.
It pleases me much when I see the user community respond by posting and contributing drag-n-drop document centric programs.
Posted by jpeters on Jan. 06 2008,17:35
Sorry if I offended any of you MAC lovers. I spent a total of one hour (or less) with a friend's new IMAC, and was mainly interested in exploring its unix environment for running programs, scripts, that I've already developed. I've had a little more time to play with it since, and still prefer DSL's (DFM) data centric desktop approach and flexibility.
Edit: X11 was needed to run bash scripts.
Note: They sent the imac with Tiger on it for some reason, and have since installed Leopard, with Spaces. I'm surprised it doesn't include layers, which I use all the time.