Should Apple include X11 with Mac OS X?
Browsing Versiontracker, I've seen more and more (and more) Mac OS X apps require an install of X11 (whether it be XFree86 or Xtools or whatever).
OroborOSX is great to have, and I applaud the developer, however it's not Aqua. It provides a rootless-Xserver (which can minimize X windows to the dock!) and an Aqua theme, which is great. But it still is a hassle do download, and there is no mistaking an X11 app for an Aqua app. There is no anti-aliasing, the window background is wintel-grey not pinstriped, the menu bars are in the windows, etc. etc. etc.
Should Apple include XFree86 and OroborOSX, develop an X11 API, or modify OroborOSX/XFree86 to shim into Aqua/Quartz? What's your thoughts? And if people think it's a good idea, lets petition Apple!
Barto
OroborOSX is great to have, and I applaud the developer, however it's not Aqua. It provides a rootless-Xserver (which can minimize X windows to the dock!) and an Aqua theme, which is great. But it still is a hassle do download, and there is no mistaking an X11 app for an Aqua app. There is no anti-aliasing, the window background is wintel-grey not pinstriped, the menu bars are in the windows, etc. etc. etc.
Should Apple include XFree86 and OroborOSX, develop an X11 API, or modify OroborOSX/XFree86 to shim into Aqua/Quartz? What's your thoughts? And if people think it's a good idea, lets petition Apple!
Barto
Comments
Now it should be an optional install, not everyone needs it taking up space, but I think many people would love to have it.
YES!
Now I seem to remember NeXt having this. It basically only transmitted the NIB files between the computers. Now that is some OS X needs, but perhaps they don't do it because it would not work with carbon apps?
I'd rather see Apple spend their resources developing a better OS and hardware and leave downloading and using X11 up to the people who want to use it.
That's my 2 cents.
<strong>Now I seem to remember NeXt having this. It basically only transmitted the NIB files between the computers. Now that is some OS X needs, but perhaps they don't do it because it would not work with carbon apps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NeXT did have this with the Display Postscript-based window manager. It was pretty cool. I suspect that Apple will provide this soon through Quartz. It did not send Nibs across the wire...just PostScript.
P.S. I agree about the utility of having X-windows because the large quantity of X-windows applications. Still...seems like Apple would simply be "enabling" a bad habit by continuing support for it.
There was another thread about this a while back that made some very strong arguments against X. I don't have much time to repeat those here. Do a quick search to find it.
<strong>Yes! Apple should make it 'default install' and put some work into it so it integrates w/ OSX nicely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This will never happen...nor should it.
You'll never play Tux Racer w/ an attitude like that, yurin8or
edit: I don't program, but in an object oriented software development environment like Visual Basic or Glade, re-mapping every single goddamn widget to port an app from one platform to another has got to take 9,000,000 times longer. X11 is free, open, industry standard. Apple should include it.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
<strong>Yes! Apple should make it 'default install' and put some work into it so it integrates w/ OSX nicely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why default...? Why should my sister who just uses a computer to surf the net, send & receive e-mails and store .MP3 files... have to have that installed by default...? She will never utilize that kind of technology so why waste the disk space and create yet another mysterious directory or set of files that she could potentially mess-up or whatever...?
Know what I mean...? We need to keep in mind, that although the MAJORITY of the members of this Forum have an understanding of how to compile programs, use UNIX or a CL (myself excluded)... we (you) are a minority of the overal percentage of people USING the Mac right now. This whole UNIX-Thing is new to a good portion of us Mac users, it's new to a lot of the "switchers", and it's definately new to those buying their first computer...
Having it as an optional install seems more appropriate (IMHO).
just my $.02
An optional install of XFree86+XDarwin with an Aqua theme. Not to much work for Apple, and with Jagwire arriving on 2 CDs, there should be enough free space (or maybe not LOL).
Double click a UNIX binary, and it presents you with an option of launching it in a new terminal or running it in the background (> /dev/null to *NIX people here). I think we can all agree on that.
Double click an XWindows binary, and it launches that app in XDarwin, with the option of outputting to a terminal.
Barto
I have compiled XFree on my Mac, but I haven't touched it for months. I have basically no reason to use it.
<strong>Nope. X-windows is junk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it seem like me that there should be a way to do away with the client/server hoopla in the case of a single desktop user, as many x-windows users are...maybe there is and i don't know about it...is there?
The main app I miss from XFree86 is Xemacs. The OS X version of it leaves a lot to be desired.
Brian
<strong>This would be detrimental. Providing developers a cheesy way to port their apps to a small subset of Mac users instead of the whole. Leave XFree to the people who 1) know what it is, 2) want it in the first place.
I have compiled XFree on my Mac, but I haven't touched it for months. I have basically no reason to use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really think all the Unix/Linux apps out there are going to get ported to Quartz/Cocoa from Motif or GTK? They are completely different environments. Essentially what you are saying is that you don't want the App at all. The Mac user base is not large enough for the plethora of applications out there on Unix to all be ported to Quartz.
Anyway the apps that I'm interested in are not ones that most Mac users have ever heard of, nor are they ones that they would ever think of using.
<strong>
Do you really think all the Unix/Linux apps out there are going to get ported to Quartz/Cocoa from Motif or GTK? They are completely different environments. Essentially what you are saying is that you don't want the App at all. The Mac user base is not large enough for the plethora of applications out there on Unix to all be ported to Quartz.
Anyway the apps that I'm interested in are not ones that most Mac users have ever heard of, nor are they ones that they would ever think of using.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you want to make OS X slow as M-O-L-L-A-S-S-E-S, then put X11 on there. Aqua, IB are so much better anyway.
That said...I think anything that makes OSX a more robust environment is a positive thing. X-11 seems to fall into this category since many of you are using it (and this thread exists). How would an apple implementation be different than what is available now?
The 3rd parties seem to be doing a pretty good job w/XonX. Since the capability is already there for anyone who wants it, I don't see why Apple should spend its time integrating X-Windows when it will never be a 'preferred' environment (ie Cocoa, Carbon, Java).
I don't think an X-Win app should look like an OSX app any more than I think Classic apps should. These visual differences play an important role in the user interaction. When I see a Platinum window, I know it is in Classic and I am prepared for all the caveats that come along w/it. X-windows should be the same way.
<strong>I don't think an X-Win app should look like an OSX app any more than I think Classic apps should. These visual differences play an important role in the user interaction. When I see a Platinum window, I know it is in Classic and I am prepared for all the caveats that come along w/it. X-windows should be the same way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't agree more.
The only problem with that statement is that there really is no true X11 look. However, with its ability to be skinned, X11 will always leave that choice in the hands of the user.
What I'd like to see is X11 acting more like Classic. What I mean is, I'd like to see a dock icon for each Application, and not one for XDarwin or OroborOSX. I think Apple could help out a lot with the project, and even a small investment on their part could bring large returns from certain communities (mainly the UNIX crowd).
I disagree that it should be part of the default OS X installation. I do believe, however, that it should be an option during installation. It really is a very useful tool that brings a huge amount of software to the table. Making the X11 experience on OS X (a bit more) seamless is far too large of an opportunity for Apple to pass up.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Ringo ]</p>
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Ringo ]</p>