[quote]Well, the fact that every other unix out there has X11 is a pretty powerful incentive for Apple to include it. Right now X sucks on OSX because it is an after-thought implemented by third parties.<hr></blockquote>
Um, I beg to differ; this is incorrect. It's the same X11 distro that everyone else gets from <a href="http://www.xfree86.org."; target="_blank">www.xfree86.org.</a> It's literally the exact same product.
And I say no way, no way. Eugene hit one aspect of it on the head -- developers would claim Mac OS X compliance if X11 was bundled with OS X. Right now, a lot of these apps run anyway, you just have to install X first. This is just fine, there's no reason to have it bundled. Just makes things more complicated and without much benefit.
Um, I beg to differ; this is incorrect. It's the same X11 distro that everyone else gets from <a href="http://www.xfree86.org."; target="_blank">www.xfree86.org.</a> It's literally the exact same product.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Not exactly. The OS X port of XFree86 is different from other XFree86 ports, because OS X does not run X11 as its primary windowing system. Until the Mac OS X port, no XFree86 version supported a "rootless" mode, because there was no need.
Right now, the "rootless mode" implementation is buggy, slow, and basically too immature to use on a regular basis. There are dozens of commercial X Servers (mostly for the PC) with a much better rootless mode implementation, so it's obvious it can be done...
[quote]
<strong>
And I say no way, no way. Eugene hit one aspect of it on the head -- developers would claim Mac OS X compliance if X11 was bundled with OS X. Right now, a lot of these apps run anyway, you just have to install X first. This is just fine, there's no reason to have it bundled. Just makes things more complicated and without much benefit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
As a long time UNIX user, I made the switch to OS X about a year ago. Since then, I've bought an iBook, and am about to buy an xServe to run my company's website. I've also convinced a corporate client (which develops Windows software) to port their software to OS X, and purchase several xServes and PowerMacs for development purposes.
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
As a long time UNIX user, I made the switch to OS X about a year ago. Since then, I've bought an iBook, and am about to buy an xServe to run my company's website. I've also convinced a corporate client (which develops Windows software) to port their software to OS X, and purchase several xServes and PowerMacs for development purposes.
Macs aren't just for artists anymore...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but improving XFree86 rootless is a separate issue, IMO. The X project will improve that in future releases, no doubt -- they can do this without having it bundled by Apple. The Unix users are important, but having XFree86 available is fine -- it doesn't really need to be bundled on the install CD.
<strong>NXHosting (the system NeXT used for remote display) can't really be adapted for OS X.</strong>
Not sure this is true.
<strong>In NeXTSTEP, apps sent small PostScript commands over a local message port to the window server, so it was easy to send these commands over the network to a window server on a different machine. On OS X, apps use shared memory buffers containing a bitmap of the window with the window server (Quartz Compositor); shared memory over the network isn't easy to do and you'd be sending pixels across instead of commands, which would consume lots of bandwidth. (You could use VNC-style delta compression, but it might be pretty CPU intensive.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The first part is true. But I believe that the second part was also true in NEXTSTEP's implementation of DisplayPostscript. I could be wrong on this though.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would installing an application make OS X slow? Maybe things running in X11 run slowly on OS X, but that has nothing to do with standard apps on OS X.
And what's all this talk about developer being so evil as to never port the Application over to Quartz? It is obvious that if you want to sell an Application for the Mac you would have to do this, but what about all the Open Source apps out there? Most of them are developed for Unix, and for some X11 based window toolkit.
Now until all those toolkits get ported over to Aqua/Quartz we will only see those apps running on X11, Open Source developers will not spend the time porting the applications over when what they want to be doing is making the Apps better.
Now what we have to do is encourage the toolkits out there to be ported to OS X, as much as they suck, it would allow for "native" Apps in OS X derived directly from the original code. This would be like Qt.
Now obviously they are not completely compatable environments. At that point what would the difference be in just running X11?
Now the question in this thread is should apple include this as an optional install or not. Obviously many people find it useful enough that they install X11 on their own, so what could be the possible harm in including it for convenience?
[quote]The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...<hr></blockquote>
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are certainly correct. But mind you, Apple's "kernel", as you call it, or more acurrately the Core system/BSD Unix is free also with darwin. (The kernel in OS X is actually Mach, which is not Unix, but just the piece that allows the BSD Unix system to interact with the hardware.)
You are right that the reason people would switch up is due to the UI in OS X, but I would say that it would be an easier switch if the OS had support for some of the switchers applications.
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But can I *also* run Photoshop on Linux or FreeBSD? I want to run UNIX apps (including X11 apps) and mainstream desktop apps (like Photoshop) at the same time. That's one of the biggest features of OS X.
[quote]
<strong>
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNIX users, like Mac users, are an extremely loyal and fickle bunch. Just like Macs users love Macs because they are easier to use, UNIX users love UNIX because it's easier to program (in general), and get real work done. They wouldn't be switching if UNIX wasn't inside. l certainly wouldn't have. Jordan Hubbard wouldn't have either (former leader of the FreeBSD core development team who "defected" to Apple). Slashdot (historically, a very pro-Linux and somewhat anti-Mac tech news site) wouldn't be running <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org"; target="_blank">Mac articles</a> on a daily basis. And Oracle and Sybase wouldn't be porting their highend apps over to Mac OS X. It's all happening because of UNIX.
Bingo. Moreover, you homegirls have to realize that X11 isn't slow. It's very fast, as I know because I'm in linux/PPC right now. The reason it is slow in OSX is because X11 isn't doing hardware rendering, but instead software rendering. Apple could help make X11 share the gfx accelerator.
My point is that X is a heck of a lot faster than Quartz right now.
<strong>I think it would be a good idea too. Darwin 1.4.1 includes XFree in the installation on the x86 version (not sure on PowerPC). On the x86 system XFree runs quick too </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because there's no Quartz to compete with for the graphics driver. Kill Quartz (ie login as >console) and you'll get full acceleration (provided your graphics board is supported, but most are).
The next main version of XFree86, 4.3, will include XDarwin 1.2 with a built in Aqua window manager and at least some hardware accleration in both 2D (by letting CoreGraphics handle the copying to the screen) and 3D (by piping GLX to Apple's OpenGL). That last is _not_ standard on Windows X-servers - eXceed does it, but not in the default installation - only with an expensive extra package.
To answer the main question: Yes, I think Apple should supply some sort of X11 support on the installation disks, but not install it by default.
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>
Yes I do because many apps start out as console apps anyway, and then an interface is adapted for them. And what you are talking about is something done between Windows <--> Mac OS ports all the time.
I mean, jeez, what do you think the Mach-O based Fizzillas (Chimera, FizzillaMac, Cocoazilla) are? I bet Frogblast, the Hotline clone apes HX code quite a bit as well. What about vlc or perhaps a front-end for cdrecord or something like that?
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
<snip>
Macs aren't just for artists anymore...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think about the benefits. Who's going to use these apps? Do you really think 'artists' and Joe User is going to have a ball working with GIMP or OpenOffice or any other app that runs uner XFree? They're ugly, slower, less powerful, less intuitive. They don't look like Mac apps, and I think typical Mac users would see it as a big turn-off.
Oh, but we stand to gain all these UNIX users, right? Wrong. We've already gained these UNIX users. The OCF (my former student org) is a testament to that. 5 UNIX junkies have purchased iBooks and PowerBooks. They don't NEED XFree installed by default. They can do it by themselves.
Right now where I work they are paying for software to run X Windows on Win NT4. Getting it for free on a Mac should be great. But there's no reason for Apple to bother. People who know what X Windows is can either do themselves or know people who can do it for them. So Apple need not bother.
<strong>stimuli, you are the first person I have ever seen claim X-Windows is fast in any right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, count me as the second person to say that X-windows is fast. I've been running it on my 300MHz Pentium II for a few years now, and I don't see Aqua being any faster. Screens update super fast and I can scroll through windows much faster than my eye can handle.
Here's another reason why I would *love* to have X-windows on my computer: sometimes I need to log into another computer and set my DISPLAY back to my computer. That seems pretty damn difficult unless I have X-windows running on my machine.
As many have noted, those that really need the software will download it themselves and install it. I suspect that the main reason Apple doesn't supply it is because it's not written by Apple and they don't want to be in a position of having to support open-source software.
You will never see the X Window System as part of the default (or even optional) Mac OS X retail install. Technically speaking, X is a patchwork hunk of junk. However, yes a number of *nix apps run on X -- but that is entirely irrelevant to Apple's target market.
If you are a technical person who wants X, you know enough to install it and use it. The rest of the world is better off never knowing X exists.
[quote]Count me as the first person to point out that if you throw enough hardware at any performance problem you will eventually overcome it.<hr></blockquote>
The guy said he was using a pentium 2 300mhz... or is that what the smily was for?
Bloated? Sure. But I have 384MB ram so even a gorged pig like X11 has plenty of room to play.
I'd say X on my system (wallstreet 292 mhz PBG3, ati Mach64 4MB VRAM) is as fast at 2D as OS9. Which means it's faster than Quartz/Aqua by a fair margin.
You guys have your opinion, and I have the truth. Let's just leave it at that.
X Windows is what I would consider a "rude" GUI. That is as far as I can tell it will "ignore" user events, like mouse clicks, until it gets around to it. The Mac OS, the old one, was the other way around. Even the mouse down event could hold up the entire show if not programmed right.
Comments
Um, I beg to differ; this is incorrect. It's the same X11 distro that everyone else gets from <a href="http://www.xfree86.org."; target="_blank">www.xfree86.org.</a> It's literally the exact same product.
And I say no way, no way. Eugene hit one aspect of it on the head -- developers would claim Mac OS X compliance if X11 was bundled with OS X. Right now, a lot of these apps run anyway, you just have to install X first. This is just fine, there's no reason to have it bundled. Just makes things more complicated and without much benefit.
<strong>
Um, I beg to differ; this is incorrect. It's the same X11 distro that everyone else gets from <a href="http://www.xfree86.org."; target="_blank">www.xfree86.org.</a> It's literally the exact same product.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Not exactly. The OS X port of XFree86 is different from other XFree86 ports, because OS X does not run X11 as its primary windowing system. Until the Mac OS X port, no XFree86 version supported a "rootless" mode, because there was no need.
Right now, the "rootless mode" implementation is buggy, slow, and basically too immature to use on a regular basis. There are dozens of commercial X Servers (mostly for the PC) with a much better rootless mode implementation, so it's obvious it can be done...
[quote]
<strong>
And I say no way, no way. Eugene hit one aspect of it on the head -- developers would claim Mac OS X compliance if X11 was bundled with OS X. Right now, a lot of these apps run anyway, you just have to install X first. This is just fine, there's no reason to have it bundled. Just makes things more complicated and without much benefit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
As a long time UNIX user, I made the switch to OS X about a year ago. Since then, I've bought an iBook, and am about to buy an xServe to run my company's website. I've also convinced a corporate client (which develops Windows software) to port their software to OS X, and purchase several xServes and PowerMacs for development purposes.
Macs aren't just for artists anymore...
<strong>
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
As a long time UNIX user, I made the switch to OS X about a year ago. Since then, I've bought an iBook, and am about to buy an xServe to run my company's website. I've also convinced a corporate client (which develops Windows software) to port their software to OS X, and purchase several xServes and PowerMacs for development purposes.
Macs aren't just for artists anymore...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but improving XFree86 rootless is a separate issue, IMO. The X project will improve that in future releases, no doubt -- they can do this without having it bundled by Apple. The Unix users are important, but having XFree86 available is fine -- it doesn't really need to be bundled on the install CD.
<strong>NXHosting (the system NeXT used for remote display) can't really be adapted for OS X.</strong>
Not sure this is true.
<strong>In NeXTSTEP, apps sent small PostScript commands over a local message port to the window server, so it was easy to send these commands over the network to a window server on a different machine. On OS X, apps use shared memory buffers containing a bitmap of the window with the window server (Quartz Compositor); shared memory over the network isn't easy to do and you'd be sending pixels across instead of commands, which would consume lots of bandwidth. (You could use VNC-style delta compression, but it might be pretty CPU intensive.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The first part is true. But I believe that the second part was also true in NEXTSTEP's implementation of DisplayPostscript. I could be wrong on this though.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would installing an application make OS X slow? Maybe things running in X11 run slowly on OS X, but that has nothing to do with standard apps on OS X.
And what's all this talk about developer being so evil as to never port the Application over to Quartz? It is obvious that if you want to sell an Application for the Mac you would have to do this, but what about all the Open Source apps out there? Most of them are developed for Unix, and for some X11 based window toolkit.
Now until all those toolkits get ported over to Aqua/Quartz we will only see those apps running on X11, Open Source developers will not spend the time porting the applications over when what they want to be doing is making the Apps better.
Now what we have to do is encourage the toolkits out there to be ported to OS X, as much as they suck, it would allow for "native" Apps in OS X derived directly from the original code. This would be like Qt.
Now obviously they are not completely compatable environments. At that point what would the difference be in just running X11?
Now the question in this thread is should apple include this as an optional install or not. Obviously many people find it useful enough that they install X11 on their own, so what could be the possible harm in including it for convenience?
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.
<strong>
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are certainly correct. But mind you, Apple's "kernel", as you call it, or more acurrately the Core system/BSD Unix is free also with darwin. (The kernel in OS X is actually Mach, which is not Unix, but just the piece that allows the BSD Unix system to interact with the hardware.)
You are right that the reason people would switch up is due to the UI in OS X, but I would say that it would be an easier switch if the OS had support for some of the switchers applications.
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: BlueJekyll ]</p>
<strong>
If all you want to do is run X11 apps on a UNIX kernel, then why even bother with OS X? Linux and FreeBSD do the job admirably. For free. And they run on cheaper and faster hardware, too boot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But can I *also* run Photoshop on Linux or FreeBSD? I want to run UNIX apps (including X11 apps) and mainstream desktop apps (like Photoshop) at the same time. That's one of the biggest features of OS X.
[quote]
<strong>
The Aqua interface, combined with the stability and reliabilty of the BSD subsystem is THE reason why there are people making the switch. It is Apple's main competitive advantage in the OS wars. X11 is just a mediocre windowing system. And "Unix" kernels are a dime a dozen. Apple's kernel implementation is not by any means vastly superior than its free counterparts.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNIX users, like Mac users, are an extremely loyal and fickle bunch. Just like Macs users love Macs because they are easier to use, UNIX users love UNIX because it's easier to program (in general), and get real work done. They wouldn't be switching if UNIX wasn't inside. l certainly wouldn't have. Jordan Hubbard wouldn't have either (former leader of the FreeBSD core development team who "defected" to Apple). Slashdot (historically, a very pro-Linux and somewhat anti-Mac tech news site) wouldn't be running <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org"; target="_blank">Mac articles</a> on a daily basis. And Oracle and Sybase wouldn't be porting their highend apps over to Mac OS X. It's all happening because of UNIX.
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
My point is that X is a heck of a lot faster than Quartz right now.
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
<strong>(Virtual desktops are very hard to live without)
Brian</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you tried Virtual Desktop from
<a href="http://www.codetek.com"; target="_blank">www.codetek.com</a>
Michael
<strong>I think it would be a good idea too. Darwin 1.4.1 includes XFree in the installation on the x86 version (not sure on PowerPC). On the x86 system XFree runs quick too
That's because there's no Quartz to compete with for the graphics driver. Kill Quartz (ie login as >console) and you'll get full acceleration (provided your graphics board is supported, but most are).
The next main version of XFree86, 4.3, will include XDarwin 1.2 with a built in Aqua window manager and at least some hardware accleration in both 2D (by letting CoreGraphics handle the copying to the screen) and 3D (by piping GLX to Apple's OpenGL). That last is _not_ standard on Windows X-servers - eXceed does it, but not in the default installation - only with an expensive extra package.
To answer the main question: Yes, I think Apple should supply some sort of X11 support on the installation disks, but not install it by default.
<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>
Yes I do because many apps start out as console apps anyway, and then an interface is adapted for them. And what you are talking about is something done between Windows <--> Mac OS ports all the time.
I mean, jeez, what do you think the Mach-O based Fizzillas (Chimera, FizzillaMac, Cocoazilla) are? I bet Frogblast, the Hotline clone apes HX code quite a bit as well. What about vlc or perhaps a front-end for cdrecord or something like that?
You're being a bit obtuse.
<strong>
The benefit would be to attract more UNIX users to OS X. UNIX users are switching to OS X because of its UNIX kernel. A better X11 implementation would encourage more to switch. This is *really* important, because UNIX users are exactly the "geek" type that Macs have had trouble attracting for many years. The geeks write alot software, and the geeks have alot of input in IT spending...
<snip>
Macs aren't just for artists anymore...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think about the benefits. Who's going to use these apps? Do you really think 'artists' and Joe User is going to have a ball working with GIMP or OpenOffice or any other app that runs uner XFree? They're ugly, slower, less powerful, less intuitive. They don't look like Mac apps, and I think typical Mac users would see it as a big turn-off.
Oh, but we stand to gain all these UNIX users, right? Wrong. We've already gained these UNIX users. The OCF (my former student org) is a testament to that. 5 UNIX junkies have purchased iBooks and PowerBooks. They don't NEED XFree installed by default. They can do it by themselves.
<strong>stimuli, you are the first person I have ever seen claim X-Windows is fast in any right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, count me as the second person to say that X-windows is fast. I've been running it on my 300MHz Pentium II for a few years now, and I don't see Aqua being any faster. Screens update super fast and I can scroll through windows much faster than my eye can handle.
Here's another reason why I would *love* to have X-windows on my computer: sometimes I need to log into another computer and set my DISPLAY back to my computer. That seems pretty damn difficult unless I have X-windows running on my machine.
As many have noted, those that really need the software will download it themselves and install it. I suspect that the main reason Apple doesn't supply it is because it's not written by Apple and they don't want to be in a position of having to support open-source software.
<strong>Well, count me as the second person to say that X-windows is fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Count me as the first person to point out that if you throw enough hardware at any performance problem you will eventually overcome it.
X11 is practically legendary for being bloated and sluggish (as well as a gratuitously complex, graceless hack...).
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
If you are a technical person who wants X, you know enough to install it and use it. The rest of the world is better off never knowing X exists.
The guy said he was using a pentium 2 300mhz... or is that what the smily was for?
Bloated? Sure. But I have 384MB ram so even a gorged pig like X11 has plenty of room to play.
I'd say X on my system (wallstreet 292 mhz PBG3, ati Mach64 4MB VRAM) is as fast at 2D as OS9. Which means it's faster than Quartz/Aqua by a fair margin.
You guys have your opinion, and I have the truth. Let's just leave it at that.
j/k
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>