Re: I want to be convinced; convince me.

brian wrote:
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:kd6Ie.7672$hp.7421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

brian wrote:

"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d6UHe.7161$pp.5391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


brian wrote:


"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:mzTHe.7147$pp.5598@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



brian wrote:



"Scott Meyers" <Usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:MPG.1d599d32b43009789897e8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Several people I know like Macs. A lot. I use Windows. I don't like it a
lot. (Parse that either way -- both work.) I want to want to move to a
Mac, but I'm having trouble convincing myself to do it. Today I visited an
Apple store for the 2nd or 3rd time to talk about getting a mini to add to
my Windows network, and for the 2nd or 3rd time I came away with less
enthusiasm for the Mac than before I went there. However, I worry that the
people who work there aren't terribly well versed in the products they
sell, because they often can't answer my questions. I'm hoping that
perhaps people in this newsgroup can help me out.

I need a reason to move to a Mac. The reasons I hear most frequently have
to do with the stability of the Mac OS and how it's generally not a target
of viruses and other malware. I don't find these convincing, because
Windows 2000 has been very stable for me for many years, and between virus
and spam filtering by my ISP and me, I have had no problems with viruses
and malware for the same period of time. (One might argue that with a Mac
I wouldn't have had to set up virus and spam filtering, but I've already
set it up and it works well, so not having to set it up on the Mac is not a
persuasive argument.) Also, I find it hard to view the lack of negatives
as a positive. That is, telling me that the Mac doesn't have the problems
of Windows strikes me as a hollow argument. I need something more
compelling than "the Mac sucks less." Can somebody please offer something?
Like Mulder, I want to believe.

For as long as I can remember -- at least 20 years -- I've been using an OS
where, when the mouse moves to a new window, that window gets the focus.
Getting out of that habit would be very hard and very unpleasant. The Mac
"genius"


Your expectations were out of wack, not the genius' skills. Usenet is far more capable of answering your question. Google "window focus osx" for a good discussion. The general consensus seems to be "not worth it."

But you could always strip off OSX and run X windows... ah, you mention that below.





I talked to today at the Apple store did not know how to implement
this behavior under Tiger, though he did try mightily. I would appreciate
it if somebody would assure me that there is some simple way to have the
focus follow the mouse, so that when I move the mouse into a new window and
start typing, the text will go into the window where the mouse is instead
of into some other window. Eschewing the normal UI and running an X window
manager that behaves the way I want it to doesn't sound like it qualifies
as "easy," but I'm willing to listen.


Well, again, I think your expectations are a bit skewed. If you want an SUV you should buy an SUV rather than trying to jack up a Honda Civic. Sorry for the dreaded car analogy.

So anyway, you should expect changes. If you go into it saying, "I can't drop 20 year old habits" then the answer is pretty clear. The Apple interface has always seemed clumsier than Windows to me. About the only place Windows annoys me in zooming around is the alt-tab shortcut with many windows.

I dunno. Maybe I'm not experienced enough with the mac, but using every shortcut key possible, the UI still feels clumsy. There's some redundancy that could be eliminated (at the cost of having to remember meta keys or ... ADDING A SECOND MOUSE BUTTON!)





If I were to get a mini, it would be part of a network with an XP Pro SP2
machine and a Win2K machine, and I'd want it to be able to see the files on
the Windows disks (some are NTFS, some are FAT32) and the Windows disks to
be able to see its files. I got ambiguous information from the Apple
genius, whereby he assured me that this was doable, then launched into a
description of how I'd have to run special software on the Windows boxes to
make it happen. (I don't remember the name of the software -- some free
download with a french name.) Can somebody please assure me that a mixed
Windows-Mac network will work seamlessly and that giving everybody in the
network access to everything will be easy, automatic, and straightforward?


OSX 10.3 + Samba was an awful time sink. It took more trying to get it to work properly than getting usable functionality out of it. Compare it to, say, WINE for Linux as far as productivity goes.

I'd say you've got a network problem. Works fine here.


Works fine with Solaris, Linux and BSD. OSX has been a good network citizen since 10.0. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. :)

But, like I said, I haven't used 10.4 with Samba yet. It's a "fool me once" kind of lesson. I bought 10.0 specifically for the hopes of seemless integration. I bought 10.1 hoping they fixed it. They didn't. I skipped 10.3.

Samba support in OS 10.1 was exactly like it was in every other *nix--manual installation. If you were having problems with Samba in OS 10.1, it's your own fault.



First, you're not acknowldging the difference between a Samba server deamon and a Samba client. OSX only requires the client for successful bi-directional file sharing.

Second, common distributions of UNIX ship with samba. I don't know what led you to say they don't.

I don't know of many that force you to install Samba (client *or* server). Usually it's an option. I can't think of a Linux distro that does, FreeBSD sure as hell doesn't, Solaris doesn't, and I can't speak for any others. 


- Samba support in OS 10.1 was exactly like it was in every other
- *nix--manual installation. If you were having problems with Samba in OS
- 10.1, it's your own fault.

These are your words. Is it forced in the dist install? Or is it an post-installation manual install? Opt-in choices don't sound like arm twisting. RedHat DEFINITELY includes it as a checkbox. Can't remember if it's on by default.
I didn't say it was difficult. Where did I say it was a problem isntalling it? It's still an opt-in choice in every Linux distro I've used, and an opt-in choice with FreeBSD.


Forced is a really bad word choice anyway. You're not "forced" to install the OS at all. Optional pieces? the gui in most dist, the hard disk in some, and even the keyboard for some nice embedded applications. So what? Most common installs, turning your own words right back around, will include Samba. Next Next Next Next. Samba.
Eh? I've always needed to isntall Samba packages post-installation. It's not much harder than 'apt-get install samba-common webmin-samba'. But it's still a manual install.



You probably meant to say most distributions aren't installed with Samba in rc.local (or equiv) or the Samba deamon isn't configured for file sharing. That's pretty much common sense.

I've always found myself installing Samba packages on GNU/Linux and FreeBSD--mostly because distros typically don't include Samba as anything but an *option*.


Name the linux dist.
I can't think of one that includes Samba by default. But the distro I have most experience with is Debian.

I'll walk through the FreeBSD install again to see if it's an opt-in or opt-out choice. 
It's opt-in IIRC. Though I'm not sure if sysinstall even lists it.

Regardless, it's probably as easy or easier to include it as to exclude it.
I didn't say it was hard to install, I said the install was manual. Even if that 'manual installation' is nothing more than selecting 'samba-common' and going forward.



Third, OSX 10.1 comes with the Samba client already installed AND configured (hint: there is no configuration required).

Does it? I seem to recall installing Samba on 10.1. But that was a long time ago, and I might be thinking of a different system.


You just said it works fine on OSX 10.1. Or is theat the SourceForge copy? 
I haven't used 10.1 since 10.2 was released. I don't remember which I used.



In addition, I'm pretty sure OSX 10.1 comes with the daemon installed too. Go look at the "Welcome to OSX 10.1" guide on apple.com if you need further help. It shows in plain simple words that you can connect to Windows systems. That's SAMBA! Welcome to OSX, there's what you missed.

10.1 had very limited SMB support. I assumed you meant "actually transferring files". 


Clover Leaf K.  I assume the same exists today.


FINALLY, the Samba client doesn't work on OSX 10.1. (This is my original point, by the way. But you're burying it in misinformation.) 

The hell it doesn't.

http://xamba.sourceforge.net/sambax/index.shtml


Um, one of us is missing the point. I'm saying Samba is a time sink in OSX that requires you to chase down the latest build and install it, possibly leaving your system vulnerable to config file clobbering or binary clobbering any time Apple does an update.

And you're saying, no, Samba is a snap. Get the latest build, read the documentation, configure the deamon, run it, add it to the machines init, and enjoy. Look up problems as necessary on Deja.
No I'm not. 10.2 inscludes it out of the box. No build chasing, confuration, or anything else nessesary. Install 10.2, open Finder, browse network. That's it.


So are you seeing the light? 
Not at all. Samba has been fully integrated in OS X since 10.2.



Granted, it probably works in simplistic cases, like peer sharing to a workgroup stand alone system running say Windows XP.

It didn't work for a host of other cases. 20% functionality isn't good enough. Don't become a developer if you don't see the point.

It's as compatible as any other box using Samba.


No, actually it's not. Out-of-the-box comparisons showed Apple couldn't connect while other OSes could.
I can't think of another operating system that includes Samba OOTB. It's usually an option people choose to take. And I've *still* never run across a Samba problem on OS X.



It's a lesson in customizing too. I know that people have pinned down better Samba builds and gotten them to work on early versions. I'd hate to think what happened once Apple got its act together and proved the marketing people correct.

So far they-ve been spot-on for me. My iBook and iMac both (running OS 10.3 still) network seamlessly, and have done so OOTB.



I haven't tried with 10.4 yet.  I'm kind of sick of it to be honest.

But there are plenty of proven file transfer techniques besides Samba that should work fine. SFTP, FTP, and NFS should work no problem.

So should SMB, via Samba. Works fine for most people.


macosxhints has plenty of Samba related articles, for those few ghost people who aren't really experiencing any issues with it of course.

Most of those seem to be people looking to do some pretty bizarre things. Certainly not the "I'd like to transfer files on my home network" crowd.


You're saying people should be restricted to plain jane functionality.

Where did I say this? The OP did state that this was what he wanted, however.


You said authors reporting Samba issues on macosxhints were on the fringe. The implication is that those issues aren't real concerns.
No, I said they were trying to do non-basic things. I didn't say it wasn't a concern, but in the context of the discussion OS X's samba support is flawless. The OP isn't looking for anything but plain-jane functionality.



Windows 95, 98, XP, 2000, and 2003 all have their different takes on what a workgroup is, what a domain is, how to connect using net use, etc. You're saying for all users who use blah with domains blah, Samba works fine. For all others, it's their own fault.

Nice way to put words in otehr people's mouth. I don't recall ever saying anything of the such--please quote it.


You point the finger three times - fault is a favorite word apparently. One example is a few lines away. 
Quote.



macosxhints has plenty of Samba related articles, for those few ghost people who aren't really experiencing any issues with it of course.

Most of those seem to be people looking to do some pretty bizarre things. Certainly not the "I'd like to transfer files on my home network" crowd.


And here you are discrediting legitimate Samba problems as fringe issues. 
No, I'm not. I'm saying they're trying to do non-basic things with it.


Put the two together sparky. You said it. 
Not at all.

This might help you a bit: http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-0764553224.html




Do you work in marketing? ;-) 



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping: Hackintoshers.
    ... updates from whoever) I know the Mrs and daughter don't either. ... I think I've used Windows ... Mac OS, although I used the Atari TOS before that, which is in many ways ... to install updates when I'm shutting down anyway. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: I want to be convinced; convince me.
    ... Mac, but I'm having trouble convincing myself to do it. ... Windows 2000 has been very stable for me for many years, ... But you could always strip off OSX and run X windows... ... But, like I said, I haven't used 10.4 with Samba yet. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Is any part of Ethernet circuitry tied to Open Firmware?
    ... several hardware features on the Mac, and the Ethernet port might be one ... already installed during a normal OS X install procedure. ... Windows from Microsoft, and therefore doesn't supply it to you as an OEM ... which are included on the Leopard DVD (when you access the DVD from ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: samba and lan with winxp and linux computers
    ... I added a fourth computer running Redhat Linux 9 personal edition. ... | read the redhat documentation and the samba documentation and these ... | install any samba components by default. ... | now for the windows network but it still can't see the windows ...
    (alt.os.linux.redhat)
  • Re: SuSE 9.1 - prbl with Samba Client and locations
    ... >>I also installed 'swat' to allow editing my Samba ... the Windows user must connect using their ... TCP/IP" setting for one of the Win XP machines. ... the default Samba install expects. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)