Re: What do you dislike about OSX?

Snit wrote: 
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
M95of.1903$64.563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/14/05 8:14 PM:


May I ask why you prefer GIMP?  Is it only because you do not have access to
PhotoShop itself?



There's nothing in Photoshop that I would actually use, that isn't in
Elements. But no, that's not the reason. I'm simply more comfortable
with the GIMP. Probably because it was what I first used.



Fair enough... though having played with GIMP I find it hard to understand
the appeal of it over PhotoShop... then again, I tend to push PhotoShop well
past the point of where Elements would take me.


No, but I have read no technical documentation that even indicates a
substantial change to XNU, let alone a change to something as basic as
how it handles memory.


You did not read enough technical documentation to even understand that OS X
is based in part of FreeBSD.


When you can demonstrate that it's possible that something could be
partially based on another product, when we'll talk about the technical
aspects. 


Why would something *not* be able to be based in part on more than one
thing?
Because the term 'based on' *is absolute*. Something is either based on something else, or it's not based on something else. There are no 'degrees of basing'.

 You even based your attempt at support, in part, on different
definitions...
No, those various definitions made up the whole of the definition of the term.

I, on the other hand, have based my support on multiple
things as well, mostly showing how others have used the term (you refer to
them as idiots).
It's just as inaccurate when spoken by IBM's marketing department, as it is is when you claim that OS X is derivative of FreeBSD.

 I can easily base my support on more things - the fact
that it is relatively common to talk about something being "partially based
on" or "based in part" on something else, etc.
And it's *still* an improper set of terms. Wide usage does not make it any more correct.

 You have been playing an
extremely silly semantic game and when I did not bow down to your silliness
you started spewing straw men (such as your claim about forks)
That's what you said. When you claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD, you are also making the claim that OS X is a fork of FreeBSD. That's *exactly what being 'based on' another project means*, in this context.

, making grade
school put downs (calling me names)

You don't bother with reason, so why should I bother with decency?

and attributing your own quotes to me. 
I'm attributing your own words to you, idiot.


Why should I have to move the windows to get Exposé to work correctly? 

I'm wondering why you would open multiple windows then not move them.
Has nothing to do with Expose.


Because by default, they all open at the same coordinates. Why would I
move them?

Because you'd like to make the most of your screen real estate? 

I like to make the most of my screen real estate - that is why I maximize my
Safari windows...


Why? 


Because you'd like to make the most of your screen real estate.  Heck, this
is common enough where there is a product out called "Full Screen Safari".
Making best use of Safari would mean zooming the window to fit the content of the page being viewed. Running it maximized just reduces productivity and wastes screen space in most instances.


Saft also offers the feature: <http://haoli.dnsalias.com/Saft/>

If you do not like using Safari that way and use your screen real estate in
some other way so be it.  I use prefer it full screen and so do many others.
It's not the most effective use of screen real-estate. Assuming your display is above 800x600 resolution, then there are few instances where web sites will actually make use of the additional space. It's better to zoom to the size of the content...


and do not mind layers even if they are not visible at all
times.  Strange how you, someone who pushed the CLI, would be so worked up
about *other people* not needing to have all windows visible at all times.



And guess what? Being able to have multiple terminal windows visible at
the same time is one of the best reasons to actually use a GUI on a *nix
box.


Great - I have no problem with that. And when I use Terminal I do not have
it full screen, since there is no benefit other than making the text larger,
at least not for me. If you did use it full screen, however, I would not
stress over it.
It's silly to run anything fullscreen, unless it takes up more of the screen than you have available to actually display the content.



Because most people move the windows to points where they are most
visible.

Why should they be forced to?


No one is forcing them to. They *choose* to do so in most instances. 

This may be a nit, but at first you claim *no one* is forced, then you admit
that it is only in most instances that they choose.



I've consistently made the claim that 'most people move the windows'.
It's not an incongruous statement.



It is also a claim you have never supported.  I would love to see your
support - assuming you have some.  Do you?  This seems like it is another
case of your "support" boiling down to "I say so".



 Why can't OS X be based
in part on FreeBSD - because you say so!
A simple answer would be that:
OS X does not follow FreeBSD conventions
OS X does not use a BSD kernel (though one that has substantial influence from BSD)
OS X does not use FreeBSD APIs
OS X was derived from Nextstep, not FreeBSD

Really, the only thing it *does* take from FreeBSD are some aspects of the kernel, and the FreeBSD toolset. Both of those were also found in Nextstep, but were updated for OS X.

A *far more accurate* description of the FreeBSD->OS X link would be 'OS X is heavily influenced by FreeBSD', or 'OS X derives many features from analogous features on FreeBSD'. Claiming that OS X is based on FreeBSD indicates a stronger link than is actually present. It wouldn't be an issue if we weren't talking about something as convoluted as the genealogy of *nix systems.

 How do we know most people move
Safari windows - because you say so!  I do not buy that... not for a second.
Do a few Google searches and your eyes may be opened.  Try these search
terms:
* full screen safari
* "partially based on"
* "based in part"
Let me know what you find. :)

Again I'll point out that wide usage does not make something correct.


The reality is few people if any are *forced* to use a computer at all.  If
one wants to make the most of Exposé, however, one must move windows in ways
that they might otherwise not.



The situation that causes the bug is not terribly common--want more
proof? Most end users don't even know the bug exists.


I was aware of it. How do you know how many people are or are not?
I know a fairly large number of Mac users locally (well, relative to the number of Mac users), and quite a few more online. I've never heard any of them discuss the issue before, and when it's brought up many people ask "What are you talking about?".

For that
matter, how many people need to understand the bug to be affected by it?
I said 'know about', not 'understand'. Someone can run across it accidentally (something that would be quite common were it widely applicable), and still know about it.



If this were the big issue that 'macsucks' makes of it, then don't you think
more people would actually be complaining about it?



You are making a bigger issue of it than macsucks it would seem.  It is a
bug that annoys him - and it is one that others, including me, have run
into.  I do not believe he is saying OS X is evil, useless, or fattening
based on the bug.

It's still a fairly minor bug.


That is about as close to "forced" as you can get in context. So yes, in that
context, the OS X bug does "forces" people at least some people to modify
habits if they wish to make the most of Exposé.  The "fix" for this would be
easy - in concept if not in code.



It'd be easy to fix in code as well. Just have new windows spawn in a
random field, rather than along the z-axis.


That would *add* to the problem. When I open a new Safari window I do not
want it to be anything other than how I have set Safari to be - full screen.
If new windows came up moved, as you suggest, I would then end up spending
time to resize the window... and the bug would *still* be there. No
thanks.
So you would actually care if a series of windows were randomly offset by 10 pixels or so? It's not like you would actually notice with the fullscreen hack enabled anyway.


The whole point of Exposé is to make them visible. Why can't you just admit
this is a bug in OS X? (Oh yeah, I forgot -- Maccies can never see any
faults in their beloved operating system.)


A) I explicitly said it was a bug. And I quote: "It's a bug, yes, but
not one that should be particularly common"

What would make it uncommon? You have yet to state that. 


The fact that the situation that causes the bug rarely occurs. Most
people do not leave new windows in the same positions as where they spawn.



Why... oh yes, because you say so.  Do you *ever* support your beliefs with
anything other than that?
I don't believe anyone has ever done a study about this, so yes I would have to go with years of personal observation.

 It is beginning to appear that you do not
understand the concept of supporting your beliefs... but when they are
questioned you sink to juvenile insults, dishonest attributions, and pushing
straw men.  Please rise above that!

Thank you for demonstrating your extreme dishonesty, ***.


B) I don't see why this is a serious bug, since the circumstances that
have to come about to cause the bug are relatively uncommon.

What do you think it is "relatively uncommon". Relative compared to what?


Other bugs--say, for example, the old audio preview bug. 


What makes you think the audio preview bug - whatever that is - is any more
commonly hit upon?
Because it occurred any time someone tried to select something while previewing a media file in the Finder? That's a *lot* more common than a bug in Expose that affects only a series of windows set straight along the Z axis.


Seems you have your pet bugs that bother you... as does macsucks.
It didn't bother me, I'm just pointing out that it was more common than this bug, simply because most people do actually move windows after they have been spawned. They don't even have to move them very far to solve the problem. Hell, most people don't even spawn multiple application windows at all.

 You
should be supporting each other in your similarities but you opt to claim
your pet bug is more important than his pet bug.
No, I said it was more common, not more important. Both bugs were completely irrelevant--but you decided it best to exercise hypocrisy (since you *obviously* hate straw men so much, why would you keep pushing your own?).

 I would like to see both
of your pets squished (assuming you are in reference to a real bug... I find
no reference to it on Google, at least using the term you gave it).

Here's a reference to it:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/archive/index.php/t-24273.html


This, by the way, has nothing to do with UI consistency.

Haha!!

Excuse me? 

I cannot speak for others, but I will *not* excuse your poor behavior, esp.
in the absence of an apology from you.


Was I responding to you, 'Snit'? 


No.  Hence the reason I made it clear I was not speaking for others.  I
*still* do not excuse your your poor behavior, esp. in the absence of an
apology from you.

Why would I apologize for holding you accountable for your own words?



Getting your sock puppets mixed up? 


Another silly comment from you.  Not impressive.  I do hope you do better in
the future.

So, when I move the windows to a location, they will continue to wander
around the screen unaided?

Under what circumstances?


That's what was implied. 


Please quote the phrase that you believe implied windows will wander around
the screen unaided.
Well, I was talking about windows being placed in a static location, and he countered with a jab at my usual insistence on UI consistency. How else would you interpret that?

 Almost certainly you are pushing another of your straw
men.
You seem well acquainted with straw men, ***. Perhaps it comes from your own experience in building them? It is, after all, one of your favorite tactics.



How would it be inconsistent to have a window remain in the same position the
user left it in? 


Please quote the phrase that lead you to believe anyone suggested that
having a window remain in the same position would be inconsistent.

See above. No reason to ask the same question twice.



He seemed to imply that such is inconsistent 


Not that I saw - but I am open to you quoting where you think he did.  I do
hope your support is more than you just saying so.

See above.



, and that it would be more consistent to have windows that did *not* stay
where the user puts them.



Again, I want to see what you base your conclusion on... I have not seen
anyone advocate for windows that move on their own.

Macsucks seemed to, though I doubt it was intentional.


I have not seen that... nor has such a thing come up in this conversation
that I have seen.


Perhaps you should pay attention and learn to read?


When you fail to quote any comment to support your position, perhaps the
irony of your comment will become apparent to you. And not just because I
say so. :)
I'm actually quite insistent on proper attribution, when dealing with reasonable people. That's why I almost never snip anything, even for one line responses to incredibly long posts.


That is essentially what you were saying (though I doubt
that's what you meant).

This is not at all what he was saying. 


He stated: "Aren't you the one always going on about UI consistency?  If
applications default to opening new windows with the same coordinates
every time, how is this not common?"


The "this" in that last sentence was clearly in reference to the Exposé bug
And I'm talking about the first sentence: "Aren't you the one always going on about UI consistency?".


not to windows opening in the same location.  It would be very Carrollesque
of you to try to so completely misinterpret his comment to assume the "this"
referred to the opening of windows in the same location.

You asked for a quote, not a quote with the appropriate portions emphasized.

 Please tell me
that you are not sinking to his level.

Responding in kind, ***.



In response to: "Why are you opening that many new windows, and not
moving them? It's a bug, yes, but not one that should be particularly
common."

Typically, that would mean that he thought that it would be inconsistent
for a window to remain at the same location the user left it.



My reading of his comments is that it would be common to leave windows where
they opened - so the bug in question would show up often.
It is, however, not common to do so. That's why UI designers almost always make it incredibly easy to move windows around. If people usually left windows where they spawned, then there would be no need for it. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to use an overlapping window design at all--a tiled window management model makes a lot more sense, were the research to demonstrate that people left windows where they spawned.

 This bug is
incongruent with the purpose of Exposé.  Being that a one pixel difference
alters Exposé's placement so dramatically I can see where he would
characterize that as a UI inconsistency.
That's why I suggested windows that spawn in a range, not in a specific spot. It's an easy solution that no one would actually notice or care about.


You have blamed me for not reading his comments correctly.  I believe the
same of you.  Perhaps macsucks will step in to say who he thinks understood
his comments more accurately and who did not.  I can pretty much assure you,
however, that your comprehension was faulty in this case.
I've stated such many times. I don't think he meant what he actually said. It's a common affliction among trolls, and particularly acute in yourself, ***.


You base your arguments on such creative interpretations often, it would
seem.  When I told you OS X was based in part on FreeBSD you insisted on
pushing your straw man that stated OS X was a *fork* of FreeBSD.


No, I explicitly stated that OS X was not a fork of FreeBSD. 


I did not say you asserted it as fact, I said you pushed that as a straw
man. Do you know what a straw man is?
Do you realize what the term 'fork of' means? It's a more correct way of saying 'based on', in this context. It means you took a project (viewed as a line), and 'forked off' it to create a derivative project. That's how you base a software project on another, by forking off from the original project. If it's not a fork, it's not 'based on'. The other project might be influenced by, or incorporating code from another project--but unless the derivative project is a modified version of the original project then it's *not* based on the original project.

But rather than admit you just didn't know, I'm sure you'll post something about mythical straw men.



What I did to was translate 


I do not care about your faulty "translations".  I would prefer if you would
respond to what you have been told.

Why would I continue to use incorrect terms?


Again, TLK, your view of what I said does not supercede what I actually
said.
Actually, it does. The reader has to properly interpret what the author wrote, for the writing to have any validity.

 Even if I was unclear at one point I have repeatedly clarified the
point - OS X is based in part on FreeBSD.
So you say. You've provided no evidence in support of that claim. You just post to others who also incorrectly claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD.

 That does not imply it is a fork
of it.

There's no other way to be based on a software project.

 If this simple concept is beyond your ability to understand, as it
appears, then that is something you will just have to live with.
It annoys you more than it annoys me, apparently--since you keep bringing the subject up. I'm content to simply use proper terminology, ***.


Such reinterpretation was not honest on your part then and it has become no
less dishonest as you attempt to do it now to someone else!



Why not simply admit you fucked up Snit? It's quite easy--you simply have to
admit that you misinterpreted technical documentation that you don't
understand, and were mislead by professional marketers.



Your repeated demands that I state agreement with a point of yours that you
have shown no support for is incredibly immature of you.  And silly.  I will
not lie to you and say I agree with your point.  Please stop asking me to.
Well, then stop complaining about my sig--until you admit you screwed up, I'm' going to keep it. Though why your worried about a quite from someone else, I don't know...


If you want me to agree with you a better method would be for you to try to
offer reasons for me to change my mind.  Your current "support" of it is how
you say it is for no other reason than you say it is will *never* convince
me.  Sorry to disappoint.
Well, you've provided absolutely no evidence in support of your point either. Were OS X to be based on FreeBSD, there would be quite a wide range of provable and technical reasons for the claim. It would also be documented as such. But you keep linking to blogs and marketing drivel where the author has used improper terminology. I don't want to hear what Apple's marketing department wants me to think of their product--I want to hear technical reasons why you think OS X is based on FreeBSD, not influenced by FreeBSD (which should be quite simple, since it's apparently an obvious connection). There are quite a few basic differences that definitely make OS X a non-BSD, but perhaps you could explain why things like a non-adherence to FreeBSD conventions, and a non-BSD kernel would allow for OS X to be derivative of FreeBSD (which is *exactly* what you claim, when you say that OS X is based on FreeBSD). The only thing it really shares with FreeBSD are parts of the kernel, and a large majority of the userspace tools. Neither of which would make OS X derivative of FreeBSD.


And CLIs are hard to use? 

So which would you rather do, drag and drop files over FTP or type out
each file name?


How many files are we talking about? Three files? It's probably easier
to drag and drop. 300? I'd definitely rather use the CLI.


You might.  I likely would not.  Depending on the files it would be far, far
more efficient to do so in a GUI, though there are also cases where it might
be more efficient to do so in a CLI.



Who are you trying to kid? Moving 300 files via a GUI is downright
painful, let alone easier than a good CLI.



In what way is it "painful"?  Very straight forward and easy... or at least
it can be depending on the situation.
Selecting three hundred independent files in a GUI will take a lot longer than it would in a CLI, assuming that you're not trying to sync an entire directory. Just mount the ftp share ("mount -n -t ftpfs none /mnt/ftpshare -o ip=127.0.0.1,user=foo,pass=randompassword") and do an "mv 'ls <directory to sort> | grep <pattern>' <ftp mountpoint>". Or just write a shell script to do all that for you, where you just need to enter the directory to sort and the grep pattern...

It's not obvious, but it is fast and easy.


Usually when I am uploading so many files a simple sync handles it - and I
have multiple GUI tools to handle that, namely Dreamweaver and Cyberduck.


And if a simple sync doesn't handle it? Then what? 


Depends on the situation.  Do you have a real-world situation I am likely to
run into that you would like explained?
That *you* are likely to run into? I don't know what you do well enough to know. But I'm sure there are instances where you need to move, say, 20 files from a directory of 150. Even if you don't personally do it, I'm pretty sure you could understand why others might need to.


And yet, the same router works fine with every PC I have owned. Not
hard to see where the problem lies.

It's more muddled than I think you realize.

Haha!! 

Yes, it is quite funny--that you attribute failure to one product, when
it's likely the fault of the other.


The problems between Linksys and Apple seem to be of shared responsibility.
If you can make a solid conclusion that they are solely Linksys's fault I
would like to hear it.



Since the problem seems limited to Linksys routers, one would typically
attribute the problem to... Linksys routers.



The problem is also limited to OS X. The problem does not exist, as far as I
know, with Windows.

So tell me, how would my work improve by using the command shell?

Tell me your work, and I'll tell you how you can improve it. 

Cannot speak for others, but I can tell you that I do quite a bit of web
design, syllabus and lesson writing, image editing, and some database
development.  Little of that would be improved by the CLI...


Database development could be, I suppose. 


Especially since in the designing I do the GUI is very important - more
important than a powerful back end.  I use FileMaker Pro if it matters to
you.


Batch image processing possibly, 


I suppose I could write a script to do that in the CLI, but since I
generally work in the GUI doing so would be rather silly.  For now I right
click, select Automator, and then click my Action.  It asks for the folder
to output to (I could have it skip this step) and then it just does it.  All
friendly with no need to memorize or teach some arcane CLI command.
But is it *easier*? It may require less learning, but is there less work involved on the GUI? Shell scripts are very easy to put together, after all.



and web design might be, depending on what exactly you do. Strange, too, since
you make such a big deal out of OS X's (albeit limited) relationship to
FreeBSD.



Stating it is based in part of FreeBSD is not making a big deal of it - it
is stating a fact.  If Apple were to toss FreeBSD (or, really, Darwin) and
move to Linux, as some have suggested they should, I would not care in the
least - as long as the OS worked as well as it does now.
There would be no 'toss FreeBSD', they'd just replace the BSD tools (which are CLI tools, by the way) with GNU tools. Linux wouldn't even enter the picture. The only parts OS X takes from FreeBSD are most of the userspace tools, and some of the kernel design. Hardly enough to be considered 'based on' FreeBSD...

 In either case I
could have my shell to do the little work there that I do and the GUI would
change little (presumably).
For you, probably not. There are very major differences between the GNU tools and BSD tools, even if they have the same commands. That, and conventions are totally different... but Apple never *has* followed any other conventions but their own.

 I doubt, however, Apple will ever move to
Linux.
Why would they? XNU works just fine--no need to switch kernels. I think you mean 'move to GNU'.


and that is with using dozens of GUI applications.  Even file manipulations
like bulk resizing and copying are done fine with Automator and an occasional
AppleScript.



Just because they can be done with a GUI, does not mean that they are
best done with a GUI.



Of course not - though you have not given a counter example.  If you prefer
the CLI so be it... I have no problem with that.  Do not pretend, however,
that it is necessarily better than using the GUI.  I am very happy OS X has
both.  Heck, way back in 1995 I stated such things as:

Nextstep (what OS X actually *is* based on) was around in 1989.


http://snipurl.com/ksud
"But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI would be a great
addition to the Mac.  I would say that between Mac and UNIX you have the
best operating systems around."
A) OS X is not a Unix. Neither is FreeBSD, for that matter. Or GNU/Linux... All three are Unix-like.
B) OS X's CLI is very annoying, because they don't even try to follow normal *nix conventions. It's not like GNU/Linux, and *definitely* not like FreeBSD in this regard.


http://snipurl.com/ksuh
"if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool.  I just wish we had
something that combined the two. In theory that is the way both UNIX and Mac
are growing"

Apple had a Unix back then as well. It, unlike OS X, was actually a Unix.


http://snipurl.com/ksuk
"The Mac is not the end all in computer technology.  Where it fails, UNIX
excels. Between the two, there is almost no task that computers would be
used for that can not be done.  And one or the other will beat the
competition in almost every area."
[Automator handles "piping", at least to some extent]
And unfortunately, Next/Apple chose to blend the two--which resulted in a system that suits neither end of the 'spectrum'.


Granted, the FreeBSD basis of OS X may not technically be Unix, but my wish
was eventually turned into reality with OS X.
OS X wasn't based on FreeBSD--it doesn't follow many core FreeBSD concepts, and was definitely derived from Nextstep code rather than FreeBSD code (though most *nixes these days are interrelated at the basic levels).


--
"There is nothing I understand." - ***
.

Quantcast