Cameron Kaiser skrev:
> >MacOS X. I'm a believer. First Unix that
manages to avoid looking like
> >Unix
> >(except if you want it to). I've never seen an X windows manager that did
> >any good other than making the Unix metaphor just pretty, not less
> >complicated. OS X, on the other hand, does an excellent job at hiding it
> >away from the casual user, but not making it ridiculously difficult for
> >people to get their hands dirty if they want.
>
> Personally, I think there's too much UNIX in OSX. They not only took the
> kernel, but the entire environment as well.
You have in fact used it? Or did you just see it in a
shop and pass judgement
on it at long range?
I'll go for number two, Cameron.
When you start up OS X, you aren't confronted with
arcane pathnames or
/dev/thisnthat, or anything like what you'd get from X. You don't start off
with an Xterm, a spartan file manager and a shell prompt; you get the dock
and desktop icons. It looks like a futuristic, glitzy Mac, not like a window
manager. That's what it's supposed to do.
Might I add that I find the interface apalling?
The environment is there, yes, but it's well
hidden. If you go to Terminal,
you get a real live tcsh, and then the Unix pedigree becomes apparent when
you start digging around in the filesystem with the usual suspects. But
you don't need to do any of this because the Finder keeps the old MacOS
conventions as a veneer. You need no Unix experience to use it, and there are
people around here who have none, but still love it. This is not true of Red
Hat, or Mandrake, or any of the other "Unix for dummies" dists despite what
they trumpet. The environment and the fact it's Unix is thrown in your face
with those -- but not here. You get the Unix environment in OS X when you ask
for it, but not before.
IOW, only when you want to use the shell and do lower-level system management.
That's too much UNIX for me, thank you.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.