Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.5 Details?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And even when they're not perfect (for various reasons, many already mentioned) they could still do the job well enough to quell objections to not having any uninstaller at all.aranhamo said:
I think the problem with "dirty" uninstallers could be significantly reduced if the OS were able to strictly enforce policies of how/where apps and supporting components are installed. That would put burden on developers to create (un)installers for their software that cooperated with specific policies.
The idealistic goal, for everyone's benefit, would be to make software (un)installs more predictable and less sloppy. I think that's possible or even inevitable, but quite unlikely with OS X.
That ties in with your next comments:
Is it reasonable for OS vendors to tell developers "sorry, you can't camp here" if they're unwilling to cooperate with explicit rules? And what are effective ways to handle violators and other exceptional situations? Take APE and haxies on OS X as an example of the latter. How might they be properly quarantined if they got in?
And viruses are an obvious example of maliciously attempting to violate the rules of cooperation beyond enforcement.
Yeah, that's a complex problem, magnified by any needs for compatibility. It's in that category of "research topics" I've preferred thinking about without any burden of legacy.
I agree with all your comments. I hope this discussions helps others to understand that putting an (un)install feature into the OS is not as simple as many believe.
Here we introduce the user (as opposed to application and OS developers). How many times have you heard users complain that they can't move an app out of /Applications, or organize apps in /Applications into a million different subdirectories? (They <i>can</i> do all this, but it often has unintended consequences, like breaking Software Update) Suppose OS X gets even more strict on where apps and supporting files can be located? Besides the developer reaction, how is the user going to react?
Putting an (un)install feature into the OS is filled with a lot of trade-offs and serious technological hurdles. It's not some simple feature that Apple can throw into the next version of OS X, unless they plan on doing a half-a**** job like Microsoft has done.
sjk said:
Here we introduce the user (as opposed to application and OS developers). How many times have you heard users complain that they can't move an app out of /Applications, or organize apps in /Applications into a million different subdirectories? (They <i>can</i> do all this, but it often has unintended consequences, like breaking Software Update) Suppose OS X gets even more strict on where apps and supporting files can be located? Besides the developer reaction, how is the user going to react?
Putting an (un)install feature into the OS is filled with a lot of trade-offs and serious technological hurdles. It's not some simple feature that Apple can throw into the next version of OS X, unless they plan on doing a half-a**** job like Microsoft has done.
aranhamo said:
I know this is slightly off-topic, but that issue should be quite easy to solve.
Software Update could find any application easily enough by searching -
- Initially, in its default install location (/Applications, presumably).
- If not found, check for a Preference file for that app (one line of code), if the preference file exists, it would know the app has been, and probably still is installed.
- Each time the app launches, it could write its location to the preference file; then Software Update (or anything else) could find the app by looking in the preference file.
- If all else fails, do a search (by application name or bundle identifier) of the Applications folder and subfolders for the app (10 lines of code, at most). This shouldn't take longer than a second or two, even for the busiest Applications folder.
The way Software Update currently works is the result of lazy coding. If the Apple engineers who wrote the original Inside Macintosh volumes & guidelines met the current Apple engineers, they'd slap them about the place with a wet fish for this laziness.
Actually, the best solution may be to be most lazy as possible.whooleytoo said:
Spotlight Search ->> (Type == "application") Done.
P.S The reason Apple does not provide a package removal system is because they know once they do, every lazy developer will not bother to make a "tidy" bundle and just spread everything all over the system just like on windows.
I for one DO NOT want to go back to this. Its bad enough having to deal with the double curse/blessing of command line UNIX tools!
Randall said:http://chucker.mystfans.com/2005/10/10/possible-mac-os-x-105-leopard-screenshots.entry here is a link to see some "possible" screenshots from OS X 10.5 Leopard in very early development. As you can see, more and more applications are starting to look like iTunes 6.
It looks real enough for my tastes, but you can judge for yourself.
I notice the Home Folder is on the second partion of the HD! This is something I always wanted to be able to do. If this will be a feature for 10.5 I already have one good reason to upgrade.
Yes, I noticed this as well. I think it would be great to incorporate that into the next version of OS X. However, you can still achieve this desired feature currently, it's just not made obvious (or an install option by default)minimax said:
Actually, you can have your home folder pretty much anywhere you want in I think all versions of OS X (10.0-10.4.3). Just go to NetInfo Manager (inside /Applications/Utilities) and click on the lock & authorize if necessary. Then click on "Users" in the middle column and then the user name on the right column. In the bottom, there's a thing that says "home" and /Users/username. Change the path to where ever you want your home folder. If it's not on your boot drive, I think you need to put "/Volumes/hard drive name/path to folder. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I think that if any names with spaces (ie "Hard Drive", etc.) you have to put "Hard\ Drive", w/ a back slash before the space.
minimax said:
You have always been able to do that with OSX - it's a Unix, remember
All you need to do is mount a partition to /Users and there it is.The volume can be mounted at system startup with an entry like this in /etc/fstab:JFreak said:
Code:
UUID=2F7B7609-8837-130A-782D-810B483BCF87 /Users hfs rwI haven't had any problems mounting /Users that way on several systems since 10.3 aside from the entry causing the "mount -vat nonfs" command in /etc/rc to display a harmless "No such file or directory" warning when booting.
I prefer that method to mucking with NetInfo since it preserves the /Users prefix in pathnames of any files it happens to get embedded in. I don't have any reason to increase the chance of pathname portability conflicts when there's a way to minimize them.
starnox said:
Thanks, I fixed it...
Although unfortunately you're wrong - it didn't find every file...
Chris
Well here's something for you complaining about the finder:
I'm in close contact with the guy programming this. He thinks he will be done on february for the PPC-Version. The intel would come out about one month later. Dont visit his homepage too often, else the site wont display due to too much traffic. Besides, there's barely more than the screenshot there.
http://www.filerun.info/
I'm in close contact with the guy programming this. He thinks he will be done on february for the PPC-Version. The intel would come out about one month later. Dont visit his homepage too often, else the site wont display due to too much traffic. Besides, there's barely more than the screenshot there.
http://www.filerun.info/
Thank you! PathFinder is nice but too bloated and complicated and slow. I just wanted something like PathFinder "lite", but I guess it'll be FileRun.
BWhaler said:
Ummm I hate to break it to you but VISTA is not a 1.0 release as 10.0 was not 1.0 release. I've used beta version of Vista for months now at work. Our company was running MS internal alpha copies of Vista for at least a year now. I can tell you that while on the surface Vista is shaping up once you get beyond the epidermis of the OS it still buggy. There are some fairly glairing holes related to WinFX. Some of which were total show stoppers in our migration process. Frankly things that should have been cleaned up in Alpha. And we havent even talked about straight up backwards compatibility. This was just my own morbid curiosity but I tried loading a number of apps that I owned and Ive found that more then a few .NET 1.1 framework apps are choking on Vista. These are apps that are NOT that old.
Frankly Im going to be testing and working with our internal development team on every version of Vista until it goes GM but frankly from a personal use standpoint the ONLY reason Im even considering Vista is because it stand a better chance of booting on a MacBook then XP or 2003. If this was just me looking at Vista as a upgrade to XP I wouldnt go near it for at least 6+ months or until SP1 with its bazillion patches. I have no doubt that Vista has a solid foundation to build on but there is going to be a major patch job over the next 6+ months.
For all intents and purposes this IS a 1.0 release. More accurately a version number change. (why wouldnt I be surprised if Vista is 6.0?) This is the largest effort on Microsofts part to revamp their OS since Windows 95. While that sounds like a propaganda slogan its nothing but the truth. As such I fully expect some major headaches even with the amount of feedback they are going to get once they release these betas to computer enthusiasts.
MrCrowbar said:
Dude I want this like yesterday and I don't even own a Mac yet.
Come on Feb 21st!kodiak said:
RPMs make me want to hate linux.
APT is the way to go. The ability to find what you're after, install it on the fly, update everything that needs to be updated when updates are available, remove something by typing a simple command, and purge if you want to trash everything that the package wrote. Depenancies are sorted out as you go, if you need something else when you're installing a new piece of software, it's downloaded and installed at the same time.
APT is the only decent package manager I've ever seen. It makes me love linux. Something like APT couldn't work for a GUI though, not from what I can tell anyway. I guess you could make a spotlight style search for installing packages, but with the amount of packages you'd end up with on your system uninstalling would become difficult, as it does on a debian system. You shouldn't have to tell APT to remove things that were installed only because a dependancy wasn't met, but you do and that's where it becomes messy.
Until someone comes up with a better idea, trashing applications works great for me. I hate having to install applications. Dragging and dropping is the most effective way i've seen to get apps on and off your system. Package management is good, but rarely done well.
Macrumors said:
Shouldn't "code named" be hypenated, i.e. "code-named"? It is a compound adverb.
Sorry for the pedantism, I had a grammar snob high school English teacher and it's a contagious disease.
Although people sound really cool and jaded saying that, and Finder could use some improvement, I kinda like being able to create folders, delete files, burn CDs, duplicate files, connect to my iDisk, use Icon View, and move my documents around, dunno about you.dylan said:
