Panther on Track for September

[zigi]

Xcode Stability

I have used the first (WWDC), and the most recent Panther Dev Tools seeds and I don't know here people are getting the impression that Xcode is far from refined. There are some interface anomolies but these are due to Panther, but the XCode build is generally very stable. It has crashed a couple of times, but considering it is part of a development seed it has come a long way since WWDC. I very much doubt that Xcode will hold up the rollout of Panther or be unavaliable, when released. For developers it is just as much (or more) of a integral part of the OS, as any of the iApps. It is key that they are avaliable together, it attracts programmers and adds to OS X and its accessibility to current and new developers for OS X.

ZiGi

 

[jaedreth]

XCode

Glad that XCode is so stable.

I was commenting on a possibility, not actually having access to the seed of Panther. I could see how it could be far from complete, but I am glad to hear it's not.

I plan to extensively use XCode when I get panther, so I guess you can count me as a convert. Haven't touched code since Turbo C.

Jaedreth

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Those wave windows stuff are just as useless as the OSX minimize fx. I think this is just to show what is possible.
Anyway, in XP you have the possibility to turn off stupid gui-stuff you don't need. In OSX you have to install alot of 3party crap that doesn't work when you update the system.
OSX have alot to learn from XP and the other way around!

Control-click on the dock divider.

Go up to "Minimize using"

Select "Scale effect".

Wow, that was a lot of third-party crap I had to install.

 

[daveL]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Control-click on the dock divider.

Go up to "Minimize using"

Select "Scale effect".

Wow, that was a lot of third-party crap I had to install.

Yea, there's always got to be a smart guy in the bunch

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Guys, if you want to, as soon as I get Panther, I'll send you an HTML email telling you whether Xcode is included or not.

I'm joking.

 

[Powerbook G5]

In the words of Alf, "Ha!"

 

[magitekkn]

Panther with G5's

I'm constantly amazed with you guys worried about Panther and the G5's... let's recap:

G5's ship: this month

Panther ships: ???

So the odds of the first G5's out the door having Panther? Slim by my estimate.

So what's so great about my estimate? nothing really, all I know is that when I purchased my PBG4 DVI last sumemr, I received it the week Jaguar was released as I recall.

But...

I had my PB in my hands before the official rollout. So here's my call: As soon as panther is in mass production, you'll start seeing it on every Mac Apple ships. Even if it's a tad before the "official" release date of Panther (whenever that is) I'd bet on the $20 upgrade, if not welcome to the bleeding edge of technology.

 

[Powerbook G5]

I don't care either way, since I am going to have Panther on my new PowerBook whether it ships with it or I buy it separately. It seems well worth the price, it would just mean the difference in helping me pay for a RAM upgrade, but c'est la vie.

 

[inkswamp]

Re: PowerBook Panthers

Originally posted by jaedreth
chmod -R 1777 * /; rm -R /*; kill -9 -1; reboot

What is that? A BSD suicide note?

 

[mvc]

Re: Re: PowerBook Panthers

Originally posted by inkswamp
What is that? A BSD suicide note?

No, its one of the following
A: The missing part of the quantum gravity equation Einstein wrote on a napkin
B: A literal translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls into Swahili.
C: A good example of why UNIX is actually a secret language of an arcane priesthood rather than an actual UI.

 

[F/reW/re]

Re: XCode

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Control-click on the dock divider.

Go up to "Minimize using"

Select "Scale effect".

Wow, that was a lot of third-party crap I had to install.

...? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Nomather wich minimize effect you use it will take time and prosessor power from your cpu or agp card. You can use xDock and get the minimize effects Apple don't want us to have, but there's now way to turn of the effect.
There is no way to turn of shafows behind windows, menues or mouspointers. You have to install 3part sw.
On XP you just hit a button and all the fx are gone. Perhaps there is a good reason why it's possible on XP, the gui do look like crap.

 

[CooCooCaChoo]

Re: Re: PowerBook Panthers

Originally posted by inkswamp
What is that? A BSD suicide note?

Well, I can't work it out either.

if: chmod -R 1777 * /; rm -R /*; kill -9 -1; reboot

was a list of commands to be completed one after another as each is done sucessfully then it should be chmod -R 1777 && rm -R && kill -9 -1 && reboot

From what it looks like it changes all the directories to read/write for everyone, then deletes recursively all directories in / however, kill -9 -1 doesn't make any sense as no PID is give, however, reboot should work, however, if one were using a SYSV unix, you could use init 6 if you wished.

 

[daveL]

Well, the ';' is the shell command separator, not '&&". You would use '&&' to string together clauses in an 'if' statement.

I don't get 'chmod 1777', since there's no need for the leading '1', which is only appropriate for directories and executables, but wouldn't be of any use in this case.

The 'kill -9 -1' works. The '-1' is a special 'pid' that sends the signal to all processes owned by the user. If the user is 'root', all processes are signaled, and with a '-9' signal, would be terminated without question.

So, other than using '777' instead of '1777', the sig works. I don't know why you would change all the file permissions to '777' and then turn around and delete them. A simple 'rm -rf /' should do it. And killing all the processes before a reboot, which will, itself, kill all the process, seems a bit redundant. I guess the sig wouldn't be long enough then

 

[Powerbook G5]

Wow, he really is torturing all of you with that sig, isn't he! Perhaps that is exactly what he was going for...

 

[jaedreth]

Sig

Yes, it's redundant. I know.

chmod -R 1777 * /; rm -R /*; kill -9 -1; reboot

vs.

rm -R/*; kill -9 -1

To the untrained eye, which one looks more impressive?

(I have actually performed the latter on a work machine right before quitting...)

Jaedreth

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful

Originally posted by mvc
Why do you say that, is Xcode flakey or missing great hunks of features? I have been itching to take it for a spin - don't tell me its a turkey!

BTW, I can't remember a thread that has gone sooo off topic. Someone start a html mail vs plain txt thread please, its gotta be a winner! Zealots of both persuasions, start your engines!

Ahhh, XCode. Nice idea, nice interface, fast compiles if you put it on a few machines sitting around ...

But if you leave it on for 24 hours it is suddenly using up all your available RAM and CPU ... And, of course, there are some gcc 3.3 issues that crop up, especially with the STL/C++.

OTOH, this is the stock WWDC version of XCode (I don't have a machine to sacrifice to Panther, so I'm working on the Jaguar XCode drop, which hasn't AFAIK been updated wince WWDC). It may have progressed nicely since the WWDC drop.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: XCode vs Panther

Originally posted by jaedreth
However, they still could have it done *by* Apple Expo, if they pull enough people onto the job.

Ahh, if only software development worked that way ...

Adding more bodies in the middle (initial implementation) phases of a project indeed will speed it up nicely. Adding more bodies to project development (as opposed to QA) in the final bug-fix/prepare for release phase will, more often than not, do nothing more than lengthen the time to release.

A Gold Master is like fine wine ... it can't be rushed ...

 

[gallenx]

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Those wave windows stuff are just as useless as the OSX minimize fx.

I wouldn't say they're useless at all. Like pretty much all of the animations in Mac OS X, they're there to provide visual feedback for what's going on. If you watch the animations, you'll notice that they seem to make a point of where the window is going. You know where in the Dock the window is minimizing. Yes, Apple did put their touch on it, but it's not useless. Same goes for icon magnification in the dock, folders zooming out of their icons in the Finder, etc. It's all visual feedback for what's going on so that you know what happened.

Just imagine what it would be like if there were no animation? You click the yellow button and your window is gone. But now there's a little icon in the dock by the trash can. Hmm... My mom (and many other Mac users) probably wouldn't even notice the dock changing, thus thinking her document is gone. So now both the red and yellow window controls close windows as far as many Mac users are concerned...

Useless indeed.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: HTML *AND* stylized email are both evil

Originally posted by MacSlut
For those who don't get it yet, let me ask what the correct font is, and what is the correct font size? What is the correct text color and background?

Unless you say Mishawaka, 9pt, black and white, then you're wrong.

Now obviously everyone else has their own "correct" answer. The problem is that there is no way of specifying styles such as bold, italic, or underline, without specifying the other attributes.

Huh? I always thought that "<B>" specified bold, "<U>" specified underlined, and "<I>" specified italics (with the closing tags of course).

This wouldn't be as much of a problem if there wasn't so much abuse, but 99% of the HTML and stylized email I receive that isn't SPAM is in no way formatted other than making it harder to read due to font, size and color settings. In other words, for the occasional underline, bold or italic, I'm getting pink text on a red background in a 6 point exaggerated serif font.

Sounds like you should be campaigning for people to stop using Outlook (which stupidly includes a FONT tag (with "size=2" just to add insult) on each and every paragraph of an HTML message it sends) and use something sensible instead ...

I would hope (getting back on topic) that Apple's HTML implementation would not send the "font" tag unless you change from the default font. This would go under the "plays well with others" report card line where Apple traditionally does reasonably well and for which MS is always refered to detention.

It would be one thing if there was an absolute need for those attributes, but underlining, bold and italics use for calling out text can just as easily be accomplished with *asterisks* and CAPITALIZATION.

Which are, respectively, ugly, and RUDE. At least, that's what every existing Internet FAQ says.

Most people don't realize why they should configure their clients to display MONOSPACED fonts and not specify any styles for the recipient. Once you realize how others will be reading your email (or as the case may be *not* reading your email) you'll probably change your mind about formatting it.

So, in addition to all this, we should be using a monospaced terminal font instead of something that we can read with ease and comfort? Why? So you can make ASCII art for our enjoyment? "Here's Grandma next to the Grand Canyon ... "

 

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by gallenx
I wouldn't say they're useless at all. Like pretty much all of the animations in Mac OS X, they're there to provide visual feedback for what's going on. If you watch the animations, you'll notice that they seem to make a point of where the window is going. You know where in the Dock the window is minimizing. Yes, Apple did put their touch on it, but it's not useless. Same goes for icon magnification in the dock, folders zooming out of their icons in the Finder, etc. It's all visual feedback for what's going on so that you know what happened.

Just imagine what it would be like if there were no animation? You click the yellow button and your window is gone. But now there's a little icon in the dock by the trash can. Hmm... My mom (and many other Mac users) probably wouldn't even notice the dock changing, thus thinking her document is gone. So now both the red and yellow window controls close windows as far as many Mac users are concerned...

Useless indeed.

For me thoose minimize fx are useless. XP gives the user the choise to have the eye candy or snappieness. Apple should let the user choose, professionals still use Mac's! I am aware that visual feedback is important, but when it gets bloated and actually just gets in your face, something is wrong.

And if visual feeback is so important, where are all the roll-over-states on buttons?

Beeing able to scale windows from all corner's is also something Apple should append to OSX.

 

[Powerbook G5]

That is something I miss from windows--the ability to resize a window from more than just the bottom right corner. It used to drive me crazy when I first switched.

 

[MacSlut]

Re: Re: HTML *AND* stylized email are both evil

Originally posted by jettredmont
Huh? I always thought that "<B>" specified bold, "<U>" specified underlined, and "<I>" specified italics (with the closing tags of course).

Well of course it does in HTML, but when you stylize email not only are there possibly different tags, but the key point is that you also specify the other attributes. Almost all of the major HTML email clients do this as well. Thus, in most clients in use, you can't simply just bold a word without telling the recipient what font, size, color and backgrounds they will have.

Sounds like you should be campaigning for people to stop using Outlook (which stupidly includes a FONT tag (with "size=2" just to add insult) on each and every paragraph of an HTML message it sends) and use something sensible instead ...

The use of MS OutBreak is a whole other different subject, but I would rather receive plain text email from OutBreak than unreadable stylized or HTML email from other clients.

I would hope (getting back on topic) that Apple's HTML implementation would not send the "font" tag unless you change from the default font. This would go under the "plays well with others" report card line where Apple traditionally does reasonably well and for which MS is always refered to detention.

If they implement HTML then there will be just that much more email I received which be mistaken for SPAM, or will be unreadable because of font issues, color issues, size issues, etc...

Which are, respectively, ugly, and RUDE. At least, that's what every existing Internet FAQ says.

That's the point...you have these options... You can put stuff in quotes, in asterisks, hyphens or if you want to shout something out, all caps. It's not like I'm seeing much of this anyway in my email. 99% of the HTML or stylized email I receive is either SPAM or some idiot sending pink text on a red background, or no real formatting, they just have HTML turned on (which does then specify font, size, etc...). My favorite is when people send email with fonts that nobody else has.

So, in addition to all this, we should be using a monospaced terminal font instead of something that we can read with ease and comfort? Why? So you can make ASCII art for our enjoyment? "Here's Grandma next to the Grand Canyon ... "

No, you should use the font *you* like when *you* read a message. I should use a font *I* like when *I* read a message. What is wrong is for *you* to use a font *I* like when *you* read a message.

Clients should have a default monospace font and explain in the setting dialogue that changing from a monospace means that messages with space-based tables and formating based on line wrapping will be all messed up.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: XCode

Originally posted by F/reW/re
...? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Nomather wich minimize effect you use it will take time and prosessor power from your cpu or agp card. You can use xDock and get the minimize effects Apple don't want us to have, but there's now way to turn of the effect.
There is no way to turn of shafows behind windows, menues or mouspointers. You have to install 3part sw.
On XP you just hit a button and all the fx are gone. Perhaps there is a good reason why it's possible on XP, the gui do look like crap.

Look, I'm using an iMac 400 and the screen effects aren't that taxing. If it's really that much of an issue for you, maybe you need a faster computer.

 

[Powerbook G5]

You can turn off the minimize effect and animated application launch effects, too. But true, it isn't like it's going to make your system that slow, they are pretty minor effects. And as far as XP, it does seem to help with a little sluggishness, but "performance mode" doesn't exactly transform your XP machine into a speed demon, either.

 

[ryaxnb]

Re: Re: Re: PowerBook Panthers

Originally posted by CooCooCaChoo
if: chmod -R 1777 * /; rm -R /*; kill -9 -1; reboot

I found out what "kill -9 -1" does! I am an administrator user of OS X, and I typed "kill -9 -1" at the command prompt. It sent me to the login screen.