What new features would you like to see?

[azpc]

Updated: 7/30/2015

With OSX El Capitan coming soon what new features would you like to see?

Here is my list:

Larger font size option for the Mac App Store.

Currently the reviews are hard to read on a 27 inch iMac.

Here is an example:

An interface section in System Preferences where interface elements can be changed to meet the needs of Mac owners. Creating an Interface section in System Preferences keeps options from becoming scattered and overwhelming.

Ideally the "General" section of System Preferences should become part of the "Interface" section of System Preferences.

Here are the other options I would like to see in the Interface Section:

System-wide bold text option as suggested by Traverse.​

Translucency settings - Low translucency and high translucency. (Low should be about 50% less translucent than the current setting).​

Transparency On or Off instead of current location in Accessibility.

Mouse Cursor Size instead of current location in Accessibility.

Menu Font Size (Small, Medium - Current Size), Large.

Change colors of the Dock and Sidebars if transparency is turned off. Currently the Dock and Finder Sidebar are an UGLY gray.​

Ability to choose the default function of the green button.​

Remember Window position and size.

Advantage: If you want the window to open at a specific size and location you won't have to drag and resize each and every time you open the app.

If you can drag and resize the app to a location on your screen why can't you tell it to always open there?

Free suggestion to Apple: This option could be accessed by Right clicking the App icon and selecting Get Info. Click the check box if you wish the App the remember its current window size and placement.

Window Snapping like Windows 7 (Aero Snap) as suggested by Dyn. "It's ok-ish the way it is done now in El Capitan but it would be much more useful if it was like Windows."

Comment from WSJ: "The feature is so great, Apple put it in its next version of OS X. But Microsoft’s implementation is better." (Joanna Stern, 7-29-15)

Custom colors for folders. This is a frequent student request on both the Mac and Windows machines. You could assign different folder colors for different types of content.

An uninstall routine similar to App Cleaner. It is amazing how many files are left behind after trashing an App.

When you trash an App it should find and trash all the files related with the App.

Separate iTunes into multiple programs.

Music
Videos
Podcasts
Sync

http://9to5mac.com/2015/07/28/opinion-itunes-nuke-from-orbit/​

Rework Contacts

• Ability to resize the main picture. Currently, it is so small it is almost useless.

• Insert more than one picture into the contact. Example: Picture of family or the front of the house.

• Larger font size options. Currently the fonts are so small many users have to switch glasses when they use Contacts.

• Attach a map to the contact. I should be able to show a map of the location inside Contacts.

• Custom Fields - Not having this is very frustrating. (A common custom field is Christmas List). This field is used to determine who gets a Christmas card.

• Alphabetic selection like iOS - The letter headings on the right side of the contacts. Click on the G group for last names that begin with G. Saves a lot of scrolling time.

​

What is on your list?
_______________________________________________________

Please send Feedback to Apple at:

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

In addition, Tim Cook Apple CEO can be reached at Twitter.

 

[leman]

Remember Window position and size. Advantage: If you want the window to open at a specific size and location you won't have to drag and resize each and every time you open the app.

Ask the developers of the specific apps where you need this functionality to implement it, its quite trivial to do. This already works for apps like Mail etc. Furthermore, you can't really do it as a systemwide setting, as the application code might reset these parameters at any time.

A list of installed Apps with their install date and version number.

It has been there for ages. Check out the System Information.

 

[azpc]

"It has been there for ages. Check out the System Information."

I stand corrected! Thank you!

 

[Shirasaki]

App install uninstall should be highly related to developer, whether windows or OS X. If developer originally don't want you to uninstall their app that easy, they would do everything they could do to reinstall the app even if you clean up app using third party apps.

 

[dyn]

An alternative way for retrieving it would be by rightclicking the app and select "Get info". There you'll find the install date (created) and version number.

When it comes to apps I'd say we need something better than Mac App Store. Something that looks more like the package systems/manager in Linux (apt, yum, etc.) where you can install, update, upgrade and uninstall software. It would also be nice that when uninstalling you could opt-in to remove everything of the app (settings, data).

Another thing I'd like to see in both OS X and iOS is having sharesheets in every app thus also Mail! Having share capability in Mail is crucial since a lot of people use it to put e-mails into their todo and/or notes app. Currently we have to do this via plugins that get broken on each OS X update (even the minor ones). And while we're at it...gpg/pgp support besides certificate support for signing and encrypting e-mail but we very welcome too.

@Shirasaki yes, but it wouldn't do harm if the OS is capable of tracking the software so you have 1 centralised place to manage the software.

Btw, the green button behaviour can also be something the app builder could do. Many apps already have it as the default behaviour (Firefox, PDFPen (Pro), LibreOffice, VMware Fusion, Terminal, Calendar, Visual Studio Code, etc. Some are even ignoring the HIG in this regard for it.

 

[leman]

When it comes to apps I'd say we need something better than Mac App Store. Something that looks more like the package systems/manager in Linux (apt, yum, etc.) where you can install, update, upgrade and uninstall software. It would also be nice that when uninstalling you could opt-in to remove everything of the app (settings, data).

I am curious why you think that Linux package managers are better than App Store. App installs and updates are treated seamlessly by App Store, in a way that is much more convenient than any package manager I am aware of. It can even update some apps while they are open I agree that uninstall process is a bit awkward, but App Store apps can be uninstalled via Launchpad (which will also remove some of the app data). This is indeed something Apple can do better. Ideally, when deleting an app bundle, the system should ask the user whether they also want to delete the related data/settings locations. However, the problem is often to identify these locations in the first place. Not all programs follow Apple's guidelines and I can imagine that automated detection would be potentially exploitable.

If you are talking about having centralised package management for OS X, then I am passionately agains it. Bundles are one of the best design decisions ever and what truly sets OS X apart from all other systems. If you need to use open-source software, there is homebrew, which is an amazing package manager that will not mess up your system.

 

[hojx]

I would think that the things in the list seems to be either against fundamental design of OS X user interface & user experience, or dependent on implementation of individual developers.

 

[KALLT]

About app data, I am curious how Apple does it on iOS. Apps don’t seem to have access to any previous settings when I remove them unless they use iCloud, so the OS seems to remove most if not all the data and I am curious why Apple has not thought about this for OS X. Is it because space is not an issue on OS X, unlike iOS, and people install a lot more apps on iOS, unlike OS X?

Window size and position are already saved when developers use Cocoa window components. For some reason Apple seems to screw this up for some of their own apps, in particular Finder. It used to work flawlessly once. At the moment it is the most aggravating app on OS X.

As for translucency and colour settings: not going to happen. I have been with OS X and iOS since 2008 and I’ve seen a trend of fewer customisation options, not more. When they are purely cosmetic, Apple generally won’t bother.

Please don’t start another debate on the green button.

 

[dyn]

I am curious why you think that Linux package managers are better than App Store.

Linux package systems allow you to install, update and uninstall whereas the MAS only allows you to install and update. If you want to uninstall you have to do it differently and it differs from application to application (it depends on how it got installed). It's not a good user experience to have to resort to deleting stuff via the commandline.

App installs and updates are treated seamlessly by App Store, in a way that is much more convenient than any package manager I am aware of.

That is highly debatable. Ubuntu and many others offer an app store that is just as easy or even easier to use but the app store is only part of a packaging system. What the MAS doesn't offer is proper management of the software. There is no installation history for example (it's in the app "System Information" under Software).

Ideally, when deleting an app bundle, the system should ask the user whether they also want to delete the related data/settings locations. However, the problem is often to identify these locations in the first place. Not all programs follow Apple's guidelines and I can imagine that automated detection would be potentially exploitable.

You don't always want to delete all the related data though. When you simply want to reinstall the app then deleting the app is enough. In cases where you want to completely delete it (purge it) you should have the option to do so. Might be a better idea to have this as an additional option to select since asking for it with each uninstall can be rather annoying.

If you are talking about having centralised package management for OS X, then I am passionately agains it. Bundles are one of the best design decisions ever and what truly sets OS X apart from all other systems.

A centralised package management system is something entirely different then what you describe here. In a centralised package management system it doesn't matter in what form the software comes (bundle, installer, via the MAS, etc.). FreeBSD is a very good example of this. It doesn't matter if things come from their binary repository or from the ports collection. There is 1 place where you can see what is installed, update/upgrade the installed software or uninstall them. That's what OS X needs and that's what OS X has for about 75% in the form of Launchpad and the Mac App Store. We just need something to combine them and add uninstall capability in that. It might even be enough to expand Launchpad with uninstall capability.

If you need to use open-source software, there is homebrew, which is an amazing package manager that will not mess up your system.

Unfortunately those guys are forgetting a key element from the UNIX/Linux world: the FHS. They are abusing the /usr/local for their package manager for single user use. This place is meant for multiuser software and thus a lot of other software out there relies on this. The other problem is them not using sudo, or rather disabling the use of it. That leads to security issues as well as compatibility issues. All just because they can't get it to work where it should in case of single user use: in the users homedir. It's basically a hacked together environment. That doesn't say much good about the quality of their work.

Another thing is that you can't always use it because it doesn't have the packages (it doesn't have that much). If you want to do anything that requires Python then Homebrew isn't an option. The only two options left is doing it yourself or use macports.

Luckily we have multiple package managers for such UNIX/Linux software: Fink, Macports, Homebrew and pkgsrc. You get to pick your poison, ain't that cool? The main issue: we need to have a more user friendly way to install, update, upgrade and uninstall software no matter where it comes from. If done properly even businesses can benefit from it (create packages that can be rolled out, something like munki).

For some reason Apple seems to screw this app for some of their own apps, in particular Finder.

Finder does it more like Windows Explorer does. The view settings are saved for the directory but they are also used when you reuse the window. Apple doesn't screw it up for Finder because it uses something different there (and yes it is quite annoying). Console is a good example of where Apple is screwing it up. Previously that app remembered the window size and position but as of Yosemite it stopped doing that.

 

[azpc]

I would think that the things in the list seems to be either against fundamental design of OS X user interface & user experience, or dependent on implementation of individual developers.

Shouldn't window size and location be with the user?

If you can drag and resize the app to a location on your screen why can't you tell it to always open there?

Uniform uninstall procedure.

App Cleaner is an amazing tool. It is almost unbelievable how many files are left behind after throwing an app in the trashcan.

Apple's reputation is on the line when Macs run slowly, clutter up and develop problems because of junk left behind. The user is not going to blame the developers, he or she will blame Apple. A clean uninstall process is in Apple's benefit. Standardizing the process also makes it easier for the user.

App Store Font Size

Try reading App Store user reviews on a 27 inch iMac. They are not easy to read and I am not an old guy. You ought to see the over 50 crowd struggle reading App Store reviews. They get frustrated and they give up. This hurts developers and Apple.


I don't see how these features are Un-Apple. Instead they are pro Apple, pro user.

 

[leman]

A centralised package management system is something entirely different then what you describe here. In a centralised package management system it doesn't matter in what form the software comes (bundle, installer, via the MAS, etc.). FreeBSD is a very good example of this. It doesn't matter if things come from their binary repository or from the ports collection. There is 1 place where you can see what is installed, update/upgrade the installed software or uninstall them. That's what OS X needs and that's what OS X has for about 75% in the form of Launchpad and the Mac App Store. We just need something to combine them and add uninstall capability in that. It might even be enough to expand Launchpad with uninstall capability.

No! A centralised package management system is the one that is based around a central repository (registry) of either packages or package metadata. Virtually all linux package managers are of this type. If this central repository gets corrupted or you don't maintain it properly you completely lose the overview what is installed in your system and where it is installed. Having your installed software index corrupted because of a crash while running aptitude is no fun. The beauty of OS X's approach is that it avoids all that by having its applications as 'distributed' (by a lack of better word) packages. An app is recognised by the virtue of being an app bundle, as easy as that. No metadata needed. And that is also how launchpad and stuff like that works — they scan the filesystem for app bundles and check which one have been downloaded from app store. No registry needed. Yes, there is a defaults database, but thats a distributed system in the first place.

Unfortunately those guys are forgetting a key element from the UNIX/Linux world: the FHS. They are abusing the /usr/local for their package manager for single user use. This place is meant for multiuser software and thus a lot of other software out there relies on this. The other problem is them not using sudo, or rather disabling the use of it. That leads to security issues as well as compatibility issues. All just because they can't get it to work where it should in case of single user use: in the users homedir. It's basically a hacked together environment. That doesn't say much good about the quality of their work.

I disagree. They are the only ones that treat FHS correctly. I mean, MacPorts and similar blatantly disregard FHS for /opt by installing their random stuff there. At least Homebrew puts software where it is supposed to be - in the /usr/local subtree. And, sure it is designed for single-user systems, because thats how Macs are usually used, clowning the local hierarchy is a very reasonable thing to do. I have been using Homebrew for ages and I have never had any problem with it. With MacPorts, in contrast, I had problems all the time.

Another thing is that you can't always use it because it doesn't have the packages (it doesn't have that much). If you want to do anything that requires Python then Homebrew isn't an option. The only two options left is doing it yourself or use macports.

I have been programming with Python and using tons of different python-based tools using exclusively Homebrew the last two years. I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't remember a single case where I was missing a tool or a package from Homebrew.

 

[azpc]

"As for translucency and colour settings: not going to happen. I have been with OS X and iOS since 2008 and I’ve seen a trend of fewer customisation options, not more. When they are purely cosmetic, Apple generally won’t bother."

As they say in finance "past performance is not always indicative of future performance."

It doesn't hurt to ask, so why not?

Students frequently comment on this issue.

• "How come I can change the colors on Windows but I can't change them on the Mac."
• "This gray is ugly and hard to read. How come I can't change it."
  
• "I don't like background colors showing through, its distracting."
• "I thought the Mac was superior, I can't even change the colors! What type of computer is this!"

MacRumors readers all know that the Mac is a superior computer, however, complaints are often opportunities in disguise. Why not use this information to remember that Macs are personal computers and people have personal preferences?

What is true for watches, iPods, cars etc is true in other areas. People like to have color choices.

 

[KALLT]

It doesn't hurt to ask, so why not?

Ask all you want, but I say that it’s not a realistic request. Apple has effectively killed the theming community over the years. They just don’t prioritise this. You have better chances to see a reversal on the green button.

Finder does it more like Windows Explorer does. The view settings are saved for the directory but they are also used when you reuse the window. Apple doesn't screw it up for Finder because it uses something different there (and yes it is quite annoying). Console is a good example of where Apple is screwing it up. Previously that app remembered the window size and position but as of Yosemite it stopped doing that.

No, Finder is likely bugged. In Yosemite it doesn’t remember the window position consistently and frequently resets the sidebar size as well. It used to work like any other app, i.e. it would remember its window size, its window position, its sidebar width, its preferences per directory. In Yosemite (and also El Capitan) it seems to override the sorting preference when you use the column view. It is aggravating that it does this now, because column view is my predominant view preference and I use different sorting/arrangement preferences for each directory. I remember Finder being less annoying and complicated than that.

—

I personally would like to see Apple following Microsoft in bringing Siri and ProActive to OS X. Microsoft is heavily promoting that intelligence factor in Windows 10 and I’m surprised that Apple is doing nothing in that direction for OS X. Apple has this tendency to be more ambitious with either iOS or OS X in some aspects and then neglects to provide feature parity. I want to use my Mac whenever I like and not be forced to use my iPhone just because it happens to have a feature that my Mac doesn’t. I want more hardware independence.

Overall I feel that Apple and Microsoft are entering an interesting paradigm shift again between truly universal apps and separately compiled apps for Cocoa and Cocoa Touch. If universal apps become popular on Windows 10 and Windows Phone, Apple may have a big problem on their hands.

 

[KALLT]

I disagree. They are the only ones that treat FHS correctly. I mean, MacPorts and similar blatantly disregard FHS for /opt by installing their random stuff there. At least Homebrew puts software where it is supposed to be - in the /usr/local subtree. And, sure it is designed for single-user systems, because thats how Macs are usually used, clowning the local hierarchy is a very reasonable thing to do. I have been using Homebrew for ages and I have never had any problem with it. With MacPorts, in contrast, I had problems all the time.

Homebrew also says this:

1. It’s easier
   /usr/local/bin is already in your PATH.
2. It’s easier
   Tons of build scripts break if their dependencies aren’t in either /usr or /usr/local. We fix this for Homebrew formulae (although we don’t always test for it), but you’ll find that many RubyGems and Python setup scripts break which is something outside our control.
3. It’s safe
   Apple has left this directory for us. Which means there is no /usr/local directory by default, so there is no need to worry about messing up existing tools.

 

[redheeler]

"I don't like background colors showing through, its distracting."

System Preferences > Accessibility > Reduce transparency.

Why not use this information to remember that Macs are personal computers and people have personal preferences?

Next you'll be saying we should have the right to change menu selection colors and status bar/scrollbar colors to more than just Blue & Graphite, as well as the system font to something other than the default. What do you think we're all running, Mac OS 9?

 

[hojx]

Shouldn't window size and location be with the user?

If you can drag and resize the app to a location on your screen why can't you tell it to always open there?

Is it not already there? When I put an app to fullscreen it seems to remember being in fullscreen. Most of my apps open with my previously opened size (can't remember which doesn't). So this seems to be a per-app thing, up to the developer to implement properly.

Uniform uninstall procedure

App Cleaner is an amazing tool. It is almost unbelievable how many files are left behind after throwing an app in the trashcan.

Apple's reputation is on the line when Macs run slowly, clutter up and develop problems because of junk left behind. The user is not going to blame the developers, he or she will blame Apple. A clean uninstall process is in Apple's benefit. Standardizing the process also makes it easier for the user.

I am not against having a "uniform uninstall procedure", but take the typical example of Windows. Sure, there's Control Panel and all to uninstall, but how sure are you that every app is thoroughly clean on uninstall?

A drag from Applications to Trash is really no different from an 'Uninstall' button. It depends on whether the developer leave traces all over your system. Either way people will always complain and blame the OS—it's just human nature and I'm sure Apple can differentiate between constructive criticisms and ranting.

App Store Font Size

Try reading App Store user reviews on a 27 inch iMac. They are not easy to read and I am not an old guy. You ought to see the over 50 crowd struggle reading App Store reviews. They get frustrated and they give up. This hurts developers and Apple.

If you are not okay with the App Store reviews' text size, how good are you with the App Store tab labels, Safari's tab labels? If Apple were to allow all these text size changes, it would go in the direction of Windows's broken implementation of DPI changes.

It is obvious Apple wants you to just change your screen resolution to have consistent text sizes throughout the OS, and the rollout of Retina Displays just makes individual pixels less obvious for scaled resolutions to even matter. I myself am using a higher-than-native resolution because I found the text to be too big on my rMBP.

 

[dyn]

Shouldn't window size and location be with the user?
If you can drag and resize the app to a location on your screen why can't you tell it to always open there?

The application should remember its previous size and location. Doesn't matter if you've set it or something else. Some applications are notorious for not remembering their previous state like Console because the devs messed it up.

App Cleaner is an amazing tool. It is almost unbelievable how many files are left behind after throwing an app in the trashcan.

Apple's reputation is on the line when Macs run slowly, clutter up and develop problems because of junk left behind. The user is not going to blame the developers, he or she will blame Apple. A clean uninstall process is in Apple's benefit. Standardizing the process also makes it easier for the user.

This is not like the registry in Windows that has strange effects when not cleaned up. OS X is far more robust in this area. Usually you don't need to remove it but it is handy if you do, for example, when you install a new version later on that isn't compatible with a previous version. Leftovers can cause the app to misbehave or even crash.

No! A centralised package management system is the one that is based around a central repository (registry) of either packages or package metadata.

Exactly, that isn't what a centralised package management system is at all. You are making the mistake of thinking the software repository is the centralised package management system. The software repository isn't, it's only a centralised place to get your software. A centralised package management system is a system that manages the packages no matter where they come from. It could be the software repository, it could be something else like a separate package. You seriously need to take a look at how FreeBSD does this. This not about some repository, this is about something like dpkg which doesn't use a repository at all.

Having your installed software index corrupted because of a crash while running aptitude is no fun. The beauty of OS X's approach is that it avoids all that by having its applications as 'distributed' (by a lack of better word) packages.

Except that this has got nothing to do with the package at all. This is a problem with how the package manager does things. The underlying apt that is used by aptitude doesn't have that issue nor does FreeBSD and many others.

An app is recognised by the virtue of being an app bundle, as easy as that. No metadata needed. And that is also how launchpad and stuff like that works — they scan the filesystem for app bundles and check which one have been downloaded from app store.

Not entirely since OS X allows for pkg/dpkg files as well as the .app bundles we mostly know. You are not allowed to use .app in all cases. Installation of components in certain areas require the use of pkg/dpkg. The functionality you describe here can be used by a future package manager as well. Better yet, this is already being used for years in package managers like MacUpdate Desktop. It's not like I'm requesting something entirely new. We already have it through 3rd party apps. What I want is something built-in, just like app deletion.

They are the only ones that treat FHS correctly. I mean, MacPorts and similar blatantly disregard FHS for /opt by installing their random stuff there. At least Homebrew puts software where it is supposed to be - in the /usr/local subtree.

Homebrew is a single user system and thus, according to FHS, should be put in the userdir, not in /usr/ as this is for multiuser stuff. Also the FHS clearly states the use of /opt if you can't put it somewhere sane. The way MacPorts uses it is merely debatable but not against the FHS per se. The only one blatantly disregarding all UNIX rules is Homebrew. They see things from a developer point of view instead of a system engineers/system administrators point of view. They hacked together their own dev environment which is fine if you solely use Homebrew and are the only user on the system. That's how it started and that's the environment it is being used and it is also the reason why they are not conforming to the system (they're devs, not sysadmins; sysadmins would use a vm for dev-work instead of their local install: separation of functionality).

Btw, their reasoning for not using sudo and for using /usr/local is hilarious. They cite problems every other package management system for the OS X cli doesn't have. And no, Apple did not leave /usr/local to Homebrew, GPG wants to install there too just like Wireshark and other tools (they follow the FHS).

With MacPorts, in contrast, I had problems all the time.

For me it is Homebrew causing issues because it thinks it should own /usr/local while not recognising the fact that other apps also use this as per recommendation by the FHS.

I have been programming with Python and using tons of different python-based tools using exclusively Homebrew the last two years. I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't remember a single case where I was missing a tool or a package from Homebrew.

Depends on what you use then. Everyone who is doing python development on OS X either uses MacPorts or the built-in python stuff from OS X. You're the first one I've seen using Homebrew for that.

Does it all matter? Not really, you simply pick your own poison. They all have positive and negative sides so do try them out and stick with the one you like best. Just know their weak points as it helps you when troubleshooting (and you're going to have to do that with all of them)! It might be a better idea to continue the discussion in a different thread, we're going a bit too much offtopic here now.

No, Finder is likely bugged. In Yosemite it doesn’t remember the window position consistently and frequently resets the sidebar size as well. It used to work like any other app, i.e. it would remember its window size, its window position, its sidebar width, its preferences per directory. In Yosemite (and also El Capitan) it seems to override the sorting preference when you use the column view. It is aggravating that it does this now, because column view is my predominant view preference and I use different sorting/arrangement preferences for each directory. I remember Finder being less annoying and complicated than that.

Have you checked your system, it sounds like some bug with your install or something? I haven't seen the behaviour you are describing. Finder has been working the same way as it did since 10.3 (I haven't got experience with previous versions).

 

[leman]

Apple's reputation is on the line when Macs run slowly, clutter up and develop problems because of junk left behind. The user is not going to blame the developers, he or she will blame Apple. A clean uninstall process is in Apple's benefit. Standardizing the process also makes it easier for the user.

There is (and there generally can't be) any slowdown with what is left behind. Its usually just a few KB worth of files anyway. It only becomes an issue if you are running out of disk space.

 

[leman]

Exactly, that isn't what a centralised package management system is at all. You are making the mistake of thinking the software repository is the centralised package management system. The software repository isn't, it's only a centralised place to get your software. A centralised package management system is a system that manages the packages no matter where they come from. It could be the software repository, it could be something else like a separate package. You seriously need to take a look at how FreeBSD does this. This not about some repository, this is about something like dpkg which doesn't use a repository at all.

Maybe we are using different terminology here, but for me, a centralised package management is (as is wrote above) one that keeps a central database of packages metadata. Like Debina's apt. AFAIK, it stores the information about the installed packages (which files have been written where) into /var/lib/apt/extended_states. if that information gets corrupted in any way (file system failure, loss of power while writing, bug in apt), you don't know which packages have been installed where. FreeBSD's Portsnap uses a very similar system, but I am not familiar with the technical details. The benefit of the OS X bundles is that there is no install recipe — the locations of the bundle-owned files are encoded in the filesystem itself, because the bundle itself is the root folder.

Not entirely since OS X allows for pkg/dpkg files as well as the .app bundles we mostly know. You are not allowed to use .app in all cases. Installation of components in certain areas require the use of pkg/dpkg.

Yeah, but the OS X packager (pgk/dpkg) is a separate case and normal user applications shouldn't really be distributed as pkg. It is useful for some system utilities and I am using it for bunch of my own tools, but its a rather cheap solution. And package installer is not really a centralised system, because it does not provide uninstalls and updates. It does apparently write install receipts that can potentially be used to uninstall the packages, so it bears some similarity to things like Portsnao and apt.

Btw, their reasoning for not using sudo and for using /usr/local is hilarious. They cite problems every other package management system for the OS X cli doesn't have. And no, Apple did not leave /usr/local to Homebrew, GPG wants to install there too just like Wireshark and other tools (they follow the FHS).

Dunno, I somehow feel easier when I don't have to run a potentially intrusive tool as root. And Homebrew was developed for single-user systems in mind, so it delivers what it promises. Running OS X in a multi-user system is a corner case anyway, but I can imagine that some people needs that. Of course, they would need to find a different solution then. BTW, I have successfully installed and used Homebrew on multi-user system (our department shared machines). Of course, can't install their own tools, but that is the purpose of the shared system anyway. So there is a single administrative account that can install packages.

For me it is Homebrew causing issues because it thinks it should own /usr/local while not recognising the fact that other apps also use this as per recommendation by the FHS.

Homebrewed installations happily coexist with custom-compiled software in /usr/local at my machine.

But I certainly agree with you that everybody should pick their own tools. I prefer Homebrew's approach and also, as a programmer, I consider their design much more elegant and robust than of alternatives. Other people might have other needs. E.g. someone was complaining about installing latest Apache+multiple PHP versions (I don't remember whether in this or another thread). For me these kind of complains sound quite ridiculous because IMO setups like these belong into a virtual machine anyway. But again, as you say, everybody picks their own poison. I prefer one that is more maintainable and gives me less headache

 

[KALLT]

Have you checked your system, it sounds like some bug with your install or something? I haven't seen the behaviour you are describing. Finder has been working the same way as it did since 10.3 (I haven't got experience with previous versions).

Yes, I actually did a clean install for once with Yosemite (without restoring anything), but the problem persisted. Finder is really buggy with its view modes, it used to be better. I remember reading about this on these forums as well, so it’s not an isolated incident.

 

[dyn]

Maybe we are using different terminology here, but for me, a centralised package management is (as is wrote above) one that keeps a central database of packages metadata. Like Debina's apt. AFAIK, it stores the information about the installed packages (which files have been written where) into /var/lib/apt/extended_states. if that information gets corrupted in any way (file system failure, loss of power while writing, bug in apt), you don't know which packages have been installed where. FreeBSD's Portsnap uses a very similar system, but I am not familiar with the technical details. The benefit of the OS X bundles is that there is no install recipe — the locations of the bundle-owned files are encoded in the filesystem itself, because the bundle itself is the root folder.

There are more ways of doing things of course so it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is put into 1 file and using that 1 file can lead to issues. FreeBSD pkgng uses a package database which is automatically backed up. If something goes wrong you can restore it. In a way Launchpad and the MAS are similar. This is more about planning for failure.

Btw, portsnap is only a tool to retrieve the ports collection from the FreeBSD servers and keep the local installation up to date with it. For management of ports there are tools like portmaster and portupgrade. Before portsnap you had to use cvsup (cvs update; they still used cvs instead of subversion, nowadays they use subversion). This was entirely unencrypted, unsigned and it had to retrieve the entire repository instead of just the changes. Portsnap was created to solve these problems. You can still do it completely manually if you so wish (by using subversion instead of cvs thank goodness).

Yeah, but the OS X packager (pgk/dpkg) is a separate case and normal user applications shouldn't really be distributed as pkg. It is useful for some system utilities and I am using it for bunch of my own tools, but its a rather cheap solution. And package installer is not really a centralised system, because it does not provide uninstalls and updates. It does apparently write install receipts that can potentially be used to uninstall the packages, so it bears some similarity to things like Portsnao and apt.

The pkg/dpkg ones in OS X are required when you want/need to install items in different places. Say a launchagent and an app. It also makes life easier for administration of the machine but we have tools for that and I don't think Apple really needs to address this.

The pkg/dpkg is just another method of getting software on your system just as bundles are. What we need is something that can track those methods so we have a good view of what is installed. Next would be a method for uninstalling them. Apple has quite a lot of this already in place as well as the 3rd party uninstall tools. Launchpad already does this for MAS apps, it only needs to do it for non-MAS apps (and preferably give the option to also delete things like prefs). Maybe I should have worded it this way.

Dunno, I somehow feel easier when I don't have to run a potentially intrusive tool as root.

The sudo part is actually only required when installing the software to its final destination; it's not necessary for configuring and compiling it so I'll give them that. It's not like you can't do this with MacPorts btw, you can configure, then compile and then move it to its final destination by hand. That way you only need to use sudo for moving it to its destination. On the other hand, there are many other ways of rooting a machine and injecting malware. In the end most of us are simply compiling the code without having reviewed it first.

I prefer one that is more maintainable and gives me less headache

Indeed and that's also the reason why I'd like to see 1 place for software management. The add/remove programs thing in Control Panel was actually a smart move by Microsoft.

 

[leman]

There are more ways of doing things of course so it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is put into 1 file and using that 1 file can lead to issues.

I am just pointing out that storing package/software install metadata in a separate location is a design flaw, IMO. App bundles avoid this elegantly by being their own metadata.

The pkg/dpkg ones in OS X are required when you want/need to install items in different places. Say a launchagent and an app. It also makes life easier for administration of the machine but we have tools for that and I don't think Apple really needs to address this.

Nope. The pkg/dpkg are almost never really necessary in practice. Bundles are the way to go. You can use various APIs and privileged helpers to install launch daemons or link command line tools. Look up SMJobBless() for instance. In fact, Apple manages to put the entire server infrastructure into an app bundle! People use OS X packages mostly because its a lazy way to do things.

The sudo part is actually only required when installing the software to its final destination; it's not necessary for configuring and compiling it so I'll give them that.

Thats what I am talking about. I had open-source installers overwriting stuff in /bin before. Sure, my stupid careless mistake for not checking the install script in the first place, but installing as a local user gives me an additional peace of mind.

 

[bladerunner2000]

List of things Apple needs to implement:

• Quarter screen size window snapping via hot corners
• New standalone mp3 player application STRICTLY for music only (itunes is a bloated mess)
• MKV playback support in Quicktime
• Green button MUST have the option to fill the screen without hiding the dock or file menu (by far the biggest problem)
• Finder needs to implement cut/paste (ridiculous this hasn't been done yet)
• Labeled/tagged files displayed in Finder need to be completely highlighted with primary tag, the single dots are difficult to see (why was this ever implemented?)
• 'Go up a level' in Finder should be added (go backwards doesn't always apply)
• Bring back coloured icons in finder sidebar (desaturated icons are difficult to distinguish)
• Complete OpenGL support
• Ability to turn off mouse acceleration (seriously TERRIBLE for gaming but regular use too)

 

[Ritsuka]

New standalone mp3 player application STRICTLY for music only (itunes is a bloated mess)

You can disable almost everything in iTunes and use it only for music. That's what I do

implement cut/paste (ridiculous this hasn't been done yet)

It already implemented. Cmd-C and Alt-Cmd-V

'Go up a level' in Finder should be added (go backwards doesn't always apply)

You can use the keyboard shortcut Cmd-Up, or right click on the windows title, or the path bar.

Ability to turn off mouse acceleration (seriously TERRIBLE for gaming but regular use too)[

I use SmoothMouse for that. It's free. But on a big monitor I prefer the OS X standard acceleration.

 

[bladerunner2000]

You can disable almost everything in iTunes and use it only for music. That's what I do

iTunes is still bloated.

It already implemented. Cmd-C and Alt-Cmd-V

Is this in Yosemite or El Capitan?

You can use the keyboard shortcut Cmd-Up, or right click on the windows title, or the path bar.

It needs to be a button next to the backwards/forwards buttons.

I use SmoothMouse for that. It's free. But on a big monitor I prefer the OS X standard acceleration.

You shouldn't have to download these apps though, mouse acceleration is widely disliked.