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.
Received on Sun Jul 29 2001 - 21:16:03 BST