crapping rainbows in your brain

While I agree totally about XP, what's wrong w/ Win2k? I'd say Win2k is the best OS they ever wrote (or are ever going to write). Though I guess that's not saying a whole lot.

Not really sure what you meant w/ that last comment either, unless you were talking about the major labels. But I thought you didn't buy from them anymore?

Actually now that I think of it, I wonder if this would run in WINE under Linux. Somehow I doubt it, but that'd be friggen cool. Anyway, Annette and I are having a blast sharing our music finally on our network. Now we just need to buy some more speakers to wire the house w/ music. :)

From:

i knew I'd get a comment from you...

i don't know how much 2000 is, but I doubt I wanna pay for it.

Rosemary, unfortunately, listens to lesbian folk-rock(well not only that, but mostly)... You know chyck singers....

I do like maybe Tori Amos and Bjork, but that's it...

Plus our computers are in one room, so sharing over a network, doesn't really matter much(well, I suppose if we wanted to listent to different music on headphones or something)

I'm just a little frustrated, and I guess it's ultimately, not so much about itunes/apple as it is about the path that's going to occur. The "upgrade" path. Considering official support for Win98 is over(not that i use it), but that means that only xp and servers are supported now(2000 I think will be officially kaput by 2005, conveniently, just in time for "Longhorn")

I really would like to go mac eventually(not completely, because I still need a pc to fuck around with, ya know, I like the freedom a pc brings... I can do things on the mac too, like yellow-dog linux or whatever, but bah...
i'm babbling)

I guess I'm frustrated at the shape of OS's and their demographics right now.

I think linux has a chance, if only..... If they get some sort of universal-binary installation format/routing down.

To me, that's the only thing holding it back. Cross-distribution applications that can be installed easily. But that's a tall order when you consider all the fucking dynamic libraries required.

Does OSX have issues with library installations? Do you know how OSX deals with dynamic libs? Or is all mac software statically linked? I'm interested in seeing how that works. It may provide a clue to linux on how to make a mass-market approach for software installation(i know, linux, like macs aren't really for mass-market, but damn if some people aren't trying. 'cept for the fact that they keep using proprietary means(a la: Lindows and their "click-n-run" suite of software)

Anwyays, if you have any info on how macs do it, I think it'd be interesting.(I mean, do they like Doggy-style or what? bad joke, I know I know)

From:

I agree w/ the direction of XP. I could have gotten XP from work, but I chose 2000 instead simply because of what you meantioned. And the last I heard Longhorn won't be out till 2006. I have no idea what MS is thinking. I guess that's what happens when you have a monopoly. Of course, if you ever need 2k...

You know I'm a Mac guy and an probably biased, but OS X rocks my world. I am so looking forward to 10.3 I can't stand it. And to think I didn't like it at first (old habits die hard). Thankfully each OS upgrade thus far has gotten more stable, faster, and added features I actually want and need, and none that I don't.

As for the dynamic libs and whatnot, I'm not really sure what you mean, I'm not that experienced w/ installing stuff on Linux. As for how software installation works on a Mac, it's pretty easy. Drag the app from the CD to where you want it on you hard drive. That's it. If you want to delete it, you drag the app to the trash. The entire app is deleted. It's really very cool, no installating dialogues or uninstallers to worry about.

This is because Mac apps are based on what are known as "packages". Basically apps are actually folders with an execution bit set on them. All of the info for an app is held in this folder, which you can view whenever you want. But since the execution bit is set, instead of opening the folder when you double click it, it launches the program. Thus install and uninstall is just a matter of draging and droping on thing.

If you want to go beyond just standard mac apps, then yes sometimes you have to add certian things. Java comes standard and is updated w/ system updates so you don't have to worry about that, but if you want to run any X11 apps you need to download and install X11. But once you install it you can run basically any X11 app. For example I run OpenOffice in X11 to use Word docs. If you dig deaper and need to install, say, Perl apps like I tried once before, you may need to install other Perl libraries that didn't come w/ OS X.

So I guess how far you want to dig into the OS depends on how much custom stuff you need to do and how dirty your hands get. But 95% of the time, it "just works" and is super easy like my example above. But that's the entire idea of the platform. It's sorta brilliant if you stop to think about it.

I hope I answered what you were asking. If not, let me know, i can try to explain further.

From:

Dynamic libraries are a way of linking code. Say you write a program. When you compile a program, it compiles the source code, and all the headers. Then it "links" each compiled portion together.

During this process, I'm not sure how it all works out, some of this code can be considered libraries. Or you can include a library header in your software(of a precompiled library) The compiler then links(well, technically, I suppose it would be the linker) would link your compiled library object file, and link it into your code.

If it's statically linked, it means that the code for the library is linked into your program, and you can load that program anywhere, anytime. As long as it's on the correct OS(duh)... You don't have to check for dependencies on what version of a library you have. You don't have to have an external library object file.

If you look at a *nix directory structure, you'll see in the hierarchy "/lib" and "/usr/lib" for example.

These directories contain the object files(usually with the suffix ".so" meaning Shared Object) that a dynamically linked program uses.

If you have a dynamically linked program, it means that you have to make sure that you have the proper libraries and version number installed on your system.

The advantage to this is that the library is separated from your executable code, and it cuts down on file size. And it also allows for better re-usability, since you can then have multiple programs that use the same library, and instead of that library code being copied into each program, it's only on your system once, and when the computer runs the program, it basically links(maybe I'm not quite correct in how it works) on the fly the libraries it's supposed to. If you don't have the library on your system, it won't run... Usually the installer(in the case of Red Hat and derivatives, for example, the Package Manager should let you know that a program won't install until all of it's (library)dependencies are fulfilled...)

I understand the advantage to having dynamic libraries, and it's pretty much the standard, but it's a real pain in the ass when it comes to managing and updating software, you have to make sure to get all the proper versions of the libraries.

M$ has what's called .DLL files, which are basically the same thing as a .so on linux...

I don't know the process for macs. At first thought it sounded like the program is statically linked, and you don't have to worry about dependencies. But maybe they have dynamic libraries, but the installation routine(? not sure that's the proper term considering how you described the process) includes the versions of the libraries you need(on linux, you have to find them yourself, many times) in the folder...

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed by the concept of software installation on the macs. I can see how, for a new user, that it's pretty intuitive... For me, had you not explained it, I would've been confused as fuck, looking for some sort of "install" or "setup" executable.

Maybe someone can implement a process similar to that for Linux... I wonder how they do it though... If it's based on BSD, what sort of internal mechanisms do they utilize? I'm sure it's in the abstraction layer(I forget what's what and how they have their layers setup)...

But that's what fucking linux needs. Or at least one distribution. I think one distro needs to have some sort of standardized file hierarchy system(which you've seen me bitch about before many times), and a universal installation interface. Maybe not necessarily as simple as the mac, but certainly as simple as Windows setup.

But I think it might require a huge change. If only I had the skill and time and willpower to do such a thing... I would readily devote my life to figuring out a process such as this.

I don't. sigh.

From:

Yeah, the "install" process for OS X really threw me for a loop when I first experienced it. It just didn't seem like I was really installing anything, rather just dragging an app to my HD. Now that I'm used to the idea, and I have to go through installers on Windows, I can't imagine any other way of doing it. It's great because I don't have to worry about stepping on any other apps toes if I decide to delete something. And I don't have to worry about if an app will work or not, I just know it will.

There are some apps that still have installers. Photoshop is one for example. Usually these programs write to the Library folder (which is different from /usr/lib) that hold some application support files for certain apps. Most apps don't do this however. Usually the only thing outside of the app package itself that the app writes is the preferences file, which is stored in the Library folder. This is not deleted obviously if you delete the app, which is nice, because if you ever decide to reinstall the app, all of your previous preferences are still set.

Apple had a similar thing to what you were talking about for Win and Linux back in the OS 9 days, though it wasn't as complex. It could be just as madening however. They were called Extensions. Apple had the idea of using Extensions to the OS to add functionality that a bunch of apps could use. For example, the Quicktime extention so apps could have QT functionality built into them though use of the extension. Problem was, people figured out how to write their own extensions, and many apps started using them. They also started conflicting with each other, and could cause all sorts of problems. If you disabled or deleted the wrong extension, then certain apps couldn't load w/out them. It was really a mess.

Apple's done away w/ that in OS X. This obviously limits some things, but also makes everything much more smooth. I obviously don't know exactly how it all works, but I think the idea is that any updates to what is available comes w/ the various OS updates. Thus you see programs that say they require at least OS 10.2.4 to run for example.

Like I said, for the more Unixish stuff, there may be some installing of various things to do. OS X comes w/ a pretty robust BSD, but it doesn't have everything a hardcore Unix user might want. It doesn't come w/ every CPAN module for Perl (tho what OS does), and the Samba it comes w/ it fairly vanilla (so I installed the full version of Samba off the web). These are all fairly easy to install though if you need them. But like I said, the main OS is solid.

By the way, if you ever do get a mac, it comes w/ its own kick ass development toolkit, called Xcode (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/). Check it out, it does some pretty kick ass stuff. Their other toolsets they have (like Interface Builder, etc) are awesome. They're all free too.

I agree w/ you about Linux. I love linux as an idea and even as an OS, but the hastles involved of getting it up and running and getting it to where *I* want it to be are just not worth it to me. I don't have that kind of time, I'd rather be getting real work done. If they had something as easy to use as MacOS (I won't say Windows because I don't think its easy or robust enough), or even if it was close, I'd consider using it on a secondary PC. As it stands however, I don't think I could use it for much more than a server. Desktop wise, they have a long way to go. Luckly, since Longhorn won't be out till '06, they got a few years to work some of those issues out.

From:

thaumaturge.livejournal.com

it doesn't really make sense for Apple to support an OS that Microsoft themselves no longer support.

98 was crap, through and through. Me was worse. They finally got something right with XP, though.

From:

true.

xp may be more stable, but I strongly detest the hardware checking routines... I mean, if I want complete freedom, i suppose I should just go linux now and never look back, but damn, those games.

If the anti-freedom aspects of XP wasn't so strong and big-brother like, I'd probably give it a whirl. But it's just too much for me to really respect. sigh.

From:

thaumaturge.livejournal.com

I haven't noticed any 'hardware-checking routines.' I mean, I copied XP Pro from someone else's copy and it hasn't complained. Hardware detection, driver management, etc. is all SO much better than anything 98's offered. And it actually supports a decent FS with file permissions, real multi-user support, etc. And you can turn off all the fancy GUI candy, of course.

I honestly don't know too much about this hardware-checking stuff. It's never caused me any problems. If I look at the "Hardware Profiles" option under system properties, it looks as if it just lets you maintain different driver sets that you can select at boot, if you're in the habit of changing hardware a lot? It says, "You can set up hardware profiles for different hardware configurations. At startup, you can choose the profile you want to use." Doesn't look too menacing to me...

From:

I don't know how it all works, but my understanding is that the installation routine has some sort of hardware check built into it. I don't know if data is sent upstream to M$ servers or what, but somehow, when you install the same copy of XP onto either your system or a different system, it notes that. I believe that if you have the exact same hardware when you install, it doesn't count as a "strike" against you, but if you either upgrade your hardware, or install it on a new system, you get a mark somehow... And after like 5 times, you can no longer install XP. For the average home user, it's probably not a problem, but for someone who likes to upgrade a lot or someone who, for example, wants to pirate it, it's a pain in the ass.

Supposedly a friend of mine has a cracked copy of XP, but I don't know if I trust it enough to install it.

I really don't know the exact details of this hardware-checking thing, but that's the basics of it as I understand it.

From:

I didn't even know iTunes was available for anything other than Mac. Why would you even want to use it? I use it because I have a Mac and it came bundled. Is it really better than any other MP3-playing programs out there?

From:

thaumaturge.livejournal.com

But it's not an mp3-playing program. That's more of a secondary feature, if anything. It's an online music store.

From:

iTunes is an MP3-playing program. I have had it for years. The iTunes music store was only introduced in the last 6 months or so. Yes, you use iTunes to access the iTunes Music Store, but the Store is certainly not the central feature. I have never even gone to the Store to download anything, and have been using iTunes just fine to play all (almost 3,000) my MP3s since I've owned a Mac. Its main features are listening to MP3s, accessing internet radio stations conveniently, and burning CDs.

From:

A lot people think its the best (of which I am one). For apple though, it's a way to sell iPods. They actually don't make money on the music store, but make a lot off the residual iPod sales. So it's really a loss leader for them.

From:

Yeah, I like it a lot too. But I didn't realize it outdid any Windows equivalent. I guess it makes sense they are offereing it for Windows now... for the iPod factor, as you mentioned. At least Apple is making money on something. I think they deserve it, for once.

From:

from what I read in a basic review of this first version, it's quite choppy and uses a lot of system resources. So it's probably not the best as an mp3 player, but for a music store, I suppose it's probably pretty good.

MusicMatch has a similar service now, so I might try that(AND it works with Win98SE(which I have))

From: