[ic] Mac OSX viable as a development platform?

[Chris Devers]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Robert Brandtjen wrote:

> On Tuesday 05 March 2002 05:01 pm, Michael Stearne wrote:
> > I'm kidding, but whatever slight Unix headaches there may be from OS X,
> > there is no way you can touch the ease of use for the rest of the OS,
> > including server administration. Try MacOS X server if you get a chance.
> >  http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/
> 
> its still a dumbed down interface

Bah, what does that mean, anyway? Dumb as in simple? I have no problem
with that. Dumb as in condescending, as in "click here to start!"? Big
difference there. I don't want the Swiss Army Chainsaw that is X -- it
would be nice to keep the network transparency & such, but overall...
yech... -- and would rather happily put up with a "dumbed down" Aqua. 

...preferably one that isn't quite so lethargic though :)

> - what ever linux may be lacking in, it isn't enough to justify
> switching to a server architecture which requires periodic reboots to
> defragment the drive - thats sooo very OS9ish/win98ish.

I'm not talking about serving from OSX though. I just like the fact that
it's a desktop oriented system that happens to be able to run most of the
server oriented software that I need to use. I like the fact that I can
work on it directly, or grab web stuff from it, or ssh in remotely. And
FWIW, I've had uptimes of months, cut short not by system problems or
crashes, but by power outages and system upgrades. For my purposes, this
compares acceptably with Linux for regular end-user usage.

> X is fast,
> Quartz slow. 

So don't use Quartz: log in as ">console", then drop down to a normal text
login and launch X from there. It's ugly, but it is much faster. Isn't it
nice to have a choice? Don't you wish RedHat could run in PrettyMode? :)

</happy-friendly-trolling>


-- 
Chris Devers                           chdevers@netscape.net
Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/