The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again, Part 2

Wow! Last week's OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again article certainly precipitated a tsunami of mail. A few respondents agreed with me; the largest proportion were critical. You can read them below.

But before you do, permit me to address some of the criticisms you will find therein.

First, I have used OS X - not a lot, but my son has been running it on his Lombard PowerBook since the developer preview builds of early 2000. It's been his main working system since the public beta was released last summer, so I have a fairly extensive and comprehensive reference to draw on.

Secondly, I am aware that there are actually lines of code hidden under the iconic structure of the Classic Mac OS Finder. I know about Open Firmware (I've never actually done anything with it). I have had MacsBug installed on all of my Macs since my 1974 LC 520; I occasionally use it to retrieve unsaved text after a crash, which involves a bit of command line entry, so I'm not completely uninitiated in CL mumbo jumbo.

As to the issue of the Classic Mac OS GUI being a "shell" on top of the underlying code, I suppose it could be described that way, but the point that I was asserting in the previous article is that the old Mac OS was written from the get-go with GUI as an integrated element. OS X Aqua is much more of a "shell" in the sense that the underlying Unix code was developed separately, with Aqua added later.

I freely admit that I can only conceptualize these things quite broadly and generally. I'm not a programmer. However, Marc Zeedar, whose comments about OS X inspired my latest curmudgeonly musings, is a programmer and the author of the cool, nonlinear, Z-Write word processor. He has arrived at a similar conceptualization.

In short, OS X is simply not, and cannot be expected to be, as slickly and seamlessly integrated shell-to-kernel (to use Unix terminology) as the old Mac OS.

As for my comment about the Classic Mac OS being harder to break, of course if you trash the System file or the Finder or one of the other key files, you can break it. Duh. The point I was attempting to make is that if one does break it in such a manner, it can easily be fixed by simply dragging in the missing component from somewhere else, or, if that's not practical, in doing a custom install of just the missing components. As I understand it, this is not the case with Mac OS X (I invite correction if I'm mistaken) and the minimum you can get away with it is a reinstall of one of four modules each containing dozens or hundreds (or thousands?) of files.

One of the reasons I'm a bit hazy on these points is that I haven't been able to get OS X to install at all on my WallStreet PowerBook, which I suppose has jaundiced my perspective on the new system somewhat. Before dashing off an email telling me what I'm doing wrong, please read the article I wrote for MacOpinion on the topic. If you can think of anything we haven't tried, I'd be glad to hear about it, but we've covered the obvious stuff. I have subsequently done a complete reformat of the hard drive, and OS X still refuses to install. SuSE Linux, on the other hand, installed without a hitch.

A particularly felicitous quality of the classic Mac OS is that you can make up a quick and dirty boot disk by simply dragging the System file, Finder, a couple of other key files, and whatever control panels and extensions you need to, say, a Zip disk. I did this when I reformatted my hard drive several weeks ago as insurance, as we were not sure whether the WallStreet's refusal to boot from the OS X install CD was a glitch in the PowerBook's CD-ROM drive or not. It was not; the 'Book boots fine from an OS 9 install CD, but it also booted right up from my cobbled-up OS 9.1 on the Zip disk. Of course, you couldn't get OS X on a Zip disk, even if it would drag.

I am going to miss this sort of flexibility. Last spring, I installed the OS 9.0.4 upgrade on top of my OS 9.0 installation. Mac OS 9.0.4 was not a happy camper on my WallStreet, and after several days of relentless crashing, I decided to revert to OS 9.0. However, I didn't want to go through the hassle of a complete system reinstall, so I just opened Extensions Manager, identified all the files labeled OS 9.0.4, and dragged them to the Trash. I then booted from the OS 9 install CD and ran the installer. This worked fine, and I was back to OS 9.0 with a minimum of fuss and bother. I don't think we will be able to do stuff like that with OS X.

For one thing, there are so many tiny little files, most with unintelligible names. When I trashed the OS X system we tried dragging files onto my WallStreet (it didn't work, and yes, we used ResEdit to find all the invisible files), I recall that there were more than 33,000 of the little critters that went to the dumpster. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto.

As I said in the previous column, I'm not really interested in engaging in polemics with OS X lovers. If you like OS X, I'm genuinely happy for you. My son thinks it is great.

Maybe I'll eventually learn to like it, too, but I'm not holding my breath. When I get my next Mac, I will certainly install OS X and play with it, but until it will do everything I need it to do faster and better and slicker than OS 9.1 does, I'm not interested in switching. It would be illogical to do so.

Stability? At this writing, I haven't restarted my PowerBook for more than a week (I'm not precisely sure of the date of my last restart ). I am up to "Untitled 140" in Tex Edit Plus documents. The 'Book has been running steadily ten hours a day. I've had 20 or upwards applications open throughout, although Mozilla has crashed on me three or four times, requiring MacsBug force quits. ViaVoice has run out of memory once, and several other applications have "unexpectedly quit" over the week, but OS 9.1 is still gamely plugging along, in spite of all these insults, with no signs yet of the flakiness that usually portends a Finder crash. OS X may be more stable, but I don't have any serious stability problems with OS 9.1.

Like I said, I'll switch when I perceive a compelling reason to do so.

Thanks to everyone who wrote. I thought all the letters made some interesting points.

MR Mailbag

From Bill Jagitsch

Subject: Re: The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again

Your article has some valid points, all of which I believe will be moot within 6-9 months.

1. Drag installing Classic Mac OS - true this makes it infinitely easier to install than any other OS on the planet, but really, what's the big deal with waiting an extra 10 minutes while OS X loads from a CD? I installed X on a 250 MHz 7500 with a PowerLogix G3 card in about 20 minutes. OS 9 drag install took 10 minutes.
2. Command line "hieroglyphics" - if you check Version Tracker, there are dozens of apps released each week that perform what were command line tasks in the GUI - just as I predicted back in '97 when everyone suddenly had heart attacks because the Mac OS now had the oh-so-horrible-and-scary command line interface. There are so many users like yourself who are either lazy or afraid to learn 20-30 simple commands that the hackers out there can make shareware money off of, so I wouldn't worry about it.
3. Hard to break classic Mac OS? Hmmm, which classic Mac OS are you using that's so hard to break? All you have to do is remove either the Finder, the System kernel, the appearance extension and about 4 other components (just removing one of any of these) and you no longer have a bootable system.
4. If you don't like X, don't use it. There are still Luddites out there who use System 6 and 7 exclusively, so you won't be without sympathy or company. Your current OS 9 apps won't suddenly stop working after X ships on every Mac. Your older Macs that either cannot run X or that are not supported running X will not suddenly cease to work when every Mac ships with X. Just pretend X doesn't exist, and I think you'll sleep better at night.

JAG

---

From Barry Wall

Subject: We feel your pain...

I wish Apple had spent more time on the GUI of X than they did. They knew they had to keep deadlines due to the sins of the past, and the interface suffered, that much is clear. I have to believe that the Mac GUI will evolve back to it's roots with regard to Finder functions like the drag'n drop install and having it "always on" at the desktop level. Right now the real demon to fight is the kludgy performance of X, especially in low-RAM system configurations.

Why Apple would make a Mac that doesn't even meet it's own stated minimum specs for installed RAM for it's shiny new OS is beyond me. X, as you know, requires 128 MB; three Macs ship with 64 MB still. (Two preconfigured iMacs and the low-end iBook ship with 64 by default.) RAM prices are very low right now; there is no excuse for every Mac to not have 512 MB built in off the assembly line, 256 at a minimum (That give X 128 and applications some room to breath.)

Who the heck is going to buy a Mac and pay the premium price when it takes 30 seconds for it to open the browser in 64 MB machine under OS X? (I exaggerate only slightly...)

BW

---

From Robert Jung

Subject: Re: The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again

You wrote:

I'm not the village idiot, and I don't doubt that I could learn this stuff if I wanted to and had the time. I don't, in either case, and I am more than a little disgruntled at being dragooned into doing so.

So how is learning Mac OS X's directory structure, or some basic Unix commands, or the fundamentals of permission control, any different than learning about using ResEdit, or debugging extension conflicts, or "blessing" a System folder in Mac OS Classic?

Truth is, it isn't. Both operating systems have their own arcane (to a new user) requirements and secret tricks. Yet I'll wager that you didn't consider yourself "dragooned" into learning the tweaks and tricks of Classic, were you? So what's the difference when it comes to Mac OS X, other than because (a) it's different and (b) your old tricks don't work any more?

-R.J.
B-)

---

From Michel Benevento

Subject: Re: The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles

Mr Moore,

It's silly (not to mention stupid) to think that just because you are unable to see any low level system feedback in the Classic Mac OS, it's any less complex than Unix or Windows.

Apparently, you believe that the icons and windows in the Classic Mac OS are physically present inside your computer enclosure. Not so. In fact, the Classic Mac OS is also a graphical shell around a low level character based system (even seen macsbug?). Sorry to bust your bubble. Also, messing around with a multitude of the files in the Classic System Folder will easily break your system every time.

What OS X brings is the ability to intervene, but it's never required. You don't even have to log in or need to have any root access by default and are thus protected from messing up your system. So please stop complaining about having to learn CLI or Unix (you don't) and refrain from writing any more of these poorly informed, sentimental articles.

Regards,
Michel Benevento

---

From Robert Schwarz

Subject: OS X Grumbles...

I know Unix, but so far I haven't had to use any Unix since I loaded up OS X. Apple thoughtfully provided GUI versions of most commands you might use from a command line. Also, if you try to move a folder that OS X needs, I have found (so far) that you are either forbidden to move it (can't even get rid of a LATE BREAKING NEWS text file despite repeated attempts), or OS X will recreate it when needed.

I'm very impressed with OS X so far.

Rob Schwarz

---

From David Chilstrom

Subject: Re: The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again

I'd like to address some of the points you make, as I think they are based in some measure of misunderstanding. You state that "Aqua is essentially a graphical shell running on top of the Unix, unlike the classic Mac OS in which the graphical interface is fully integrated with the underlying file structure." The lack of an alternate command line interface in OS 9 makes the graphical interface of OS 9 no more "fully integrated" than Aqua is in OS X. OS X needn't have any command line tools available to be completely functional and capable of fully manipulating the "underlying file structure" as well as OS 9 does.

One significant difference, however, is that tinkering with the System Folder is not permitted at the Finder level. This is a good thing, in my view (where I value system stability much more highly than freedom to hack the System), and actually makes System maintenance a complete no brainer. While drag and drop install of the System is currently not doable in OS X, neither is the much more frequent task of drag and drop installation of most applications under OS 9. In this regard, OS X's application packages are much more user friendly. Drag and drop application install is the norm in OS X. It brings back fond memories of the good old days.

While you may find the Classic Mac OS "extremely flexible, tolerant, and forgiving," I make a living by understanding extension voodoo and the myriad interacting factors that cause Macs to go boom. Even with extensions pared to the bare minimum needed, I'm continually dumbfounded at how computers rebooted daily, regularly can't hold up for 8 hours. I wouldn't call OS X a rock, but a handful of crashes since September for an always on PowerBook beats the heck out of OS 9.

You state that "It is hard to break the classic Mac OS by messing around it." As I stated earlier, the user can't mess with the System folder in OS X at all. In OS 9, you can easily break the System by dragging the System file or Finder out of the System Folder. Less catastrophic would be unintentionally removing fonts, control panels, extensions, preferences, etc. Installing a single misbehaving extension can bring OS 9 to its knees. Breaking OS 9 is trivial compared to the effort required to destabilize OS X.

As for freedom and flexibility, we've already seen early hacks that add a traditional Apple and Application menu, change the Dock orientation, etc., and more arrive weekly. For those who prefer, OS X offers an alternate command line interface, a flexibility forbidden by the otherwise "tolerant and forgiving" OS 9.

The fundamental multi-user nature of OS X does bring a new factor into the Mac experience. On the one hand, it vastly improves the experience of sharing a Mac between two or more users. On the other hand, even the GUI bound owner doesn't have carte blanche to mess with the System at will. While system stability issues are critical in a multi-user context (yes, I care that you hosed the system and trashed all my files!), your screw ups on your computer are a less critical issue. Nonetheless, the multi-user necessity of the utmost system stability possible, yields a substantial benefit to the lone user.

Using a car analogy, I suppose it's the difference between the highly tinkerable Classic bug vs. the computer controlled VW of today. Which is better? It depends on your values. For those who prefer to get under the hood, OS 9 has legs for a few years yet.

Regards,
David Chilstrom

---

From Mel

Subject: re: OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again

I really enjoyed reading your article regarding OS X. I agree with every point you said about it.

It seems Apple is really missing the point in so far as us regular people, who are not programming freaks, can and could tweak all of the versions of Classic Mac OS with reckless abandon and not have anything major go wrong with it.

While I agree that OS X has a pretty interface, I would absolutely hate having to go down into the command line to fix something that went wrong, or worst call some techie to do it for me, which means wasted time, wasted money, lost productivity, and all that while you're hanging around waiting.

This kind of reminds me to of the BeOS which I have run on my PowerCenter. Nice interface, but with a Unix-like command line running underneath it. However, from what I have been reading so far, it seems BeOS (on Power Macs at least) seems to be easier to manipulate over Mac OS X. I have not had much experience with Mac OS X except for playing with it at my local CompUSA store.

I do plan on buying a G4 tower soon, and I guess now I will be forced to take it with OS X. I guess I better hurry, because the good thing is that OS 9.1 will also be there and set up as the default OS. I had planned on buying a G4 before July so I could only get OS 9.1 and not have to bother with OS X sitting on the same hard drive. I would rather have OS X boot off a separate, external drive vs. residing on the same drive as 9.1.

Regardless, I am still planning to buy a new G4 just so that I have a computer that can run both. 9.1 to continue using my present applications and, of course, OS X to slowly migrate to the future.

I will never forget classic Mac OS's because I have too many older Macs lying around my little apartment that will make me remember. I love them all because they all have the neat things that they can do with whatever classic Mac OS that is installed in them.

Keep up the good work here. People need to read both sides of the OS story and not be brainwashed by the stuff that comes out from only Apple and Steve Jobs. Older Mac OS's are great and will remain great for as long as there are users like me willing to use them.

MEL

---

From: Pete Ottman

Subject: Linux

Hi,

When I read you were going to install Linux, I wondered if you would do what I did when I did this a few years ago on the first PC I ever built, and it seems you had a similar reaction. After I got it installed and running, I played with it about a half hour and went back to my Mac for the rest of the night. Linux may be a bag of chips and all that, but it isn't for the normal computer user.

As for OS X, I have no experience with it, but I can offer a thought or two. Yes, it isn't the traditional Mac OS. Yes, it is a shell on top of Unix. But if Apple does its job, 98-99% of the time we won't care. Again, as long as Apple does its job correctly, that 1% of the time when it doesn't perform and the system starts floating belly up, the situation will be a lot better than the traditional Mac OS and a poorly written program taking a system down a few times an hour. At least I hope it will be a better situation.

Thanks,
Pete Ottman

---

From: Jack Shedd

Subject: A Note On Classic...

Charles,

While I can understand your frustration, I don't believe you really understand Mac OS X or how classic was actually built.

First, Classic is no different then OS X in it's GUI. Hit the "Programmer's Button" on a new Mac, and you'll see the Terminal for classic. Better know as Open Firmware, it is essentially DOS for the Macintosh, only a thousand times more archaic. Compared to OF, Unix is ***ing AppleScript.

Most Mac users ignore this facet of Classic, and, especially now, it's understandable. People being people will always cling to familiar ground, and highlight the days when "prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders."

There is no way, either now, nor in the future, to develop an OS that is entirely graphical. A CLI has to be available and always has been on Macs. Most people just don't know how to get to it, and, unlike Unix, it's so poorly documented unless you are a developer, it's worthless.

Also, 90% of the "fix my system" you worry about is largely resolved with OS X. All of the things that BROKE classic are no longer in OS X, and, if something should arise, DRAG and DROP still applies!

Just my two cents.

Jack Shedd

---

From xpurple

Subject: The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again

I agree with you in part. Most people don't want to deal with all the hoopla involved with Unix. I do tech support for a living, I already know what's going to happen soon. Lots and lots of calls to Apple's tech support with good questions.

They do hide the Unix pretty well. In all reality there is no reason why the average OS X user will ever have to deal with it. Sure, they could if they wanted to, but they don't actually need to. Ever.

By default even the superuser (root) account is locked out in the final release. I had to break into my own machine just to get full access to that account. This should stop a lot of people from causing havoc.

Security is important even if you are as isolated as you say you are. Especially since you are running a server OS. Lots of script kiddies out there would love to break into your computers just to trade warez, DoS someone, or whatever turns them on.

You would be surprised how many attempted attacks I get, and I'm on a dialup account.

Again I'd like to point out that your right. Most users don't want, or need to deal with this. Also that OS X doesn't seem to be nearly as refined as Classic. That should improve with time.

In case your wondering, I'm a Unix/Mac geek.

Thank you :)

From Marc Blaydoe

---

Subject: OS X

Charles,

Read your interesting article "The OS X Curmudgeon Grumbles Again." I think both you and Marc Zeedar are missing a relatively important point: the Unix/CLI underpinnings of OS X are completely hidden from the user (unless the user WANTS to access the CLI). Your article makes it sound like the CLI is unavoidable.

I have been playing with OS X for a while. I have not used the CLI once. To be honest, the CLI in all pre-X OSs is only a programmer button push away. I used to use it to get around program bombs, and it came in very handy. I would have to say that the GUI is as integrated into OS X as it ever was in any prior OS, particularly with OpenGL and .pdf for display. The bundling idea that makes the separate files look like one file is a masterstroke in making Unix complexity simpler for the average user. Networking is as simple or complex as you need it to be: from none at all to your own fully functional web server. THAT is POWER.

Marc Zeedar says some very inaccurate things in his column:

And there's the rub. While I applaud Apple for picking Unix as the basis for their OS - Unix is time-tested and has a loyal following - I am very concerned with how Apple has integrated (perhaps I should say not integrated) a Mac-like interface into Unix.

Not sure what he is saying: sounds like "I'm glad Apple is using Unix, but I wish they had not used Unix."

The Mac OS is graphical at its heart. There is no shell or deeper "core." When you move icons on your desktop, you really are changing the underlying file structure. It's more than a metaphor.

No, sorry, this is simply NOT TRUE. There has always been a core, and like I said, the CLI is only a push of the programmer button away.

With Mac OS X, you don't know what's happening. The OS X Finder shows you a different set of files than the command line! Duplicating files with the OS X Finder causes one thing to happen, while duplicating files at the command line does something different.

Duh. Same has always been true in Mac OS from the beginning, few people talked about it is all. Just open ResEdit and poke around.

Having done some research and learning about Unix, I am amazed at the similarities between it and what always happened on the Mac (and even Windblows) at the core level. The only real difference now is that we have access to the best of all worlds: Macs will now be able to do the few good things that Windows did PLUS having access to all the power of Unix (if you want it). If you don't want it, don't use it. OS X is designed from the core up to never use the terminal app and the CLI if you don't want to. Many, many people will use OS X and die of old age never using vi or grep once.

Charles, have you used OS X much at all? You do NOT need to know any Unix, you don't have to grok GREP. Honest. I mean it is fine to express concerns, but when those concerns are based on incomplete knowledge, I think you do your readers something of a disservice. I might suggest you spend some time playing with OS X before you disparage it any further.

Marc Blaydoe