[OT] Re: What about Linux-on-Mac?

[Clinton MacDonald]

Mr. Roy:

(I think this thread has officially moved OFF TOPIC, as it often does 
when I am involved. Also, everything I am about to write is merely my 
own opinion, and is probably not of interest to anyone but me.)

Steve Roy wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Clinton MacDonald wrote:
>> Aha! You did not say that before.
> 
> Sure did. :) It was the last sentence of the message
> that started this thread.

Oops! Sorry about that.

> My PowerBook runs YDL like a charm. :)

Sweet!

> All I was saying was, since we have Mac-on-Linux, it
> would be great to have Linux-on-Mac. This way when I
> want to test one of my Java apps, I wouldn't have to
> reboot to do so.

Okay, I was obviously blowing this way out of proportion, for which I 
apologize. Other than running KDE and Gnome in Apple's X11 environment, 
I imagine that Virtual PC would be the closest thing to a 
"Linux-inside-a-box-on-my-Mac" solution.

>> Just as one might not want to be running Microsoft
>> Windows on a cell phone (no matter how dumbed down),
>> one probably doesn't want to run Mac OS X on an
>> iPod.
> 
> We're just discussing for fun, but you're forgetting
> that Windows CE exists for embedded devices,

Actually, I sort of had Windows CE in mind when writing the "Windows on 
a cell phone" analogy.

<Windows CE rant>

Windows CE, especially early versions for hand-helds, were *terrible* 
interfaces on devices with small screens. Far too much real estate was 
taken up with useless menubars, control widgets, and the like, while 
important functions were buried several menu layers deep.

The Windows CE interface has improved since then, but never should have 
started with the desktop metaphor. The Palm and Newton operating systems 
are much more focused on direct interaction with tasks and objects. You 
need a new program? Click on the program. You want to enter an 
appointment? Start writing in the calendar.

Problems with Windows CE: There is no need to change interface modes 
(like Windows CE dialog boxes for entering an appointment) when 
interacting with a program that has the single function of entering 
appointments. There is no need to have a "quit" widget (that doesn't 
actually quit the program!) on a device that is by its nature 
single-tasking (things can happen in the background on a hand-held 
device, but the *interface* is single-tasking). These interface items 
are perfectly reasonable for a multitasking general purpose machine with 
a large screen and multiple modes of input, but they are crufty when 
moved to a limited function device with a single mode of input.

That being said, newer versions of the Windows CE (and its successors) 
operating system are improving, and seem to be jettisoning some of the 
unnecessary desktop Windows baggage.

</Windows CE rant>

> and you also forget that the UI of the iPod is not
> the same thing as the OS. The UI of the iPod is just
> a program like the Finder. The iPod could have the
> same UI that it has now, no matter what OS it uses.

Again, you are right and I am wrong. However, true though that is, I am 
not sure that the strengths of Mac OS X (or its Darwin underpinnings) 
would be useful on a single-purpose (or at least limited-purpose) device 
like the iPod. I think of the iPod as a VCR (okay, the "flashing 12:00" 
VCR interface is a bad example, but bear with me). Memory protection, 
crash resistance, and multitasking are not what I think of when I think 
of operating my VCR or my iPod or my cell phone. They just sort of work 
(well, not my VCR...).

I have taken up too much of your time and bandwidth (and completely 
wasted everyone else's), so that's enough for today.

Best wishes,
Clint

-- 
Dr. Clinton C. MacDonald | <mailto:clint DOT macdonald AT sbcglobal DOT net>