[geeks] Leopard, was: find - having a senior moment
Jonathan C. Patschke
jp at celestrion.net
Mon Jan 14 17:40:01 CST 2008
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mark wrote:
>> X11 is broken.
> I think you are a masochist using X11 on OS X full-stop. I tried once
> but I didn't inhale.
Given that my job involves writing a large amount of Unix software, I
rather expect and need Unix software (X11) to work on a certified Unix
OS. So, it's either Apple's Unix or someone else's. Given that
Apple screams about how POSIX 1003.1 and SUSv3 compliant they are and
that they list their 64-bit-optimized X11 implementation as a major
feature, I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable by expecting it to
>> Upgrading from 10.4 left me with a completely trashed smb setup
>> (windows clients couldn't mount shares, and leopard kept deleting
>> them every reboot) until I moved smb.conf out of the way and copied
>> the one from the DVD.
> Tip no 25.7 subsection B. Don't hack about with the text files. OS X
> overrides a lot of them. it only uses them as fallback incase it can't
> fond it's own config.
You misunderstand. I had to hack the text files to get it to work. The
upgrade from 10.4 broke it. I didn't.
>> Printing was broken (couldn't print or manage printers unless I was
>> logged in with administrative privileges) until I nuked -all- the
>> CUPS configuration and started over.
> Did you upgrade from 10.4 or do a clean install?
I did an upgrade.
> I **really** don't recommend running upgrades between major versions
> of any OS.
That's nice, but you don't speak for Apple. If it doesn't work, the
option shouldn't be there, especially in an OS whose adopted tagline is
"it just works". Apple recommends the upgrade by virtue of it being an
available option, and it being the default option.
> It's especially bad kitty-litter on OS X though - there are so many
> difference between major iterations that stuff ALWAYS screws up.
It's worked Just Fine for me from 10.1 -> 10.2 and 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4.
The upgrade to 10.5 was the first one that didn't work well.
> They added that by request from a *shit ton* of users who got sick of
> it saying 'July 17th' all the time when it wasn't running.
Well, if they want to coddle the idiots and alienate the technical and
professional users, they'll be well on their way to taking over
Microsoft's role on the desktop.
> A clean install might fix some gripes (if you didn't do one before).
> CS2 is ancient history as it's PPC only and so it's not really
> anything Adobe are ever likely to care about. I think I already made
> my thoughts on X11 clear ;)
CS2 was released in Q2 2005. That's not even three years of service for
a $600 application; not "ancient history" by any reasonable definition.
I've -done- a fresh install on my laptop. It fixed nothing. In fact,
it made things worse, as it caused the machine to adopt the retarded
new 10.5 defaults for firewalling and other networky things.
I realize I'm being really silly for buying a computer specifically
because it supports the technologies I need to do my work, and then
expecting them to actually work when I try to use them, but....oh wait,
that's not silly at all, given that those are exactly the requirements I
have to meet to get paid.
More information about the geeks