* Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12 Jan 2003 08:21]: > On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 07:49 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote: > >At 20:14 Uhr -0500 11.01.2003, Bill Bumgarner wrote: > >Benjamin already replied to this, so I won't do it again. > > He replied based on false assumptions and, unfortunately, I lost his > message. > > Bottom line: If any application is installed in a proper, network > computing style, fashion, then no user should be able to move it or > rename it without superuser privileges. Exactly like no regular user > can move /sw/bin/python or other items in the /sw tree. > > That /Applications is editable by the default user on OS X is a bug > resulting from the need to support a naive world view coming from > legacy Mac users, IMO.
And yours isn't a naive worldview coming from a legacy UNIX user? ;-) Yes, I understand the necessity of having restricted control in a "Network computing" environment; however, the *vast* majority of Mac OS X installations are *not* in that sort of environment. Heck, the vast majority of OS X installations aren't even used as Multi-User environments. /Applications being writable isn't a bug in OS X, it's a bug in your preconceptions. =) > >>3) More and more Unix related tools have native Aqua ports available. > >> tk and wx immediately come to mind. Film-gimp on the applications > >>front. With PyObjC, CamelBones, and other bridge type technologies > >>coming along, I'm sure there will be more. Many of these require or, > >>at the least, are designed to use an app wrapper. > > > >If something is a proper mac application, there is no reason in my > >eyes why one would want to install it with Fink. E.g. Film-gimp > >(though I never tested it, I am just assuming now it is so). > > fink update-all > > That, in and of itself, would save tons and tons of time over having to > download and individually install each application with every update. This is the crux of the matter. This is a very valid desire, I'd love to be able to update all my downloaded .apps in one fell swoop; however, I don't think fink is the right tool for that job. Fink does a great job for what it was designed to do, bring applications designed for other UNIXes to Mac OS X quickly and easily, and allowing straightforward management of those packages. It creates an excellent environment for handling the assumptions that most UNIX applications were built with, and mediating these assumptions with the realities of working on OS X. It even handles the border cases like XDarwin, where the two worlds merge. However, I don't think it is well equipped to become a manager for Application Bundles, and I don't think that is part of the 'focus' of the fink project. Whether fink can or cannot properly install Applications or Frameworks is beside the point. The point is, *should* fink be installing Applications or Frameworks? I feel fink should keep bringing the wealth of UNIX tools to OS X, but leave the management of the Native Apps (even Native versions of UNIX apps) to something else. Mike -- Michael Bain | One day I want to look through three hundred [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thousand kilometres of space and say: GPG-ID: 0xA30A5493 | "My isn't there a beautiful Earth out tonight!"
msg04096/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
