Virtual Desktops
 

Having come from a Unix/Linux background, I would love to see the addition of virtual desktops, with a pager in the dock, in OSX.

I realise they are not for everyone, but at least it could be an option...?

I find them so useful every day at work and was slightly disappointed to not see them in OSX.

Virtual desktops
 

check out Space.dock - 0.7
on www.versiontracker.com
http://www.versiontracker.com/morein...id=9738&db=mac

Space.dock is NOT virtual desktops. having used Unix/X Window for what seems like an eternity, believe me, there's a world of difference.

Does anyone know if there are any specifications or docs on the Window Server?

I recall that Andrew Welch (moki) of Ambrosia S/W was taking a poll about the commercial viability of writing a product to do this.

He didn't care much for them himself but seemed to have ideas about how to do it.

I'm holding out for multi-user remote desktops (like X11, but in Quartz) myself. :D

Shareware only!
 

This would confuse new users too much, even if it's just an option.

But if I see it as a shareware, I'LL BUY IT!

- Benad

Virtual Hoax
 

There is no current solution for multiple workspaces. The app above does absolutely nothing helpful. It's a nice try but here's what it does.

When you select "New Workspace" it simply hides all the currently visible apps and *groups* those together. Once you *group* a few sets of apps you can switch between these groups.

Useless, Tinkertool can almost do the same thing.

Ahh, love those SGI's...

But seriously, I'd give my left nut to be able to have true Workspaces and a rlogin to another box and setenv display to my screen — I CANNOT believe Apple purposely left these out. It's killing me, I work on a Mac in a Linux environment and I have to install X-windows to get anything done.

There is something very wrong with this picture.

PS: Sign me up for notification when these come out.

I must agree, slord. Space.dock is a nice hack but is not virtual desktops.

I am actively trying to find some specifications on the window server. There may be "hack space" that allows for it, I don't know. I don't even know if, for example, each window's geometry is available to the server the same way it is to X Window. This would make traditional virtual desktops hard.

Multiple Workspaces, a la Windowmaker, are easier, although it still requires a degree of info from the window server.

If Windows can have all this stuff added on (via WindowBlinds) then so can OSX! The catch is finding out the mojo.

Xwindows in Aqua
 

Ok admittedly Space.dock is a hack, but frankly if I had my way Apple would build rootless Xfree86 right into Aqua. It makes sense when you think about how many in scientific computing depend upon this for their legacy apps. If you also added Gtk, Apple could leverage existant Linux and Unix apps right now.

Tell Apple!
 

I hope everyone has gone to

http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/

and asked them for this feature! I have. As with a previous poster, when I need to get something done, the Xwindows gets fired up with a virtual desktop manager.

I agree as well, that X should be supported within the current windowing system.

Cheers,
Doug

Re: Xwindows in Aqua
 

I see problems there. First Xfree86 support for Aqua is fluid, it's work in progress. Second, if Apple were to bundle Xfree86 into OSX this would force changes/fixes to be released at Apple's pace instead of Xfree86 developers' and porters' pace.
Progress appears to be better without interference from Apple.

Perhaps it'd be better if Apple provided publicity for Xfree86's Aqua port.

There are two problems as I see it:
first, OSX is NeXTStep reborn; grafting XFree/X Window onto it defeats the advantages of the platform. You literally have "just another *nix".
second, Apple pushes ease of use and UI innovation; tacking on X Window - universally loathed by people who are supposed to know about interface design - would really be egg on their face.

I'd like to see: STRONG documentation about the Window Server, and a compatibility layer (akin to the Java bridge) for GTK, Qt, and all the rest.

Next reborn?
 

Good points but Apple has already gone far beyond Next...I mean Next used display postscript, and Aqua is far far from that. I'm not talking about Xfree being prominent, but like the terminal, it's there if you need it. Apple's timing and the Xfree project's timing wouldn't really be an issue either. Apple could update Xfree in Aqua via software update when it became available from the project.

All I'm talking here is leveraging and not reinventing the wheel. As it stands right now all the legacy Xfree apps would have to be rewritten to work under Aqua.
Given the fact that there is no way to export the display of Aqua, Xwindows would be adding features.

Apple needs to be inclusive not exclusive.

I think having projects like Fink and Gnu-Darwin around are probably sufficient. If Apple continues to promote those (and they have some) that would be great.

Remember, the Developer Tools and even the BSD subsystem are optional installs. Preinstalling XFree just wouldn't be consistent with making it Mac OS X first, and Darwin second, which I believe is the correct focus for Apple to take.

Of course, it would be nice for Fink to have the same access to the software updater that Microsoft does. :rolleyes:

Re: Next reborn?
 

I disagree. The API documentation is still basically NeXT docs. Most of the functions remain the same.

yes, we're at DisplayPDF now! :)

Mmm, not sure I agree that's a good idea. Years of fearing X updates in Linux have me paranoid.

They're not reinventing the wheel; they're going with what they think is best, namely, NeXT. X Window is hardly the best display environment ever. It has a million features, but it hasn't gotten signifigantly faster in years, for example; DRI was at best a moderate increase if you were lucky. It is annoying to configure. It's hard to program for. Look at the size of the O'Reilly tomes on the subject! It's monstrous, and doesn't take advantage of programming techniques invented (or refined) for decades. It's still plain old C, wrappers notwithstanding. It has a weak security model. The state of most apps is hardly up to commercial quality that Apple needs to succeed.

Now way yet. There's a TODO on OSX, and I'm sure not all of it is public. Perhaps Apple is planning on this being integrated into a later release? Or perhaps someone else has access to the NXHost code and is planning on releasing 'Aqua Window Server' soon? And it would be adding bloat, and nightmares of support. There's plenty of core features (spring loaded folders come to mind) that need to be added before exportable displays.

It isn't? I mean, it sure looks like it to me. What's the difference between VS and what KDE provides?

This is a much bigger topic than would fit here. I take it you never used UNIX or Space.app. If you knew what a Workspace manager did you'd really see through this thing.

Basic difference, KDE and other window managers provide multiple desktops knows as "workspaces". Each of these is completely independant of the other (well, don't shut down in one and expect the other 5+ to remain booted - common sense needs to prevail).

Space.app simply hides the applications.

If this does not bug you then go ahead and use it. But this issue is for UNIX diehards that know the difference and want their good 'ol window manager.

Snort.
 

I develop linux kernel drivers for a living and spend my days using KDE 2. I think that gives me a certain amount of experience with X windows and "work space management".

Other than being able to give each virtual display it's own background image, I still can't see what Space doesn't offer, hack or not.

Re: Snort.
 

First, it cannot discern window geometry. It can't do what twm's virtual desktop manager could do a decade ago - display little pictures of your window layout. (see also: E, bbpager, etc etc) Some people don't like this; some do. It's tough to say it's a *must have* but it's nice.

Second, I have not been able to have a terminal open on desk A and desk B. I have not yet tried opening different terminal processes (lauching terminal.app from terminal.app). I assume that Aqua/Window Server has some form of management different than X's window_id and so forth. I used to keep terminals open on each window, and I used fvwm2's pager to label each desktop; terminals open on machine A, B, etc etc were clearly visible at a glance. Nice when you're admin'ing dozens and dozens of machines at once. Another use of this would be Finder windows open in different places; iDisk one, local volumes in another, etc etc.

Third, it doesn't do true workspace management, a la Windowmaker. This is like virtual desktops (twm, fvwm, etc) only instead of pretending to be a 2300x1725 desktop, it's "pages" or "layers". Space.dock is close but use WindowMaker for a while and you'll see the difference.

I suppose it can be coerced into hotkeys; I miss ctrl-arrow combinations to switch desktops.

Re: Snort.
 

Well, like I said. If you can't see the difference then you don't need to feel like I'm slinging mud at you. I work with a group of 20 Linux kernel programers and they hardly ever use a GUI. I imagine you as being one of them, such a die-hard for code you rarely use the GUI.

Hey, if Space works for you then use it. However, we are not looking for nay sayers or ad hock solutions. We want a functioning solution.

Which, to get back on topic, I installed XDarwin 4.2.0 yesterday. SWEET! Now I need to install a window manager, any suggestions? Is there one out there that has an Aqua interface?

OroborOSX
 

OroborOSX is a great rootless XDarwin window manager with an Aqua (or other) appearance. Make sure you get version 0.75a4 release 2 or later.