25 replies to this topic

[DarkCarnival]

Whenever I heard about the exotic macs I was always told that it was incredibly easy to use and very neat looking. I'll agree about the neat looking. And if you use only the software that either ships with OSX or can be purchased from Apple Store then yea it just might be so easy.

But it's ridiculously hard to install basic applications that aren't already packaged like the installers or mini-drives (dmg files). Today I realised that OSX 10.4.3 comes shipped with Python 2.3 and the editor I wanted would probably prefer 2.4.... So, I went to python.org to get a backage but no beef, tar.gz is the only available thing. Being a penguin at hard that didn't scare me so down it went, but I can't compile it, obviously Apple delivers their Unix-derivative without proper compile tools. After searching the net I find out about Xcode.. Then I spend 20 minutes trying to get an Apple ID in order to download the 833mb monstrosity.

I chrash twice and give up, turning my attention toward a few prepacked python installers, they install Python2.4 and wxPython2.6 (what I wanted in order to run SPE, a brilliant python editor) -but- it's not overriding the default installations, no it's put as *.app files (a bit like *.kext and *.dmg files, more or less a small directory with subdirectories and files) and thus it won't help when I try to install SPE..
This is not impressive, it's almost as hopeless a fight as getting windows XP set up right!

Had this been any distro but the most obscure, I could've downloaded the packages precompiled and ready to go or in a worst-case-scenario, compile them mysel (<sarcasm>*SHOCK!* 3 commands and 5 minutes required! </sarcasm>). In OSX I've found no easy way, I suppose I'll have to get Xcode, but I would not expect your everday mac user to get Xcode in order to get his software running, unless you sell those macs with a broadband connection


What do you think ? Is everything smooth sailing for you or do you have some troubles of your own?

[phb]

Well, many things are diffrent, and most of them can be solved when using google.
searching on "python 2.4 darwin", you find something called "Darwinports" at like the 5th hit.

now. why did I specify darwin? Cause that's the kernel. You wanted something that can either override the default ones, or somehow create new "standard unix" ones.
Well, "Mac OSX" ain't standard unix tools. it's .app's and that kind of stuff. pink and fluffy. etc.
DARWIN however, is the unix part, the *BSD tools etc, now that's what you want python for...
so. you said you where a unix junkie, and you like package systems, well, here you have one. very similar to FreeBSD "Ports" system.
Enjoy, there you have python24 and every other unix/X11 util you might need.
beware tho, some stuff still doesn't work 100% on Intel.

(www.darwinports.com)

[bofors]

DarkCarnival, on Feb 4 2006, 08:28 PM, said:

obviously Apple delivers their Unix-derivative without proper compile tools.

Excuse me, but Xcode and the developer tools comes with evey copy of OS X.

Quote

OSX 10.4.3 comes shipped with Python 2.3 and the editor I wanted would probably prefer 2.4....

So, you decided to bitch about it here?  This is just yet another Mac n00b thread, and like we don't need any more here...

Folks, if you have something say (let alone feel compelled to start a thread) that is remotely related to any of these fine topics:

- Macs are good only for graphics/media work.

- Macs suck for hackers.

- There is very little software for the Mac.

- Macs are overpriced/not worth the price.

- Mac OS X is Unix.

- Mac OS X is not Unix.

- Mac OS X rocks. Linux is crap.

- Mac OS X is crap. Linux rocks.


Do us all a favor and read this first:

http://www.kernelthr.../osx/index.html

[DarkCarnival]

WHOA! Easy now!

I don't really see how this could be so offensive. And if I haven't gotten something wrong. The disc I have is a regular install disk and there is *no* Xcode package on it, zip, nada none. I downloaded it though.

I wasn't ranting but just showing the hoops I have to jump through to get stuff working -and I was interested in hearing what anyone else use their systems for and how easy/hard it was to get straight that's all.

No matter how you put it though. It's not quite true to a real *nix system. Most config files are replaced with xml-like files apparantly controlled by some apple-specific program and the *nix directory structure is there but not really used.

I mean.. OSX does not even have "/usr/local/bin" in it's PATH variable....

I didn't find the darwin ports site during my search which might be a mistake but you should still be able to compile things and not rely on some brilliant unix/mac-geek to port it.

Anyway I know about how OSX is based on Darwin and I guess I'll search a bit more about darwin to get settled into this system.

Once more: I wasn't meaning to flame macs or anything, my angle was more like trying to show that a even mac can be difficult to tame if you're new at it. Just like the guy who wrote an article about how hard it was for him to install windows XP and get it networked and all. People usually assume Windows is rather easy too, but it's really only because they know it so well..

[Ouch]

True there is no xcode package per-say but there is a developer tools packages which installs among other things xcode.

[sigxcpu]

you don't know how to work with OS X because you are just a poor linux fan. evolve to *BSD and you will see the light

[phb]

Well, I somewhat have to agree with sigxcpu, most of the points you are rising is since you think all *NIX'es is as well "tested" (as in many people with very varying skill level use and report errors) as linux.
The reason things Just Work © is because some *insert OS HERE* Wiz did it before you. As Darwin ain't used much without OSX, many console things don't work "out of the box".

Say, let's look at FreeBSD, there , many applications do NOT work "out of the box", at all, it would require you patch the software or similar.. well, unless you use "ports" to use the stuff already written by FreeBSD 'wiz'
Almost no software can work "out of the box" on opensource software, so it requires small patching. For someone who has been using the OS for a while, it's extremly obvious "Ugh, stupid linux mofo who use linux'isms on stuff he claims is posix", and you can "correct" it for your OS in notime. In many projects it can be really hard to get patches for OS-independant code accepted ("BLEH! ** OS ain't GPL, we hate it, go f***yourself", or similar), so people invented things ports, to be able to publish patches, without having to have some website and/or fork the code, but it still requires maintaining, as the software developers of the original software still gives a damn about platform independant code... ohwell, no idea how this got into ranting.. hm, hope I got my point thru,

all OS have their own 'isms, and people are generally ignorant about em (how should a developer know that printf("%s",null) segv on about all platforms except linux!?).

"I mean.. OSX does not even have "/usr/local/bin" in it's PATH variable.... "
Well, it's just a setting in your .profile or similar. OSX doesn't even have a directory called /usr/local/bin by default

and the paragraph above that, about not being true to *nix, which config files are you talking about? rc.d and similar? Those are totaly !standard aswell.

[johnniecarcinogen]

10.4.4 is 2 discs.

[DarkCarnival]

sigxcpu, on Feb 5 2006, 07:28 PM, said:

you don't know how to work with OS X because you are just a poor linux fan. evolve to *BSD and you will see the light

Yes master, I shall enroll in the holy school of BSD'ing  

phb, on Feb 5 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

Almost no software can work "out of the box" on opensource software, so it requires small patching. For someone who has been using the OS for a while, it's extremly obvious "Ugh, stupid linux mofo who use linux'isms on stuff he claims is posix", and you can "correct" it for your OS in notime.

If we were talking Fedora Core, SuSE, Mepis or so, probably right. But many linux's such as Slackware, Arch Linux, Gentoo and so, it can actually work without patches.

phb, on Feb 5 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

In many projects it can be really hard to get patches for OS-independant code accepted ("BLEH! ** OS ain't GPL, we hate it, go f***yourself", or similar)

Semi-true, unfortunatly fanatics are hard to deal with, no matter what field it's in :S

phb, on Feb 5 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

"I mean.. OSX does not even have "/usr/local/bin" in it's PATH variable.... "
Well, it's just a setting in your .profile or similar. OSX doesn't even have a directory called /usr/local/bin by default

I did It was just a demonstration of how lacking the bash enviroment is. I could continue on to complaining about no LD_LIBRARY_PATH or something third

phb, on Feb 5 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

and the paragraph above that, about not being true to *nix, which config files are you talking about? rc.d and similar? Those are totaly !standard aswell.

Well now you're entering the gray area In the linux world there's more or less 2 ways of organizing bootscripts. If you look on distrowatch.com, there's (at the very least) 370 distros, with 2 ways of handling the bootscripts, I'd say that it's pretty damn close to being standard ways of handling just that.
To counter that we have MacOSX which does XML config files --I'd say that's more non standard than the other 2 solutions then

But actually I was thinking about config files such as regular apps have. The X-server has a config file. Grub/Lilo has it. Just about every program likes to have a hidden directory in your homedirectory with your own settings written in plain text for you to see (and more importantly: modify)


Lastly I already said that much might probably be due to me not knowing OSX and Windows too well but Linux quite well. That applies the other way around -- maybe it seems so crystal clear to you guys since you've had to battle with the OS initially but now you know how to handle the OS (or maybe your learning-curve wasn't as steep ?)

I just wish I knew how many of my troubles is due to Apple recently going from PowerPC to Intel and how much is due to this being a leaked OS.. Because I really do need the be able to freely upgrade python and wxPython in order for OSX (and with that, a Mac) to be my main computer

Anyway, I've compiled ports (since the binary breaks horribly when I try to update the repositories) and I'm off to check this out (thanks for the tip btw!)

[phb]

Acctually, when I say *nix I mean all *NIX, that include both OSX, QNX, BSD,Linux,  etc.
If you look at all the *NIX'es available, there are no standard for boot scripts. So you are not to be suprised that OSX uses something diffrent from "Linux"(as in distro).

Same thing with applications, I was talking about porting them to other *nixes, not between linux distributions (however, that you even see problems using THE SAME KERNEL(linux), you even make the problem more obvious!)

Just as a point of reference, I never used a mac before starting with Darwin, which I did about a month before finding OSX86 (Wanted to rebuild my OpenDarwin installation, but it required xcode!!!)

Ahrm. I think I'm about to explode reading your argument about having a STANDARD FORMAT FOR XML CONFIGURATION (.plist) is MORE UNSTANDARD, then having "text based" (well, xml can be textbased, and the binary .plists can easily be converted to normal xml) config files that's DIFFRENT FOR EVERY APPLICATION?!?!!!!
hm. sorry about the caps, but I can't even find words to argue against this. I think it's so obvious? O_o

So. some tip for a new OSX user:
~/Library/ <- All the user overridden options, say, Library/PreferencePanes/* if you have some special pref pane just for your user, or Library/Preferences/ for preferences on OSX applications (note I said OSX applications, if you wanted to use, say, something from darwinports, i'm sure they do it the way that application always does, ie ~/.somewackdirectory and /etc/*)
/Library/.. for global settings
/System/Library/ -global stuff required for the system (including some configuration)

Can't agree the bash environment is lacking, it has everything that fits on a OSX system, it might not be exactly the same as on a linux machine, but I doubt you would  gain anything by changing the LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, atleast I havn't ran into that problem.  (Ofcaurse, if you install applications in some unstandard directory, i'm sure you'll have todo that, but you have todo that if you where to install something in, say, /Applications on LINUX )

Let us know how it goes with DarwinPorts, I havn't used it much on OSX, only used it alot with OpenDarwin

[R. Bear Helms]

I'm a *X newb, so when I started to learn about open source tools for video processing and conversion, what I found were source code libraries mostly on Sourceforge. Often, there would be a distro that is known to work with OS X.

So I installed Xcode (the compiler and other software development tools) from the DVD supplied with my Mac Mini, then downloaded the source and extracted it, then performed the 3-make process as I know it: make config, make, make install.

Yes, I was caught by insufficient path settings, but I managed to google up enough good answers. I proceeded to make my own shell scripts, which definitely reek like most first-semester college students' work.

The lack of X11 wasn't a big deal - I could install that after-the-fact, and did.

Later I came upon fink and fink commander, and was playing with all kinds of open source toys.

I think what's lacking for me with the Mac Mini is there's no PDF to get Unix newbies using and comfortable with the terminal environment - you have to shop for a 3rd party book (or several) on the subject. Newbs don't even know about man, and even when you do learn it, you tend to need those sections printed out or summarized. It's easy to get lost and confused.

[-.-]

DarkCarnival, on Feb 5 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

WHOA! Easy now!

I don't really see how this could be so offensive. And if I haven't gotten something wrong. The disc I have is a regular install disk and there is *no* Xcode package on it, zip, nada none. I downloaded it though.

I wasn't ranting but just showing the hoops I have to jump through to get stuff working -and I was interested in hearing what anyone else use their systems for and how easy/hard it was to get straight that's all.

No matter how you put it though. It's not quite true to a real *nix system. Most config files are replaced with xml-like files apparantly controlled by some apple-specific program and the *nix directory structure is there but not really used.

I mean.. OSX does not even have "/usr/local/bin" in it's PATH variable....

I didn't find the darwin ports site during my search which might be a mistake but you should still be able to compile things and not rely on some brilliant unix/mac-geek to port it.

Anyway I know about how OSX is based on Darwin and I guess I'll search a bit more about darwin to get settled into this system.

Once more: I wasn't meaning to flame macs or anything, my angle was more like trying to show that a even mac can be difficult to tame if you're new at it. Just like the guy who wrote an article about how hard it was for him to install windows XP and get it networked and all. People usually assume Windows is rather easy too, but it's really only because they know it so well..

Lol, they are a tough crowd here!


BTW welcome, Dark! They are actually mostly all very nice and friendy and many are very helpful when you need it... but I few realy get irrate if you criticize mac or if you mention linux.

[-.-]

R. Bear Helms, on Feb 6 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

I'm a *X newb, so when I started to learn about open source tools for video processing and conversion, what I found were source code libraries mostly on Sourceforge. Often, there would be a distro that is known to work with OS X.

So I installed Xcode (the compiler and other software development tools) from the DVD supplied with my Mac Mini, then downloaded the source and extracted it, then performed the 3-make process as I know it: make config, make, make install.

Yes, I was caught by insufficient path settings, but I managed to google up enough good answers. I proceeded to make my own shell scripts, which definitely reek like most first-semester college students' work.

The lack of X11 wasn't a big deal - I could install that after-the-fact, and did.

Later I came upon fink and fink commander, and was playing with all kinds of open source toys.

I think what's lacking for me with the Mac Mini is there's no PDF to get Unix newbies using and comfortable with the terminal environment - you have to shop for a 3rd party book (or several) on the subject. Newbs don't even know about man, and even when you do learn it, you tend to need those sections printed out or summarized. It's easy to get lost and confused.

I was digging through all the folders and cd'ing through the shell hunting for man pages and I guess there isn't any. Kinda hard to guess why they wouldn't want to include manuals, to me just doesn't make sense.

[Metrogirl]

-.-, on Feb 5 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

Lol, they are a tough crowd here!
BTW welcome, Dark! They are actually mostly all very nice and friendy and many are very helpful when you need it... but I few realy get irrate if you criticize mac or if you mention linux.

Yes indeed ... welcome!  Most people are incredibly helpful and even our less tolerant users are generally responsive after they've had their say.   We try to keep the house in order and anyone who really gets out of hand will be banned.   Anyone who is feeling less tolerant *please* take note.   As our friend -.- says, this can be a tough venue to play sometimes.

[sonichart]

hey maybe you should think about actually BUYING a mac instead of trying to run apps on a pirate copy...  

no probs with my powerbook.. pb&j

[phb]

uhm. I hope I didn't go offensive, I usually argument kinda hard, especially when high on caffine and in the middle of the night

Welcome

[Metrogirl]

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 04:00 AM, said:

uhm. I hope I didn't go offensive, I usually argument kinda hard, especially when high on caffine and in the middle of the night

Welcome

No problem!   Good arguments add to the discussion.   It's when people get insulting, personal or just plain stupid that I start to tick...

[DarkCarnival]

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

Acctually, when I say *nix I mean all *NIX, that include both OSX, QNX, BSD,Linux,  etc.
If you look at all the *NIX'es available, there are no standard for boot scripts. So you are not to be suprised that OSX uses something diffrent from "Linux"(as in distro).

Same thing with applications, I was talking about porting them to other *nixes, not between linux distributions (however, that you even see problems using THE SAME KERNEL(linux), you even make the problem more obvious!)

You rarely get problems in between different unix's unless it's either got to do with 2.4->2.6 transitions (since it was a major rewrite) or you're running on an extremely patched kernel -This is a freedom of Linux, you can patch your kernel to oblivion if you so desire, but most patch-notes will warn you if they change something that might/will break something else.
It's entirely possible to break anything on any OS

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

Ahrm. I think I'm about to explode reading your argument about having a STANDARD FORMAT FOR XML CONFIGURATION (.plist) is MORE UNSTANDARD, then having "text based" (well, xml can be textbased, and the binary .plists can easily be converted to normal xml) config files that's DIFFRENT FOR EVERY APPLICATION?!?!!!!

It lacks consistency since everything darwin-related (which is 90% of the system if you really look at it). Seems to run the traditional *nix way with conf files in ~/.$Program and /etc/$Program. However Apple decided to do something completely different for OSX and pop it all into xml-files located in /Library this and ~/Library that. If you ask me that's a bit stupid when you're already using one naming convention. They should've made some subdirectories inside /etc  or so (in my oppinion, or do everything with their xml-like layout, just pick one)

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

So. some tip for a new OSX user:
~/Library/ <- All the user overridden options, say, Library/PreferencePanes/* if you have some special pref pane just for your user, or Library/Preferences/ for preferences on OSX applications (note I said OSX applications, if you wanted to use, say, something from darwinports, i'm sure they do it the way that application always does, ie ~/.somewackdirectory and /etc/*)
/Library/.. for global settings
/System/Library/ -global stuff required for the system (including some configuration)

Thanks that cleared something up a bit, almost beginning to think they drew the lottery for config-file placement

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

Can't agree the bash environment is lacking, it has everything that fits on a OSX system, it might not be exactly the same as on a linux machine, but I doubt you would  gain anything by changing the LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, atleast I havn't ran into that problem.  (Ofcaurse, if you install applications in some unstandard directory, i'm sure you'll have todo that, but you have todo that if you where to install something in, say, /Applications on LINUX )

No problem if you compile normal programs, but try compiling and installing a library and getting some other program to use said library, things start to get complex then :S

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

Let us know how it goes with DarwinPorts, I havn't used it much on OSX, only used it alot with OpenDarwin

I'm sad to say that the binary chrashed when I tried to install (as mentioned before), then I compiled DarwinPorts myself and the app itself seemed to work. But it's preconfigured to append "-arch=powerpc" or somesuch non-intel arch, so nothing it tries to compile will install let alone run. This might be fixed as OSX goes towards more intel than PowerPC computers

-.-, on Feb 6 2006, 04:37 AM, said:

Lol, they are a tough crowd here!
BTW welcome, Dark! They are actually mostly all very nice and friendy and many are very helpful when you need it... but I few realy get irrate if you criticize mac or if you mention linux.

See 2 quotes down..

Metrogirl, on Feb 6 2006, 05:17 AM, said:

Yes indeed ... welcome!  Most people are incredibly helpful and even our less tolerant users are generally responsive after they've had their say.   We try to keep the house in order and anyone who really gets out of hand will be banned.   Anyone who is feeling less tolerant *please* take note.   As our friend -.- says, this can be a tough venue to play sometimes.

Below next quote

phb, on Feb 6 2006, 10:00 AM, said:

uhm. I hope I didn't go offensive, I usually argument kinda hard, especially when high on caffine and in the middle of the night

Welcome

Thanks to all of you If someone took a shot at linux I might not be able to react better, or just as good for that matter

sonichart, on Feb 6 2006, 06:02 AM, said:

hey maybe you should think about actually BUYING a mac instead of trying to run apps on a pirate copy...  
no probs with my powerbook.. pb&j

Most of the problems I encounter now are completely unrelated to me having a Hackingtosh as far as I can tell. The powerPC switches for instance, will break the compile on a x86 computer no matter if it's homebuilt or appe
That said, I was actually planning on getting a MacBook pro when they're released, but it seems less attractive now that I've seen how hard it might be to get things to work. Coupled with the fact that for all I know, mac gaming might be a dead fish after the introduction of an entirely new and different architecture :S

[dru]

DarkCarnival, on Feb 4 2006, 08:28 PM, said:

Whenever I heard about the exotic macs I was always told that it was incredibly easy to use and very neat looking. I'll agree about the neat looking. And if you use only the software that either ships with OSX or can be purchased from Apple Store then yea it just might be so easy.

But it's ridiculously hard to install basic applications that aren't already packaged like the installers or mini-drives (dmg files). Today I realised that OSX 10.4.3 comes shipped with Python 2.3 and the editor I wanted would probably prefer 2.4.... So, I went to python.org to get a backage but no beef, tar.gz is the only available thing. Being a penguin at hard that didn't scare me so down it went, but I can't compile it, obviously Apple delivers their Unix-derivative without proper compile tools. After searching the net I find out about Xcode.. Then I spend 20 minutes trying to get an Apple ID in order to download the 833mb monstrosity.

I chrash twice and give up, turning my attention toward a few prepacked python installers, they install Python2.4 and wxPython2.6 (what I wanted in order to run SPE, a brilliant python editor) -but- it's not overriding the default installations, no it's put as *.app files (a bit like *.kext and *.dmg files, more or less a small directory with subdirectories and files) and thus it won't help when I try to install SPE..
This is not impressive, it's almost as hopeless a fight as getting windows XP set up right!

Had this been any distro but the most obscure, I could've downloaded the packages precompiled and ready to go or in a worst-case-scenario, compile them mysel (<sarcasm>*SHOCK!* 3 commands and 5 minutes required! </sarcasm>). In OSX I've found no easy way, I suppose I'll have to get Xcode, but I would not expect your everday mac user to get Xcode in order to get his software running, unless you sell those macs with a broadband connection
What do you think ? Is everything smooth sailing for you or do you have some troubles of your own?

Let me start with question...

Can you name a recent (1990+) commercial Consumer Operating System that ships with Development Tools and Compilers as part of the default installation that isn't a derivitave of Linux?

I can't. Windows?  no.  Solaris? no.  OS/2? no.  Mac OS X? no.  

Now let's ask the next question...

Of the aforemention consumer operating systems, how many of them have freely available, vendor supported tools?  Windows?  yes  (.NET and Platform SDK's do include compilers, admitedly using them is for hairy chested programmers, you gotta buy VS.NET or equivalent to get a usable GUI). Solaris? sorta (GCC is available, but it's only sorta vendor supported).  OS/2?  Nope, (GCC is available via free downloads in cunjunction with EMX, it was not vendor supported). Mac OS X?  yes, emphatically. If you bought your copy of Tiger legally, or it came preinstalled, you have the XCode tools on CD or DVD.  Further, these tools are well supported, and by the way, as a bonus you get a decent, if not great IDE.

I should probably also ask how many OSes that don't contain the name 'Linux' in them actually ship with Python (or PErl or PHP or Ruby) by default, but I won't

Finally, I would point out that, './configure;make;make install;' does not an installer make, much to the consternation of the geek's that seem to think giving every tom, dick and jane a compiler is a good idea (it isn't, from a security pov a compiler has no business being installed on a non-developer's desktop).

Of course, taking a step further, http://undefined.org/python/ has a 2.4.1 installer which doesn't require gcc to be installed.  

I should also point out that an OS X install fits on 3 CD's, or a single DVD, meanwhile, Suse 9 required 6 CD's or a double sided DVD.  downloading Xcode and the GCC toolchain (complete with documentation) isn't that fat, when you consider that based upon statistics, and the utter lack of retail sales of Linux Desktop installation's the chances that you downloaded your Linux distro, at a minimum of 3 ISO's, but acknowledging these items would kinda take the legs out from your complaints wouldn't it ?

[DarkCarnival]

dru, on Feb 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

Let me start with question...

Can you name a recent (1990+) commercial Consumer Operating System that ships with Development Tools and Compilers as part of the default installation that isn't a derivitave of Linux?

I can't. Windows?  no.  Solaris? no.  OS/2? no.  Mac OS X? no.

Every question can be formed in such a way that the answer only serves the purpose of whatever point of view one wishes to express. Linux is not a uniform little bunch that nearly noone uses. It's got extremely many distributions and even more install methods and packages and as such there's actually quite a few in between that ship with the GCC tools.
That said, look at the link for the included Solaris packages and you'll see that GCC along a host of other development tools are indeed included. The same can be said for the NetBSD package list. I would've loved to show you other examples, but most distros are more busy linking to a packagelist for their Ports software. Which by the way can answer this for you:
Yes nearly all the BSD-derivatives will have GCC, make, patch and company since their package-management program (ports) will primarily download source packages, patch them and installing them in the end

dru, on Feb 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

Of the aforemention consumer operating systems, how many of them have freely available, vendor supported tools?  Windows?  yes  (.NET and Platform SDK's do include compilers, admitedly using them is for hairy chested programmers, you gotta buy VS.NET or equivalent to get a usable GUI). Solaris? sorta (GCC is available, but it's only sorta vendor supported).  OS/2?  Nope, (GCC is available via free downloads in cunjunction with EMX, it was not vendor supported). Mac OS X?  yes, emphatically. If you bought your copy of Tiger legally, or it came preinstalled, you have the XCode tools on CD or DVD.  Further, these tools are well supported, and by the way, as a bonus you get a decent, if not great IDE.

Admittedly I haven't examined every part of xcode, but most of the tools are freely available GNU tools that will work on Linux, Solaris.. any *nix really, many even working on windows! (malloc for example). The tools that are specific to Xcode are often tools which is made for Mac-only debug-software (for tweaking osx or debugging it's graphical interface, these tools do not exist on other platforms simple because they're only relevant for the OSX interface)
And speaking of IDE's. The free OS's can offer plenty IDE's, that's indeed what makes so many hackers recommend these systems to begin with, the abillity to develop and debug for almost any language (even .NET-based solutions with binds for C, C++, Python, Java and others).

dru, on Feb 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

I should probably also ask how many OSes that don't contain the name 'Linux' in them actually ship with Python (or PErl or PHP or Ruby) by default, but I won't

Again it's rather stupid to exclude Linux since Linux has a much bigger portion of the market than the commercial Unix's have. The reason that Apple even exists in the minds of technically-inclined people these days is a proof of their excellent marketing department (They're good at branding, but there's not many mac's and even fewer *BSD unix's in use).
If you're under the belief that any and every unix system come with a specified install set you're entirely wrong. It's almost *only* OS's like Mac OSX and Windows that install a predefined set of software packages and then stopping. 98% of *nix's will let you choose.

That said, NetBSD seems to sport Python, ruby, PHP, and Perl in their package list:
NetBSD package list

Solaris ships with Perl, Python, PHP AND ruby out of the box, how's that for ya ?
Solaris package list

dru, on Feb 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

Finally, I would point out that, './configure;make;make install;' does not an installer make, much to the consternation of the geek's that seem to think giving every tom, dick and jane a compiler is a good idea (it isn't, from a security pov a compiler has no business being installed on a non-developer's desktop).

A compiler does absolutely nothing to compromise the security of a system since people could just as well make a static compile of whatever program they want, and transfer it to the target PC via, http, ftp, usb-keys, floppies, CD-ROM's or any other way.

Besides. None of the aforementioned languages ship with compilers of any kind, they're all using interpreters.

dru, on Feb 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

I should also point out that an OS X install fits on 3 CD's, or a single DVD, meanwhile, Suse 9 required 6 CD's or a double sided DVD.  downloading Xcode and the GCC toolchain (complete with documentation) isn't that fat, when you consider that based upon statistics, and the utter lack of retail sales of Linux Desktop installation's the chances that you downloaded your Linux distro, at a minimum of 3 ISO's, but acknowledging these items would kinda take the legs out from your complaints wouldn't it ?

I must admit I don't quite know what it is you're trying to say here ? All I can say is that I have ONE single-layered Suse DVD next to my laptop (SuSE 10.X). I can also tell you that the version of SuSE you mention is the professional pack that existed before Novell made their move and bought up SuSE, completely changing their distribution in the process. I should also say that installs such as Ubuntu (filling a SINGLE CD) are getting much more popular, and Ubuntu also ships with Python.
Lastly: A cd can store from 600mb-750mb depending on the medium. And the smallest DVD's you'll find in retail are 4,7GB (You do the math and see if the OSX installer could be squeezed into 3 CD's if it's split up)
Oh, and the OSX installer image seems to take up 4,3GB on my DVD..

To top it off. I never wanted Mac OSX to implement Python as a must-have package. I just wanted an easy install that would subsequently be useable in conjunction with any site-packages that I may choose to install. I sort of got it working though Python seems really slow compared to my previous intel runs (perhaps the binaries are PPC ?) and the programs using both python and wxpython seem to chrash