Virtual Desktops

[rg200]

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.

[macubergeek]

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

[Opie]

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?

[Craig R. Arko]

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

[Benad]

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

[slord]

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.

[Opie]

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.

[macubergeek]

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.

[stetner]

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

[robh]

Originally posted by macubergeek
Ok admittedly Space.dock is a hack, but frankly if I had my way Apple would build rootless Xfree86 right into 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.

[Opie]

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.

[macubergeek]

Originally posted by Opie
[B]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".

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.

[Craig R. Arko]

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:

[Opie]

Originally posted by macubergeek

Good points but Apple has already gone far beyond Next...

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

I mean Next used display postscript, and Aqua is far far from that.

yes, we're at DisplayPDF now! :)

Apple could update Xfree in Aqua via software update when it became available from the project.

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

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.

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.

Given the fact that there is no way to export the display of Aqua, Xwindows would be adding features.

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.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Originally posted by Opie
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?

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

[slord]

Originally posted by porkchop_d_clown


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.

[porkchop_d_clown]

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.

[Opie]

Originally posted by porkchop_d_clown

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.
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.

[slord]

Originally posted by porkchop_d_clown
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.

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?

[Craig R. Arko]

Originally posted by slord


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 (http://julia.et.ic.ac.uk/adrian/software/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.

[slord]

Originally posted by Craig R. Arko


OroborOSX (http://julia.et.ic.ac.uk/adrian/software/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.

Nice. It was totaly painless to install. LOL, now I need to find a Linux box to connect to an try to setenv DISPLAY.....

Yipeee!

[peepster]

I agree about Virtual Desktops.. it would be a sweet feature to have but let's try to not get too anti-OS X, I've had enough of OS 9 users saying it's not Mac and I don't much want Unix/X Windows users moaning that OS X isn't Unix. It's neither, it's OS X and it would be better with virtual desktops (in my opinion :))

[porkchop_d_clown]

Xfree on Darwin is, as they say, a hack. A great hack (I truly love using the Gimp) but straight Quartz development, or some compatibility layer that allowed Quartz to act as an X server would be ideal.

[macubergeek]

Given the fact that Jobs loves to quote the number of apps running under MacOs X lately;-)
It would make huge business sense to integrate an x server directly into Aqua with gtk etc.
1. they would instantly leverage dang near all the Linux apps in one fell swoop and give lie to the saying that there is no software for macos X
2. legacy xwindows software is very important in the scientific community...do it for them at least
3. rootless xdarwin would avoid alot of the clash with the "oneness" of the aqua experience.
4. Unix developers who have commercial aps out under Motif or x would jump at the chance to be able to run under macos x.

just my .02cents

[Opie]

Unix developers who have commercial aps out under Motif or x would jump at the chance to be able to run screaming as far away as possible from Motif... Lord when will Motif die..

Sorry, that's a WHOLE different rant.:D

[macubergeek]

actually I work administering Checkpoint firewalls and I'd love to see a MacOS X SecuRemote client....but that's yet another rant

[porkchop_d_clown]

Originally posted by macubergeek

3. rootless xdarwin would avoid alot of the clash with the "oneness" of the aqua experience.


Certainly there's always that argument over supporting/porting. Rootless would be great, as long as it allowed quartz to act as the window manager. I've seen that done with commercial Windoze X-servers. Dunno what it takes to do it, though.

[Craig R. Arko]

Originally posted by porkchop_d_clown


Rootless would be great, as long as it allowed quartz to act as the window manager.

Isn't that what the Tenon 'XTools' (http://www2.tenon.com/products/xtools/) product does? Or does that use a window manager gussied up to look like Aqua, as OroborOSX does?

[stephen]

"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."

"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."

-----------------------------------

I'm sure Apple has a roadmap of where X is going. Until they get the current bugs, speed and peripheral issues worked out, I don't want them trying to add features that only "Unix diehards" need. I'd rather see Apple give the every day "OS-X users" what they need first.