Leopard: What would make it a failure -- for you?
jfau...@spamcop.net
feature would so disappoint you that you'd consider Leapord a personal
failure?
For me, this is easy.
If Leopard does not bundle the equivalent of at least Microsoft remote
desktop with Leopard, irregardless of whatever else Leopard does, I
will consider it a failure -- for me. Sure I'll buy it. Sure I'll find
good things in it, but I'll still grade it 'N' for 'needs improvement'.
For those who don't know it, I'll describe the functionality of Remote
desktop. The server has been bundled with XP Pro for years. The freely
distributed client allows any old Windows or Mac to remote control an
XP Pro desktop, including machines running Win2K, OS X, and even, I
think, Win98. System responsiveness is good for controlling many
applications, but it's too slow for much typing. It's plenty adequate
for doing remote control of iTunes, remote databases, troubleshooting,
etc. It only supports a single user on the remote machine.
I want this for Leopard. I want an XP machine or a OS X machine to
remote control a Leopard desktop, over a local LAN or a VPN connection.
I'd love to have something better than Microsoft Remote Desktop -- like
multi-session support on the server, but anything that's well supported
would do the trick.
PS. Yeah, I know about the aftermarket products, apple remote desktop,
the current hacks, the half-implemented stuff in 10.3. I want something
robust and well supported and universal.
meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, remote desktop, remote control, OS X,
Leopard, 10.5, wish list
johnk...@gmail.com
Eh.. how about VNC? It's so universal, there are even clients for Nokia
Series 60 phones, clients for Newton (That old apple pda) and many
more strange devices may even have never heard of. It will run on
everything as long as it will run linux. So I think there is your
super-universal-multisession-GUI-remote-control.
Wes Groleau
> Eh.. how about VNC? It's so universal, there are even clients for Nokia
And it's absurdly slow even between two machines
with a nobody-else six-foot-long direct ethernet
crossover cable.
--
Wes Groleau
People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
-- Peg Bracken
Jerry Kindall
<grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Eh.. how about VNC? It's so universal, there are even clients for Nokia
>
> And it's absurdly slow even between two machines
> with a nobody-else six-foot-long direct ethernet
> crossover cable.
Nah, they have compression modes now that work wonders. TightVNC can
use JPEG and it's pretty quick.
--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
Tim
johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not the OP but I'll chime in. VNC is pretty universal but it's still
incredibly buggy and there is a lot of latency and screen redraw
problems. I'm rather amazed that development seems to have ground to a
halt on VNC ... there is still a lot of work to do to make it a quality
piece of software.
I've used VNC, PCanywhere, and Windows Remote Desktop extensively.
Remote Desktop is the best - it's pretty easy to forget that you are
connected to a remote computer.
Daniel Packman
<jfau...@spamcop.net> wrote:
.....
>If Leopard does not bundle the equivalent of at least Microsoft remote
>desktop with Leopard, irregardless of whatever else Leopard does, I
For me, if the nonword "irregardless" appears anywhere in the OS
including the documentation, I will consider it a complete failure.
John Faughnan
I'd tried a wide range of aftermarket solutions. Thanks VERY much for
answering on my behalf.:
I agree 90%. Windows Remote Desktop is an order of magnitude better
than VNC on Windows, and VNC on OS X is much worse than VNC on Windows.
My only quibble is that I never forget I'm not running a local app when
I use WRD, but I've never used it with super fast hardware on a
superfast LAN.
If Leopard doesn't provide something that equals Windows Remote Desktop
I'll consider it a "failure" -- even though I'll buy Leopard. If
Leopard were to allow more than one remote session at a time, and a
simultaneous local session, I'd consider it a smashing success.
(Yes, I know I'm not a typical user! I did say at the start that the
post is about what would make Leopard a 'flop' from a personal
perspective.]
meta: jfaughnan, remote access, OS X, Microsoft, Apple, remote desktop,
10.5, Leopard
Mike Rosenberg
> For me, if the nonword "irregardless" appears anywhere in the OS
> including the documentation, I will consider it a complete failure.
Yeah, but will you use it irregardless? ;-)
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://macconsult.com/cafepress/> Net Junkie and Mac-themed shirts etc.
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gifts
Király
> There are lots of Leopard wish lists. This is the inverse. What missing
> feature would so disappoint you that you'd consider Leapord a personal
> failure?
The ability to make a Firewire hard drive read-only to local
non-administrators. The only way to do it now is to get OS X Server.
K.
Daniel Packman
Mike Rosenberg <use...@macconsult.com> wrote:
>Daniel Packman <pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> For me, if the nonword "irregardless" appears anywhere in the OS
>> including the documentation, I will consider it a complete failure.
>Yeah, but will you use it irregardless? ;-)
I will, but only after editing all resources.
ZnU
"John Faughnan" <jfau...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. Some of the stuff Apple is doing with OS X's graphics engine might
actually make this easier. In particular, practically everything that OS
X draws with Quartz 2D Extreme (which is present but disabled in Tiger,
but will probably be enabled in Leopard) is drawn via OpenGL... which
means that remote display could be handled by simply routing OpenGL
commands (and, of course, occasional bitmap) across the network.
Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. You'd need some kind of local
caching of stuff you rendered (particularly character glyphs), and there
might be other cases where performance would be horrible because access
patterns were designed under the assumption that the GPU had nice speedy
access to RAM.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Quiet Desperation
I love me some Mac and some Apple, but SPOTLIGHT SUCKS, DAMMIT!
Kevin McMurtrie
Quiet Desperation <x...@x.com> wrote:
> If it fails to bring back the simple filename find.
>
> I love me some Mac and some Apple, but SPOTLIGHT SUCKS, DAMMIT!
I have to second this. Spotlight is too vague about what it is looking
for and where. It rarely works for me.
Spotlight reminds me of a video store clerk. You ask if a movie is
available and they say "no" without appearing to make any attempt to
look for it. Or maybe they look under the counter for 2 minutes, which
is an odd place for certain movies to be. Maybe they come back with 20
DVDs that they think you'll like based on your one request. Whatever
the result, you wish somebody would just punch the title into the
computer and get the inventory count.
Tim
<mcmurtri-B0FD62...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
Jon
> Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
> for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
You most certainly can both in Finder and in Terminal:
** Finder: Enter Apple-F, then pull down the local menu which normally
says "Kind", scroll down to "Other", then look for "Visibility" and
select it in the list that appears. Check "Add to favorites" if you want
it available next time as well, otherwise it will be there just for this
search.
You can also enter hidden directory names in many locations, such as
Save and Open dialogs, by hitting Apple-Shift-G and writing, e.g.,
"/var/*".
** Terminal: The simplest is to do a directory listing (ls) with the -A
option. Alternately, browse "man find".
--
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
William Mitchell
Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
--
Bill Mitchell
Dept of Mathematics, The University of Florida
PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
mitc...@math.ufl.edu (352) 392-0281 x284
Jerry Kindall
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> Hmm. Some of the stuff Apple is doing with OS X's graphics engine might
> actually make this easier. In particular, practically everything that OS
> X draws with Quartz 2D Extreme (which is present but disabled in Tiger,
> but will probably be enabled in Leopard) is drawn via OpenGL... which
> means that remote display could be handled by simply routing OpenGL
> commands (and, of course, occasional bitmap) across the network.
>
> Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. You'd need some kind of local
> caching of stuff you rendered (particularly character glyphs), and there
> might be other cases where performance would be horrible because access
> patterns were designed under the assumption that the GPU had nice speedy
> access to RAM.
Well, fast user switching now implies that user sessions don't actually
need hardware access to the graphics hardware, which used to be a
sticking point, I believe. So I am pretty sure that they are moving in
this direction. Sure hope so, anyway. Would be nice if they made a
Windows client for it too but I wouldn't hold my breath.
You wouldn't even need to send character glyphs in most instances if
you're using fonts that are on both machines.
TaliesinSoft
(in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> Tim <t...@nospam.org.com> writes:
>
>> In article
>> <mcmurtri-B0FD62...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
>> for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
>
> Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find is
easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it will
be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method is
already built into the OS-X operating system.
--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... talies...@mac.com
Tim
William Mitchell <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> Tim <t...@nospam.org.com> writes:
>
> > In article
> > <mcmurtri-B0FD62...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
> > for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
>
> Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
Thanks. I'll remember that one.
Tim
see_si...@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> Tim <t...@nospam.org.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
> > for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
>
> You most certainly can both in Finder and in Terminal:
>
> ** Finder: Enter Apple-F, then pull down the local menu which normally
> says "Kind", scroll down to "Other", then look for "Visibility" and
> select it in the list that appears. Check "Add to favorites" if you want
> it available next time as well, otherwise it will be there just for this
> search.
>
> You can also enter hidden directory names in many locations, such as
> Save and Open dialogs, by hitting Apple-Shift-G and writing, e.g.,
> "/var/*".
>
> ** Terminal: The simplest is to do a directory listing (ls) with the -A
> option. Alternately, browse "man find".
It's actually not files that are hidden by the unix base that I am
looking for ... I just want to be able to search for unix files from
Finder commands. For example, /usr/bin. I can use go to folder if I know
the folder name but I'd like a way to browse through every folder on the
drive or have a search find every unix file.
Thanks.
ZnU
Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <znu-F820E4.0...@individual.net>, ZnU
> <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Some of the stuff Apple is doing with OS X's graphics engine
> > might actually make this easier. In particular, practically
> > everything that OS X draws with Quartz 2D Extreme (which is present
> > but disabled in Tiger, but will probably be enabled in Leopard) is
> > drawn via OpenGL... which means that remote display could be
> > handled by simply routing OpenGL commands (and, of course,
> > occasional bitmap) across the network.
> >
> > Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. You'd need some kind of
> > local caching of stuff you rendered (particularly character
> > glyphs), and there might be other cases where performance would be
> > horrible because access patterns were designed under the assumption
> > that the GPU had nice speedy access to RAM.
>
> Well, fast user switching now implies that user sessions don't
> actually need hardware access to the graphics hardware, which used to
> be a sticking point, I believe.
Well, it implies that user sessions don't actually need access to the
graphics hardware when they're not drawing anything....
> So I am pretty sure that they are moving in this direction. Sure
> hope so, anyway. Would be nice if they made a Windows client for it
> too but I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
> You wouldn't even need to send character glyphs in most instances if
> you're using fonts that are on both machines.
Right, but using fonts on the client machine requires the system to be
smarter than the naive implementation I described above, where OpenGL
commands that would be sent to a local card are just sent over the
network to the card in the card client, some mapping is done so when the
client GPU tries to pull textures from RAM is gets them from the server.
(Note that I'm using 'client' and 'server' above in the way they're
usually used, not the backwards way X11 uses them.)
ZnU
see_si...@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> Tim <t...@nospam.org.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
> > for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
>
> You most certainly can both in Finder and in Terminal:
>
> ** Finder: Enter Apple-F, then pull down the local menu which normally
> says "Kind", scroll down to "Other", then look for "Visibility" and
> select it in the list that appears. Check "Add to favorites" if you want
> it available next time as well, otherwise it will be there just for this
> search.
>
> You can also enter hidden directory names in many locations, such as
> Save and Open dialogs, by hitting Apple-Shift-G and writing, e.g.,
> "/var/*".
You don't even need to do that, actually. The same sheet will drop down
in open dialogs if you just type '/'.
> ** Terminal: The simplest is to do a directory listing (ls) with the -A
> option. Alternately, browse "man find".
--
Jerry Kindall
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <020720060834033041%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-F820E4.0...@individual.net>, ZnU
> > <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. Some of the stuff Apple is doing with OS X's graphics engine
> > > might actually make this easier. In particular, practically
> > > everything that OS X draws with Quartz 2D Extreme (which is present
> > > but disabled in Tiger, but will probably be enabled in Leopard) is
> > > drawn via OpenGL... which means that remote display could be
> > > handled by simply routing OpenGL commands (and, of course,
> > > occasional bitmap) across the network.
> > >
> > > Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. You'd need some kind of
> > > local caching of stuff you rendered (particularly character
> > > glyphs), and there might be other cases where performance would be
> > > horrible because access patterns were designed under the assumption
> > > that the GPU had nice speedy access to RAM.
> >
> > Well, fast user switching now implies that user sessions don't
> > actually need hardware access to the graphics hardware, which used to
> > be a sticking point, I believe.
>
> Well, it implies that user sessions don't actually need access to the
> graphics hardware when they're not drawing anything....
I'm sure applications don't have to stop drawing just because they
don't have access the console. Applications in a swapped-out session
are still running.
> > So I am pretty sure that they are moving in this direction. Sure
> > hope so, anyway. Would be nice if they made a Windows client for it
> > too but I wouldn't hold my breath.
> >
> > You wouldn't even need to send character glyphs in most instances if
> > you're using fonts that are on both machines.
>
> Right, but using fonts on the client machine requires the system to be
> smarter than the naive implementation I described above, where OpenGL
> commands that would be sent to a local card are just sent over the
> network to the card in the card client, some mapping is done so when the
> client GPU tries to pull textures from RAM is gets them from the server.
Yeah, thinking about it you'd probably do it at the Quartz layer rather
than OpenGL, that makes somewhat more sense from an efficiency
standpoint. Though the OpenGL layer would have the advantage of
working across platforms.
William Mitchell
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote
> (in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> >
> > Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
>
> But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find is
> easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it will
> be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method is
> already built into the OS-X operating system.
>
I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
"other" and then visibility.
1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
terminal.
2. It doesn't find, eg, "smb.conf". Maybe somebody else can
enlighten us as to what the actual limits on CMD-F are, and whether
they can be widened when desired.
3. I'm puzzled about your claim that CMD-F is "safer". The only
possibility I can think of is that it doesn't help you find system
configuration files and therefore prevents you from screwing things up
by changing them, but I assume you don't mean that.
I suspect that the only difference is that I come from a UNIX
background and so using the terminal seems natural, while you come
from a Mac background and the GUI tools seem natural. I've come to
appreciate cases in which the finder is more convenient; I suspect
that with more experience using unix commands in the terminal you
would come to appreciate the cases in which it works better.
Perhaps I should point out two disadvantages of the "locate" command.
First, it will only find files and directories which have the search
string as part of their names, and second it only finds files which
were present the last time its indexing was run. By default, this is
weekly (and could be much less often if the computer is turned off at night).
TaliesinSoft
<y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote (in article
>> <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
>>>
>>> Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
>>
>> But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find
>> is easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that
>> it will be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer
>> method is already built into the OS-X operating system.
>>
>
> I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select "other"
> and then visibility.
>
> 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
> terminal. 2. It doesn't find, eg, "smb.conf". Maybe somebody else can
> enlighten us as to what the actual limits on CMD-F are, and whether they
> can be widened when desired. 3. I'm puzzled about your claim that CMD-F is
> "safer". The only possibility I can think of is that it doesn't help you
> find system configuration files and therefore prevents you from screwing
> things up by changing them, but I assume you don't mean that.
My hesitancy to recommend the terminal is that I've encountered too many
cases where someone not Unix savvy has created a disaster by incorrectly
entering a terminal command.
My reference to "safer" was in the context of non-terminal vs. terminal and
was not meant to be constrained to the Cmd-F panel of the Finder.
I'll readily admit to not being a Unix expert. My concerns are when such
persons recommend a terminal command when an alternative exists within the
Mac interface. As an example, some time back a person asked how to move a
file from one folder to another, something easily accomplished by
drag-and-drop, and were advised to use a terminal command.
> I suspect that the only difference is that I come from a UNIX background
> and so using the terminal seems natural, while you come from a Mac
> background and the GUI tools seem natural. I've come to appreciate cases
> in which the finder is more convenient; I suspect that with more
> experience using unix commands in the terminal you would come to
> appreciate the cases in which it works better.
I do resort to the terminal when absolutely necessary, but I'll admit that
with my minimal Unix knowledge it is done with some trepidation.
> Perhaps I should point out two disadvantages of the "locate" command.
> First, it will only find files and directories which have the search
> string as part of their names, and second it only finds files which were
> present the last time its indexing was run. By default, this is weekly
> (and could be much less often if the computer is turned off at night).
As an aside, this morning I had to copy and paste two crontab actions into
the terminal so that they would execute. For reasons unbeknownst to me these
crontab entries did not run as they usually do as scheduled. Any thoughts?
Jerry Kindall
<mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote
> > (in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> > >
> > > Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
> >
> > But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find is
> > easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it
> > will
> > be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method is
> > already built into the OS-X operating system.
> >
>
> I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
> "other" and then visibility.
>
> 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
> terminal.
Hmmm....
0) Switch to Finder.
1) Open hard disk.
2) Open Applications folder.
3) Open Utilities folder.
4) Double-click Terminal.
5) type "locate smb.conf"
6) copy the pathname from the Terminal
7) Switch back to Finder
8) Choose Go -> Go to Folder
9) Paste the pathname into the dialog
10) Click the Go button
11) Switch back to Terminal
12) Quit Terminal
Okay, you can do this faster if you try, e.g. Cmd-Shift-A to open the
Applications folder, thereby combining steps 1 and 2, etc. And if you
are savvy enough you can open the enclosing folder from the Terminal.
Still, I think you underestimate the amount of work your technique
takes for people who don't keep Terminal open all the time.
> 2. It doesn't find, eg, "smb.conf". Maybe somebody else can
> enlighten us as to what the actual limits on CMD-F are, and whether
> they can be widened when desired.
I'm pretty sure it won't search into the system files even if you
select "invisible" because those aren't indexed by Spotlight... on
Tiger, Find only finds what's been indexed.
> 3. I'm puzzled about your claim that CMD-F is "safer". The only
> possibility I can think of is that it doesn't help you find system
> configuration files and therefore prevents you from screwing things up
> by changing them, but I assume you don't mean that.
It's safer in that you can't accidentally type "sudo rm -rf /" into
Finder. ;)
Paul Sture
>
> Perhaps I should point out two disadvantages of the "locate" command.
> First, it will only find files and directories which have the search
> string as part of their names, and second it only finds files which
> were present the last time its indexing was run. By default, this is
> weekly (and could be much less often if the computer is turned off at night).
Another disadvantage with locate is that it does a case sensitive search
on the filename.
Unless of course you can give me a magic incantation to get it doing a
case _insensitive_ search, for which I would be very grateful :-)
Jon
> You don't even need to do that, actually. The same sheet will drop down
> in open dialogs if you just type '/'.
Thanks for the tip! :-)
Jon
> What is that supposed to do? On my system, it's intercepted by Spell
> Catcher.
It's supposed to give you a small dialog where you can type a path,
e.g., /var/<something>. Hitting Enter will then take you there.
Paul Sture
Keeping Terminal in the Dock avoids most of that.
> Still, I think you underestimate the amount of work your technique
> takes for people who don't keep Terminal open all the time.
Why not keep it open? OK, I do use it quite a bit; I typically open 3
CLI windows immediately after login (a couple for ssh to other systems,
and one for local use).
da...@earth.mac
>
>In article <y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>, William Mitchell
><mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
>> TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote
>> > (in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
>> > >
>> > > Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
>> >
>> > But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find is
>
>> > easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it
>> > will
>> > be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method is
>
>> > already built into the OS-X operating system.
>> >
>>
>> I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
>> "other" and then visibility.
>>
>> 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
>> terminal.
>
>Hmmm....
>
>0) Switch to Finder.
>1) Open hard disk.
>2) Open Applications folder.
>3) Open Utilities folder.
>4) Double-click Terminal.
>5) type "locate smb.conf"
>6) copy the pathname from the Terminal
open <Command-V>
as in:
open /Users/kindall/Documents/deeply/buried/folder
eliminates 7-10 below
Jon
> In article <y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>, William Mitchell
> <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > Okay, you can do this faster if you try, e.g. Cmd-Shift-A to open the
> > Applications folder, thereby combining steps 1 and 2, etc. And if you
> > are savvy enough you can open the enclosing folder from the Terminal.
>
> Keeping Terminal in the Dock avoids most of that.
If you install Visor (http://docs.blacktree.com/visor/visor), you can
type a single key combination and have a Terminal window drop down from
the top of the screen, then go on from there. It's useful, fun and free.
And, regarding searching for invisible files in the Finder: If you do as
I suggest and add Visibility to Favorites (in the Find dialog) it is
right there the next time around.
Doug Anderson
> In article <y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>, William Mitchell
> <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> > TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote
> > > (in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> > > >
> > > > Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
> > >
> > > But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find is
> > > easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it
> > > will
> > > be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method is
> > > already built into the OS-X operating system.
> > >
> >
> > I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
> > "other" and then visibility.
> >
> > 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
> > terminal.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> 0) Switch to Finder.
> 1) Open hard disk.
> 2) Open Applications folder.
> 3) Open Utilities folder.
> 4) Double-click Terminal.
> 5) type "locate smb.conf"
Or:
1) click on Terminal in dock.
2) type "locate smb.conf"
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Tom Stiller
> I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
> "other" and then visibility.
>
> 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
> terminal.
Unless the locate database hasn't been updated recently. Normally, it's
updated weekly by 'periodic/weekly',
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Wes Groleau
> 0) Switch to Finder.
> 1) Open hard disk.
> 2) Open Applications folder.
> 3) Open Utilities folder.
> 4) Double-click Terminal.
> 5) type "locate smb.conf"
> 6) copy the pathname from the Terminal
> 7) Switch back to Finder
> 8) Choose Go -> Go to Folder
> 9) Paste the pathname into the dialog
> 10) Click the Go button
> 11) Switch back to Terminal
> 12) Quit Terminal
>
(Depending on one's system setups) For me:
1) click the Terminal icon in the Dock
2) type 'locate smb.conf' [1]
3) drag the mouse across the path
4) type 'open '
5) do a Cmd-V
6) hit return
Different strokes for different folks.
[1] Actually, being an incorrigible tinkerer,
I already knew it was in /etc
--
Wes Groleau
Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who
did it.
-- Unknown
Wes Groleau
> Another disadvantage with locate is that it does a case sensitive search
> on the filename.
>
> Unless of course you can give me a magic incantation to get it doing a
> case _insensitive_ search, for which I would be very grateful :-)
find / -type f -print | grep -i smb.conf
Hey, you said neither 'simple' nor 'fast' -- you merely said 'magic'
--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp
Paul Sture
> Paul Sture wrote:
>> Another disadvantage with locate is that it does a case sensitive
>> search on the filename.
>>
>> Unless of course you can give me a magic incantation to get it doing a
>> case _insensitive_ search, for which I would be very grateful :-)
>
> find / -type f -print | grep -i smb.conf
>
> Hey, you said neither 'simple' nor 'fast' -- you merely said 'magic'
>
Bah! :-)
Maybe I'm having a M$ moment, but I'm sure that some previous
incarnation of locate I have used was case insensitive, but that could
well have been a different flavour of *nix.
Alan Baker
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1hhuxl1.dccidcghqsasN%see_si...@mac.com.invalid>,
> see_si...@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
>
> > Tim <t...@nospam.org.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe it's there and I can't find it ... I wish that I could do a find
> > > for UNIX files and directories that are normally hidden by OS X.
> >
> > You most certainly can both in Finder and in Terminal:
> >
> > ** Finder: Enter Apple-F, then pull down the local menu which normally
> > says "Kind", scroll down to "Other", then look for "Visibility" and
> > select it in the list that appears. Check "Add to favorites" if you want
> > it available next time as well, otherwise it will be there just for this
> > search.
> >
> > You can also enter hidden directory names in many locations, such as
> > Save and Open dialogs, by hitting Apple-Shift-G and writing, e.g.,
> > "/var/*".
>
> You don't even need to do that, actually. The same sheet will drop down
> in open dialogs if you just type '/'.
This definitely doesn't work everywhere, Znu. MT-Newswatcher, for
instance.
Alan Baker
Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>, William Mitchell
> <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> > TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:07:46 -0500, William Mitchell wrote
> > > (in article <y9dr714...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>):
> > > >
> > > > Use "locate" for this. The command "man locate" will explain it.
> > >
> > > But as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread such a find
> > > is
> > > easily undertaken right in the Finder itself. I'm always boggled that it
> > > will
> > > be suggested to use the terminal when a straightforward and safer method
> > > is
> > > already built into the OS-X operating system.
> > >
> >
> > I just tried out what I presume you are refering to: cmd-F, select
> > "other" and then visibility.
> >
> > 1. It takes much more time than typing, eg, "locate smb.conf" in the
> > terminal.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> 0) Switch to Finder.
> 1) Open hard disk.
> 2) Open Applications folder.
> 3) Open Utilities folder.
> 4) Double-click Terminal.
How about:
1. Type command-space to bring up the spotlight entry box.
2. Type "term" wait for Terminal to appear and type down-arrow, return.
> 5) type "locate smb.conf"
Now 3) instead of 5).
> 6) copy the pathname from the Terminal
> 7) Switch back to Finder
> 8) Choose Go -> Go to Folder
> 9) Paste the pathname into the dialog
> 10) Click the Go button
4) Type "open /<path to folder holding smb.conf>
(remember: you can use tab completion.
> 11) Switch back to Terminal
> 12) Quit Terminal
5) Use command-tab, command-q to quit Terminal.
>
> Okay, you can do this faster if you try, e.g. Cmd-Shift-A to open the
> Applications folder, thereby combining steps 1 and 2, etc. And if you
> are savvy enough you can open the enclosing folder from the Terminal.
You don't have to be very savvy. And instead of Cmd-Shift-A, use
Cmd-Shift-U to take you directly to Utilities.
Alan Baker
see_si...@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> Paul Sture <paul.stu...@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>
> > In article <y9dmzbr...@hotel.math.ufl.edu>, William Mitchell
> > <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Okay, you can do this faster if you try, e.g. Cmd-Shift-A to open the
> > > Applications folder, thereby combining steps 1 and 2, etc. And if you
> > > are savvy enough you can open the enclosing folder from the Terminal.
> >
> > Keeping Terminal in the Dock avoids most of that.
>
> If you install Visor (http://docs.blacktree.com/visor/visor), you can
> type a single key combination and have a Terminal window drop down from
> the top of the screen, then go on from there. It's useful, fun and free.
>
> And, regarding searching for invisible files in the Finder: If you do as
> I suggest and add Visibility to Favorites (in the Find dialog) it is
> right there the next time around.
As he pointed out, Visibility doesn't help in his example.
Alan Baker
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-12F27...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > You don't even need to do that, actually. The same sheet will drop
> > > down in open dialogs if you just type '/'.
> >
> > This definitely doesn't work everywhere, Znu. MT-Newswatcher, for
> > instance.
>
> Works in MT NW for me. (3.5.1)
Doesn't work in 3.4
William Mitchell
>
> Maybe I'm having a M$ moment, but I'm sure that some previous
> incarnation of locate I have used was case insensitive, but that could
> well have been a different flavour of *nix.
The locate on my linux machine has an -i option for case insensitive
search. The os X machine lacks this. It claims that it accepts '[]'
for a pattern match, so locate '[gG]raph' should get graph and Graph
--- but it doesn't seem to work.
ZnU
Might only work in Cocoa apps.
Alan Baker
William Mitchell <mitc...@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> Paul Sture <paul.stu...@hispeed.ch> writes:
>
> >
> > Maybe I'm having a M$ moment, but I'm sure that some previous
> > incarnation of locate I have used was case insensitive, but that could
> > well have been a different flavour of *nix.
>
> The locate on my linux machine has an -i option for case insensitive
> search. The os X machine lacks this. It claims that it accepts '[]'
> for a pattern match, so locate '[gG]raph' should get graph and Graph
> --- but it doesn't seem to work.
try: locate '*[gG]raph*'
When you use any pattern other than plain text, locate no longer assumes
the leading and trailing asterisks.
Jerry Kindall
<ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dock is for applications you use frequently, though. Therefore, most
people won't have Terminal in their Dock.
Doug Anderson
You mean there are people who _don't_ use Terminal frequently?
How odd!
John Faughnan
> In article <x-824C72.00...@news.giganews.com>,
> Quiet Desperation <x...@x.com> wrote:
> > If it fails to bring back the simple filename find.
> > I love me some Mac and some Apple, but SPOTLIGHT SUCKS, DAMMIT!
> I have to second this. Spotlight is too vague about what it is looking
> for and where. It rarely works for me.
Have you tried MoRu? It uses the spotlight engine, but scopes/filters
the search results to folder, file, etc. It's inexpensive. I agree this
should be addressed by Apple, but since there's a current fairly good
solution it doesn't make my personal 'failure criteria' list.
Hope they fix it though!
john
John Faughnan
Thanks for the dialog. I'm sure there are some serious technical issues
if OS X wasn't built for this from the beginning (BSD is designed for
this sort of thing of course, but probably not OS X), but I suspect the
main problem is market demand. If the demand's not there it's a lot of
support and maintenance costs to add to an OS. I seem to be the only
guy who really, really, really wants this for use around the home.
There may be some demand for the remote maintenance parts of this
function. It would be easier to cost justify an iMac for my mother if I
could have complete control over it remotely.
meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, Apple, 10.5, remote control
Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article <znu-78789E.1...@individual.net>, ZnU
> <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <020720060834033041%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> > Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <znu-F820E4.0...@individual.net>, ZnU
> > > <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. Some of the stuff Apple is doing with OS X's graphics engine
> > > > might actually make this easier. In particular, practically
> > > > everything that OS X draws with Quartz 2D Extreme (which is present
> > > > but disabled in Tiger, but will probably be enabled in Leopard) is
> > > > drawn via OpenGL... which means that remote display could be
> > > > handled by simply routing OpenGL commands (and, of course,
> > > > occasional bitmap) across the network.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. You'd need some kind of
> > > > local caching of stuff you rendered (particularly character
> > > > glyphs), and there might be other cases where performance would be
> > > > horrible because access patterns were designed under the assumption
> > > > that the GPU had nice speedy access to RAM.
> > >
> > > Well, fast user switching now implies that user sessions don't
> > > actually need hardware access to the graphics hardware, which used to
> > > be a sticking point, I believe.
> >
> > Well, it implies that user sessions don't actually need access to the
> > graphics hardware when they're not drawing anything....
>
> I'm sure applications don't have to stop drawing just because they
> don't have access the console. Applications in a swapped-out session
> are still running.
>
> > > So I am pretty sure that they are moving in this direction. Sure
> > > hope so, anyway. Would be nice if they made a Windows client for it
> > > too but I wouldn't hold my breath.
> > >
> > > You wouldn't even need to send character glyphs in most instances if
> > > you're using fonts that are on both machines.
> >
> > Right, but using fonts on the client machine requires the system to be
> > smarter than the naive implementation I described above, where OpenGL
> > commands that would be sent to a local card are just sent over the
> > network to the card in the card client, some mapping is done so when the
> > client GPU tries to pull textures from RAM is gets them from the server.
>
> Yeah, thinking about it you'd probably do it at the Quartz layer rather
> than OpenGL, that makes somewhat more sense from an efficiency
> standpoint. Though the OpenGL layer would have the advantage of
> working across platforms.
ZnU
"John Faughnan" <jfau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <x-824C72.00...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Quiet Desperation <x...@x.com> wrote:
> > > If it fails to bring back the simple filename find. I love me
> > > some Mac and some Apple, but SPOTLIGHT SUCKS, DAMMIT!
> > I have to second this. Spotlight is too vague about what it is
> > looking for and where. It rarely works for me.
>
> Have you tried MoRu? It uses the spotlight engine, but scopes/filters
> the search results to folder, file, etc.
Spotlight can filter search results to a folder. Select a folder in the
finder, and go to File -> Find. In the bar along the top, where you can
select where to search, you can choose the selected folder.
The Finder will remember that you want to use the selected folder as
your search location, so in the future it's really easy to just hit
command-F to search in the selected folder.
> It's inexpensive. I agree this should be addressed by Apple, but
> since there's a current fairly good solution it doesn't make my
> personal 'failure criteria' list.
>
> Hope they fix it though!
--
John Faughnan
I really went to MoRU because I wanted to see the folder relationships
in my search results, and I couldn't find a way to do that in
spotlight. Since switching I've forgotten what the different views of
spotlight (menubar vs. folder) provided ...
Wes Groleau
John Faughnan wrote:
> I wonder what they use in Apple Remote Desktop?
It seems to be based on VNC. At least it uses the same port.
--
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml
Wes Groleau
> Or put Terminal on the dock and
> 0) double-click Terminal on the dock.
>
> Or just keep terminal open, then double-click terminal on the dock and
> eliminate your steps 11 and 12.
Is this a Tiger change? In 10.3.x, either of these is a single-click.
--
Wes Groleau
There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)
Wes Groleau
> find / -type f -print | grep -i smb.conf
As long as we're looking for cryptic incantations....
open $(find / -type f -print | grep -i smb.conf)
zit
> try: locate '*[gG]raph*'
locate ""|grep -i graph
Paul Sture
Just the ticket thanks.
The same order of speed of locate (versus find), with the required case
insensitivity.