Solipsism Gradient

Rainer Brockerhoff’s blog

Browsing Posts in Software

Progress, whew!

No comments

A couple of days ago I managed to finish off most of my remaining offline problems and, since I’d seen news that the ADC Compatibility Labs now had the new iMacs for testing, applied for a couple of days at one of them.

No, I’m not going to Cupertino, but rather wanted to try out Xcode’s Remote Debugging.

As a result, I now can confidently say that XRay 2 will be fully compatible with the new Intel Macs. I’ll also be licensing the new Universal logo.

It’s rather late in the day, but tomorrow I’ll post technical details…

MemoryMiner

No comments

Congratulations to John Fox, author of MemoryMiner. MemoryMiner won one of the Best of Show awards at Macworld Expo 2006!

And, MemoryMiner uses RBSplitView for its cool user interface… icon_wink.gif

The 2006 MacFixit Toolbox Awards are out and XRay is listed first, with a Gold Award! (It won a Silver Award previously in 2001). Before you ask, yes, looks like I’ll finally be able to restart work on XRay 2 this week.

Other Gold winners are Charles Srstka’s Pacifist, which I use quite frequently (thanks Charles!), and SuperDuper, which I really should begin using Real Soon Now.

Congratulations also to my pal Mark Douma, who got a Silver Award for Font Finagler

An amazing bit of rumor has surfaced recently: Apple’s “Yellow Box” is supposed to be coming back from the dead, under the codename “Dharma“.

The idea seems to be that writing to a “pure Cocoa” API would enable software to be compiled, unchanged, for both Mac OS X and Windows. Or it could even be published as a universal binary containing both versions.

Indeed, the first aspect was the original idea when the Yellow Box was first published in 1997, when Apple bought NeXT (or vice-versa). Based on OpenStep, both Cocoa and the Yellow Box would have the same API and support programs running on both platforms. The Yellow Box was even included with Rhapsody (later Mac OS X server), although I think actual deployment licenses were sold separately. WebObjects (based on Objective-C) and EnterpriseObjects (ditto) used the same multiplatform philosophy.

However, at the 2000 WWDC Apple backed away from the whole thing. EO was discontinued amidst much weeping and wailing from its devotees, WO was converted to Java, and the Yellow Box was quietly dropped without much explanation.

At the time the reasons were quite unclear, but in hindsight some justifications can be seen. In particular, doing a successful multiplatform technology has turned out to be much more difficult than most people believed at the time; especially as Windows, not being under Apple’s control, would have been a difficult moving target anyway.

Personally I think that, retrospectively, dropping EO and moving WO to Java were mistaken decisions; keeping them both alive using Objective-C and Mac-only would have been prudent. However, the adoption of Cocoa turned out to be much slower than anyone would have thought, and as major companies like Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia stayed with Carbon, any actual Yellow Box usage would have been restricted to smaller software houses or ISVs – for which the $3000 for 10 seats licensing terms would have been too expensive anyway.

Apple deftly turned away from the idea of Carbon as a short-term transition technology and instead promoted Carbon and Cocoa as equal-strength APIs whose capabilities are converging over time. Now here is an aspect which the recent rumormongers – not being developers – have not thought of. Both NeXTSTEP and OpenStep were the lowest-level API for application programs, but this is not true of Cocoa. The multiple layering of technologies and APIs on Mac OS X means that Cocoa can’t do many things that are possible in other APIs; meaning, in practice, that any reasonably complex software must use a mixture of technologies. My own XRay, for instance, even though it’s nominally a Cocoa program, also calls BSD APIs to handle users, groups, and permissions, as well as Carbon APIs to access many aspects of the file system.

Therefore, were the Yellow Box magically resurrected, programs written for a “pure Cocoa” API would theoretically run on it – but few, if any, existing Cocoa applications can afford to be so pure. The current Cocoa framework would have to be extended quite a lot, and Yellow Box prices would have to be lowered drastically – perhaps even to zero – before any but a handful of software companies would be interested. And for what? To allow interesting applications for Mac OS X also to run on Windows, reducing incentives for users to switch? Sounds extremely unlikely to me…

A large shoe which Apple will drop is, of course, virtualization. Virtualization will tie in with a recent Apple patent which, linked to the TPM chip, will allow the new machines to run other OSes inside a sandboxed “virtual machine”. Those other OSes will believe they have a somewhat slower system all to themselves, while running inside a separate window (and, perhaps, disk partition or disk image).

Putting this together with the previously discussed flash memory hypothesis, the advantages to Apple become obvious. Why should they need to have a standard BIOS or EFI at all? They can boot directly into the virtualization kernel (or whatever it’s called at the moment), from encrypted flash memory, which in turn would run a subset of Mac OS X – perhaps only the kernel with drivers and the windows manager – to have a basic GUI to check out which virtual OSes the user wants to run. This could be a full version of Mac OS X, or any version of Windows, Unix or Linux that runs on the abstracted hardware presented by the virtualizer.

In fact, it seems that a virtual OS could be a stripped-down OS specialized for a single application – something like what’s used now for embedded systems. It might be a gaming OS optimized for full-screen interfaces, for instance, or a TiVo-like appliance, or a multimedia center.

So, Apple doesn’t have to tie itself to standards during the boot process; in fact, this means that even if the user wants to run some non-Apple OS most of the time, the Mac interface will be present all the time underneath. At the very least, you can imagine the current ghastly BIOS user interface neatly presented in Aqua…

Re: Soft on Microsoft?

No comments

This should be my last post on the topic for quite a while. Pierre Igot over at Betalogue comments on various posts about the future of MacBU inside Microsoft. Worth reading if you use Office 2004 (I don’t)… and the Mac Business Unit is indeed inside the new Entertainment & Devices division. According to Rick Schaut, who works there, this makes sense; Mac Office users are very different from Windows Office users. I’d tend to agree.

No subject(s)?

No comments

Michael “Dowbrigade” Feldman wrote:

Sometimes the Dowbrigade feels stumped for subjects to Blog on. It’s not that your faithful correspondent lacks for ideas, rants or motivation. Rather, it is that so many fecund fields are off-limits to our free-ranging interest.

We cannot blog about our place of full-time employment, after an unfortunate incident last semester in which only our wicked wit saved us from untimely termination…

…We cannot blog about the intimate details of our married life, as we know Norma Yvonne reads the Dowbrigade, and its a bad idea to share a bed with one of your expository subjects…

…In fact, we cannot blog about women, since if experience has taught us anything, it is that we understand less than nothing about the opposite sex. That is, much of what we thought we understood about them has been proven disastrously wrong…

…We are reduced to meta-blogging like this, and reprinting amusing minutiae and telling details from the media pool in which we tread water, waiting for good fortune or bad to deliver us from this literary purgatory

Well, I feel his pain; sometimes there’s much happening, but very often it’s not a subject.

However, I’m pleased to report that some marginally bloggable stuff is actually happening inside the twisty, little passages of XRay 2’s code. I stopped worrying about the UI for a couple of months and became obsessed with writing the Ultimate File Item Browser Cache Background Engine. (You should be glad I’m not writing this in German, where this would be one huge compound substantive. icon_wink.gif)

Anyway, most of it is actually working well enough now, and once I get some weird interactions with volume mount points working, the U.F.I.B.C.B.E. will be pronounced “good enough for a beta”, and I’ll get back to work on the actual file browser frontend(s) it is supposed to be the backend for.

In order to do so most efficiently we (meaning my wife) decreed that a working vacation is called for, where we’ll be away from normal life and mostly offline for a full month. We’ll leave in a few days – details will be posted soon – and proceed to Northern Italy, where two nearly consecutive mediterranean cruises are scheduled. More as it happens!

Re: Soft on Microsoft?

No comments

Rainer Brockerhoff wrote:

No word yet on where their Mac software division will fit in…

This interesting article shows Microsoft executives discussing Apple as a competitor. At the outset it’s said that the Mac Business Unit is now in the games division… this must be either a joke, or a joke. Ehrrm. You know what I mean… icon_smile.gif

Photos licensed by Creative Commons license. Unless otherwise noted, content © 2002-2024 by Rainer Brockerhoff. Iravan child theme by Rainer Brockerhoff, based on Arjuna-X, a WordPress Theme by SRS Solutions. jQuery UI based on Aristo.