The title is a bit unclear. Up through Lion, Apple bundled XQuartz to provide X11 support. Going forward, they will no longer do so. Instead you'll have to download and install the XQuartz binary separately. Apple will continue to support XQuartz as an open source project. There will just no longer be an "official" Apple version.
You have been downvoted because many people on HN base their votes on whether they like the message of a comment. People who like Apple products and can identify with the values of the company will feel you're defending Apple with your comment and will upvote you for doing so. Other people who like X11 or XQuartz a lot or simply dislike Apple will feel that you're trying to defend an evil act and will downvote your comment in retribution. I'm not sure how helpful this voting pattern is for the quality of HN discussions but it's basic human nature and there's not much that can be done about it.
> There will just no longer be an "official" Apple version.
Even that's overstating it -- there will still be an "official" Apple version, written by Apple employees and automatically installed when it's needed; it just won't be on most users' machines.
It's not uncommon for users that rely on X11 support to update to the latest XQuartz release by themselves, anyway. Perhaps this will even bring more attention to the project, which is always good.
It's also one less thing for them to worry about, since they're moving to a faster release cycle.
Now, IMO, most people that need XQuartz need it to run GTK apps, like the GIMP. Is there a technical reason why GTK doesn't support OS X natively? Or is it only because noone ever did it, really? Perhaps now that can also happen?
It would be really nice to have GTK apps using the menu bar and displaying native OS X widgets.
There's been a Quartz backend for GTK+ for quite some time. Working GIMP builds for native OSX have been available since 2011, and for most projects it's just a matter of finicking with the build system until it works.
Is it just me, or is Macrumors by far the best Apple-news aggregator out there? Their reporting is clean, straight-forward and thorough (e.g. I wasn't aware that X11 was important for scientists). They present the rumors and their validity(looking at past rumors and the sources) and that's it. No non-sense subjective babbling like you see on apple-insider.
Sorry for the derail, it's just something i've been noticing. I wish more people would like to them.
> Is it just me, or is Macrumors by far the best Apple-news aggregator out there?
Ars Technica's Infinite Loop section is very good in my experience, they don't tend to do rumor as much and their coverage is usually good and informed.
appleinsider's quality varies a lot and it has lots of terrible writers who really don't know jack (Prince McLean for instance, really should quit the internet altogether), and the 9to5 network is just garbage all around, with 9to5mac being the Apple-scenting of that garbage.
They're certainly not bad (and what I subscribe to in RSS) when one considers the field.
A lot of it is very US-centric and some of the 'rumours' aren't very news-worthy (the numerous stories on dock connectors for the iPad 3 come to mind) but it's far more like a news site that works mostly on facts (well, as close to facts as rumours can come) than mere speculation and conjecture. Arn, the guy who runs it, is an MD which might explain the difference to an extent.
Apple seems to be taking another turn towards open source software. The spinning off of the cli build tools into an smaller package makes like easier for tools like homebrew and fink. Supporting projects like this is a very good sign.
Can we please calm down? All that happened is that they will no longer bundle an old version of XQuartz with every new release of OSX, which is probably a good thing because it will probably make it less hacky to install a newer version.
How many Mac users actually use X? I assume a fraction of the audience of HN does, but, again, the last time I used X on a Mac it was on a PPC G3.
XQuartz comes bundled with every OSX install disk. That doesn't mean people use it. My mother and my wife probably have it installed, but I doubt they ever heard of X or used it.
I was going to make a joke about someone doing a web based wireshark but it looks like someone actually bothered doing that.. http://cloudshark.org/ go figure.
[+] [-] js2|14 years ago|reply
[Edit: why would someone downvote this?]
[+] [-] DrJokepu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duskwuff|14 years ago|reply
Even that's overstating it -- there will still be an "official" Apple version, written by Apple employees and automatically installed when it's needed; it just won't be on most users' machines.
[+] [-] cdr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tvon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCoreh|14 years ago|reply
It's not uncommon for users that rely on X11 support to update to the latest XQuartz release by themselves, anyway. Perhaps this will even bring more attention to the project, which is always good.
It's also one less thing for them to worry about, since they're moving to a faster release cycle.
Now, IMO, most people that need XQuartz need it to run GTK apps, like the GIMP. Is there a technical reason why GTK doesn't support OS X natively? Or is it only because noone ever did it, really? Perhaps now that can also happen?
It would be really nice to have GTK apps using the menu bar and displaying native OS X widgets.
[+] [-] bri3d|14 years ago|reply
There's been a Quartz backend for GTK+ for quite some time. Working GIMP builds for native OSX have been available since 2011, and for most projects it's just a matter of finicking with the build system until it works.
[+] [-] simcop2387|14 years ago|reply
http://www.gtk.org/download/macos.php
[+] [-] MrJagil|14 years ago|reply
Sorry for the derail, it's just something i've been noticing. I wish more people would like to them.
[+] [-] masklinn|14 years ago|reply
Ars Technica's Infinite Loop section is very good in my experience, they don't tend to do rumor as much and their coverage is usually good and informed.
appleinsider's quality varies a lot and it has lots of terrible writers who really don't know jack (Prince McLean for instance, really should quit the internet altogether), and the 9to5 network is just garbage all around, with 9to5mac being the Apple-scenting of that garbage.
[+] [-] alastairpat|14 years ago|reply
A lot of it is very US-centric and some of the 'rumours' aren't very news-worthy (the numerous stories on dock connectors for the iPad 3 come to mind) but it's far more like a news site that works mostly on facts (well, as close to facts as rumours can come) than mere speculation and conjecture. Arn, the guy who runs it, is an MD which might explain the difference to an extent.
[+] [-] tehjones|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|14 years ago|reply
How many Mac users actually use X? I assume a fraction of the audience of HN does, but, again, the last time I used X on a Mac it was on a PPC G3.
[+] [-] ComputerGuru|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mturmon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbateman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julien_p|14 years ago|reply
All this changes is that the first time you run an application that uses X11 a dialog box pops up directing you to the XQuartz project page.
[+] [-] rbanffy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __david__|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grzaks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flocial|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thought_alarm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jc4p|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] there|14 years ago|reply
Though http://www.tastycocoabytes.com/cpa/index.php is ok for very basic stuff.
[+] [-] digitalsushi|14 years ago|reply