Renaissance Grrrl

So Fink has decided that for anything I want to install I really need to have tetex and ghostscript installed. I already have ghostscript8.57 installed (8.51 is the newest in fink) and I already have non-tetex distros of tex installed. In any case, neither the real packages nor the "I already have it thank you very much" packages will install. (Also fink's bitching about X11 because I have the audacity to use the official Apple release rather than the fink version; and the supplied FAQ link on the topic is worthless.)

i.e. Fink is fuxx0r3d

I've never liked fink, but I already have it installed and it seems like the only option for OSX package management. So is there any way to force fink to install the packages?

For those who haven't been following the latest news, there's a whole bunch of flutter about OSX in the last couple days. Namely that Apple has released beta software called Boot Camp [1]which allows you to dual-boot Windows XP on your new Intel Mac.

And if that sounds like crippling a ferrari, Parallels has just announced the beta of their Parallels Workstationwhich lets you run Windows (or any x86 OS) in a window on your Mac via virtualization (better than emulation).

And if you still think hell hasn't frozen over yet, Microsoft has announced support for Linux. So what if it's just a bid to try to undercut VMWare in the server virtualization market. (Hey, anyone else remember the days of Xenix?)

In other Macish news, Klink Software has released their open-source Dim3 game engine. Till now, the engine has been OSX only, now there's a Windows version too; the days of mac/win game engine exclusivity may be nearing an end.

In other gaming news, Blizzard has indefinitely postponed Starcraft: Ghost. For those who've followed the saga, this isn't the first setback for that game. The latest version was planned for the xbox and ps2, so it's sensible for them to reconsider given the new generation of consoles is out (or will be this fall).

For some inexplicable reason Apple has decided to drop IBM PPC line for Intel chips. Now I'm not sure whether that means they're just changing manufacturers or if they're entirely ditching PCC for IA32 (or whatever 64-bit family that turned into). The article seems to imply the latter, though it's not very specific. Unless the 64-bit Intel processor has finally done away with the legacy of backwards-compatibility that IA32 maintained, I can't see how the extreme dearth of registers is going to help a platform that has long been the de facto platform for graphical manipulation. Given how a number of IA32 programmers complain about only having eight general purpose registers, I don't think those used to having 32 of them will enjoy it much.