Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store
Orome1 writes "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac. What's also very important in this release is the introduction of the long-awaited Mac App Store with more than 1,000 free and paid apps."
People were previously not able to buy enough Apple products online, in the Apple store, and Best Buy and Walmart. Finally a new way to consume more!
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
It all started with those pesky port and apt-get systems. Damn... the end is near, and it is all the fault of Debian and BSD.
Um, I'm using SL with Exchange 2003. No problems.
based on marketshare, I'd say... No.
If the iOS App Store has been evidence of anything, this isn't necessarily a good thing. The App Store will obviously garnish lots of attention, and will likely be the primary sales point for most Mac software within a few years. The problem I see is that the more use this App Store sees, the less power developers will have, as more and more people use the Mac App Store for their primary software needs. I would also be worried about the possibility of Apple closing off software sales outside of the App Store, which has been the primary policy regarding iOS applications since it's initial release.
Shudders.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
But do Debian and FreeBSD repositories have anything like the Mac App Store guidelines? These can be read to reject entire categories of applications, as I pointed out in a comment to the Armageddon story. Watch the sparks fly over the precise interpretation of these guidelines.
I think it's good news especially for indie developers to get more attention. Pixelmator can now be fighting on the same place as Photoshop. If consumers also rate products well, this can give them a serious competitive advantage. I think this is a background to why a small company like those behind Angry Birds has been able to grow this popular so quickly.
I know it's good for me anyway. I love orderly stuff, and can't complain about a well categorized store with user reviews, simple installs, and automated version tracking. It's far better than their earlier marketplace that was basically just a link collection.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
TFA makes it sound a lot like apt or the package manager for any Linux, except here you have to pay for some of the apps, and without a community repo.
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Pixelmator can now be fighting on the same place as Photoshop.
Not if the ranking algorithm includes counting inbound links from web sites. Photoshop's existing brand recognition may serve to boost its visibility in the App Store.
"People", as in "end users", just want it to work without hassles.
I'm sure to a lot of people who have no interest in fiddling with downloading and installing software will like this. You think Apple hasn't asked people?
I'm sure for someone like my parents (in their 70s) would find an App Store model far easier to work with.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Looks like CmdrTaco has been studying at the Fox News School of Journalistic Neutrality. I believe the preferred formulation would be, "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which Apple claims 'increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac'".
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
without a community repo.
And that's the big difference. Developers can't just set up their own PPAs and the like; instead, they have to pay $8.25 per month for hosting and rely on review guidelines that will be hotly contested.
It's an interesting move, and it brings us one step closer to the end of the "PC era."
Does it?
As far as I know, it does nothing new besides offering Mac users a shortcut.
Before, you'd have to Open Up Google and type in "Mac Apps" and then sift through the top 20 ranked pages! The horror!
> everyone always told me macs were perfectly safe and never get viruses!
OH HAI WE PATCHED SOME 0DAY SPLOITZ B4 NE1 COULD P0WNZUS
egypt urnash minimal art.
Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with more experience on the subject.
Using software update, anyone know if this can run without mods on my hackintosh?
Dang Apple and their short-term support of hardware.
Since you have an intel Mac there's always the Linux upgrade option. Personally, I plan on installing Slackware on my iMac when Apple decides that they no longer wish to support it. I agree, their support life is way too short.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
"It's an interesting move, and it brings us one step closer to the end of the "PC era.""
Apple makes it easier to buy software for their PC and you somehow interpret this has making a step closer to the end of PC? That's some fancy reasoning you have there.
And I would be willing to bet that you are using IMAP or POP3 rather than a native Exchange 2003 connection.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
A single place to go and download most of the software you could ever need for your system. How will that cause the end of the "PC era"? What do you mean by "PC era"?
Now, they should add automatic dependency management, class by source availability and freedom, and have unstable and stable repositories.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Apple "innovates" again and re-invents the package manager Linux has had for ages...
Yeah, pretty much. I wish it had not taken them so long though. I wish they'd do a better job copying virtual desktops while they're at it. I notice Canonical innovated and added apps for sale to their own app repositories. Now I wish Linux distros would innovate and re-invent GNU-step style packages and required package signing with real credentials to get into the default repositories, and heck system services while they're at it.
I really, really like it when OS's copy the best parts of other OS's and my daily computing experience is made easier. I don't really care that someone else came up with something first.
An OS with a repository of thousands of free apps? So it's like what we have had in the open source world for YEARS??? Ah, no, free as in "free of charges", not freedom...
I believe the fancy reasoning (as I've seen it on Slashdot) goes something like "Zomg! Teh App Store is going to take away our freedoms and make us all rent software and not be able to own our own computers".
Personally, I have no idea why a simplified mechanism of software distribution is causing people to get their knickers in a twist. Given that there are free apps in there, is this fundamentally any different than getting a package for my Ubuntu install? Choose software, say "make go now", wait a bit, run software.
Scary stuff! Lock up your children!
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Don't forget vuvuzela and air horns. :-P
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What the fuck are you on about? The Mac App Store has the same requirements as the Snow Leopard release:
1) Mac system running Intel processor;
2) 1 GB of RAM;
3) 5 GB of disk space;
4) DVD Drive
That's it. The entirety of the "required specs" to run Snow Leopard. There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.
Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?
I don't think we're going to see this blow up like the iPhone app store. I don't think people are crazy for apps - they are crazy for mobile apps. The mobile platform offers a specific set of benefits and drawbacks that makes it ideal for the app explosion we've seen:
- Location awareness
- Accelerometer functionality
- Forward and/or rear-facing cameras
- The novelty and utility of the web in your pocket
- Bandwidth limitations and limitations imposed by the form factor, reducing the utility of what's possible in the browser and raising the relative value of proprietary applications designed for the form factor
In my head, the average Apple fan's interaction with the store will be something like the following: "Awesome, a new app store for my desktop/laptop! Let's check it out.... oh. I guess I don't really need any apps because Safari already gets me everywhere I need to go, and rest of these aren't apps, they're just programs." People aren't as likely to pick up cheap distractions and website-replacement apps for a desktop or laptop. Maybe it will make them more likely to purchase higher-priced software, but this isn't going to be another "app revolution."
Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?
Please don't even argue this point. Linux is a bit behind the curve and the only people who would argue otherwise are people who don't use both OS's. Sure you can copy your home directory on Linux, or use the stored installer (if you are expert enough to know where they go) for an individual app (on some distros)... all provided you are running on the same architecture.
With OS X you can literally drag an application into a chat window to a friend, who is running a different version of your OS, running on a different chipset and that friend can double click the app and run it. It's a great deal more painless since all the apps are the installers and are self contained directories ending in .app. It's one of the things Apple got right and where no Linux distro has enough pull to push change, especially since it is not a big pain point for end users. Additionally, the OpenStep packages make running software off a network drive or flash drive or anywhere really, easier by allowing for multiple sets of preferences and multiple included binaries to get around the whole hack of symlinks or multiple copies for multiple architectures.
Linux is not ahead in every area, just as OS X and Windows are behind in other areas. Get over it.
If "developers will hand over 30 percent of the purchase price to Apple," what will consumer prices be?
The more informed people used versiontracker.com but since cnet bought it and turned it to a smothering pile of crap, we had no centralized repository.
I welcome this so that we finally will have a package manager that is useful and can track updates.
Apple finally invented a shitty, drm'd version of apt! Hooray!
Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?
I believe he's just talking about your application directory, not your entire home directory.
Really, it completely depends on the software. Mac OS apps tend to be packages, basically directories with a pre-defined structure and extension that the GUI treats as a file instead of as a directory. You can still open them like a directory through a special command but when you use the normal open/run command they run like an application. Since the entire application is a directory it contains pretty much everything that it needs to run and you can simply move the package anywhere you need it to be, even to another computer.
Now some applications do create a preference file and some support files that are located elsewhere on the computer so sometimes there is stuff left behind. The well-written applications will simply re-create these files if they need them and they don't exist. This often means that when you move it to a new computer then the moved application might start in a default state if you don't also move the preference or support files.
Some Linux applications work in a similar manner, although others are more liberal where they spread their components. One of the key things is shared libraries, on Mac OS a developer is supposed to include the libraries not part of the base OS install in the package. On Linux they are often installed in a different location than the application and when you move the application you are supposed to also copy or re-install the libraries. It's not quite as automatic, hence the emphasis on packaging systems on Linux systems. On Linux it's usually just easier to install your applications through a package system than move them.
Sapere aude!
Why do we need to upgrade and reboot the operating system to run, just, a new application? What has changed in the OS itself that enables this AppStore application to run (and I'm confident that it's not the additional Postscript patch) ?
Apple "innovates" again and re-invents the package manager Linux has had for ages...
The difference is that Apple will make more money from the Mac App Store during its first five minutes online than all the Linux package managers have made combined during their entire collective existence.
Anything Apple gets promoted to a worldwide conspiracy.
Then reverse the meaning of what ever Apple is doing and if singular make it "for all". Example: Apple is adding a new distribution mechanism. In /. speak this translates to "Apple is taking away all other distribution methods."
Then make vague allusions to all governments becoming Apple and all people becoming Apple (except for the brave /. rebels).
I can see this being incorporated into softwareupdate.
I already use it to update stuff when I'm away from home. ...]
usage: softwareupdate [
-l | --list List all appropriate updates ... specific updates
-d | --download Download Only
-i | --install Install
-a | --all all appropriate updates
-r | --recommended only recommended updates
Per-user preferences: ... Ignore specific updates
--ignore
--reset-ignored Clear all ignored updates
--schedule (on | off) Set automatic checking
-v | --verbose Enable verbose output
-h | --help Print this help
Security? But... but... everyone always told me macs were perfectly safe and never get viruses!
I think they're referring to the security of your information, but go ahead and keep trolling. As a side benefit, yes, this would provide more oversight if a virus ever did successfully make it to the wild.
Also, a lot of people think this is something that's forced upon the user and is the only place to buy an application (which clearly isn't the case.) I think it's meant for the majority of the computer-using public that really has no idea that there are other options than going to a brick-and-mortar store for software.
Weren't intel macs first released in January 2006? (In other words wouldn't every intel mac meet those specs?)
My four year old Intel-Mac doesn't have the required specs.
It has. You are just too cheap to spend $29 on Snow Leopard.
...all OS X users are sincerely fucked.
iOS devices outsell OS X devices 7 times over. OS X also doesn't provide further revenue for Apple in App Sales. Today's release is market research to see what happens when an App Store is present on a desktop system. If it's at all successful, 10.7 will be the last operating system in which a user has the option to legally install their own software without going through the app store.
Steve will present it as a future free from viruses and crashes, and 99% of the user base will nod their little domes in approval and buy it.
You're right, though I believe some of them (esp. the early Minis) don't fully support all Snow Leopard features - some of the video stuff, I believe, actually requires ATI or Nvidia graphics, and iirc, the early minis used the integrated Intel graphics.
This isn't actually true is it? Can I send an app built on my linux box to someone running a different arch & distro -- no! Can an Apple user send a current intel-only app to someone running OSX on PPC or iOS on a mobile device -- no! Then we get to the question of why anybody would ever want to copy a raw binary instead of using a linux distros package manager?
Fat binaries were a temporary workaround and both Apple and MS include emulators. Can I run a linux ARM binary via a distro under QEMU from another arch -- yes.
There really isn't a single decent place to track and download software for Macs. Version tracker wasn't bad but now it suck. Even on the Windows side all the big name software repositories have more ads than software for you to download.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Please don't even argue this point.
Of course I will.
It's one of the things Apple got right and where no Linux distro has enough pull to push change, especially since it is not a big pain point for end users.
OK, you clearly do NOT understand how Linux works, or ironically OSX. The underlying mechanisms are then same in both operating systems that we may as well consider them the same for the purposes of discussion.
Linux and OSX implement self-contained programs in exactly the same way. They ship around and archive containing the executable, the requires shared libraries and resources.
The model works reasonably well in some cases, especially large, monolithic programs. I install all of them to /opt. I can certainly cp -r most (all? I haven't tried) of the subdirectories in /opt to another computer and have the programs run just fine. That's on Linux.
The model works absoloutely terribly in other cases. I have 684 packages on my system, and I tend to have rather bare-bones systems. There are many cross dependencies. In your preferred system, every package would have to have all of its own libraries. Not only would that vastly increase the amount of disk space used, it would (more importantly) vastly increase the RAM usage since different executables would be unable to share the same libraries. Also, because the package manager tracks dependencies, it can automatically perform upgrades of all packages.
I like the package management based solution. It basically works like magic with absoloutely no effort. It is by far the easiest to use system I have encountered. The small handful of proprietary apps I use also work just fine.
And er, one final thing. You know you can't just copy the programs in /sw/bin to another mac, right?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's the thing though - I've never felt the need for 1 single repository to look for applications. That's what the internet has done for me.
Whenever I want to do something, I Google "How to Do X" where X is what I want to do.
Then if it's available in an application, it'll be listed there.
As for the idea of just impulse App shopping, thats not something I use my PC for.
I have a Mac Mini Core Solo, 1.50ghz ... works fine. And this was the slowest intel mac shipped.
Since you have an intel Mac there's always the Linux upgrade option.
PPC Macs are an option too: http://penguinppc.org/
Dilbert RSS feed
Thing is, apple apps install cleaner than Linux apps.
Actually, it's really up to you. In OSX, apps must be packaged in a special folder which has all this metadata. It's big and it's impossible to transmit using HTTP, thus that in turn has to be packaged into a disk image. Yes, you do get the benefit of having all the shared libraries and stuff packaged in. Of course, you don't get the benefit of enjoying "shared libraries" because you're going to have across 10 apps 10 versions of a given library. Of course the closed source proprietary system libraries are going to be identical on all macs running a given version, which provides a level of convenience in exchange for, uh, your freedom..
ALL Linux apps distributed via source using gnu make can be installed wherever you want. --prefix is your friend ;) I really like /usr/local/[appname] for linux compiled stuff and then big packages of tomcat and java apps and prepackaged binaries of commercial software I usually put in /opt/[appname].
RPM packages and the like are generally made to conform to the distro's standards which generally are pretty good, but sometimes they make judgement calls about the final location of some files. I avoid using RPMs as much as possible when I'm installing an app in a production environment. rpm also has a --prefix and relocatable packages can be installed wherever you want.
Now of course, if you do this you'll need to make some config changes to make sure they still run right. In general, you might need to extend your shells PATH to search in the application's bin/sbin/libexec director(ies) and you make need to add the lib directory to /etc/ld.so.conf and run ldconfig (this adds to the shared libraries index).
Need to move the app to another server with the same architecture and libraries? Rsync or copy the application folder, setup path, done.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Not to nitpick, but the MBA come without the DVD drive. :-)
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
I'm sold on the concept, but the store sells (and will undoubtedly sell more) apps that I've already paid for and have license/serial/whatever. I'm wondering what the process will be for letting Apple know I've purchased these? I would guess that (with Apple's help) the manufacturer would offer a "coupon" to existing users that lets them download the app for free or upgrade fee if it's already been registered? BBEdit, for example?
I'm also wondering why they didn't roll the iOS apps into this process - iTunes is really poorly suited to apps.
I've had Macs for about 6 years now. So far I haven't found anything that restricted me. I do have enough sense to keep my data in formats that I can move around but there's nothing in OS X that forces me to stay there. On the Mac I keep my photos in iPhoto but only use jpgs, all my music is in iTunes but ever file is an unrestricted mp3, I use Firefox or Chrome, OpenOffice, Emacs, Adium, KeepassX, etc. A couple of times I've backed up my data onto an external drive and moved it over to a Linux computer and was able to use all of my data. I use a Mac purely for convenience but I could be just as functional with Linux. I don't have an iPhone or Pad so I can't argue with you on those.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Can I get Photoshop CS9 for $0.99 with ad's all over in it?
More interesting question: When will the first enterprising individual start to offer the GIMP in the McAppStore for $0.99?
Security? But... but... everyone always told me macs were perfectly safe and never get viruses!
Viruses != trojans.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the stats I see on our website (major financial institution):
The remaining 2.73% is crap data.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I think this comes as no surprise to anyone. It's an interesting move, and it brings us one step closer to the end of the "PC era." Is this really what people want? I guess it must be.
Yes it is. Everyone at slashdot points to their "Mothers" or "GrandMothers" when it comes to non-technical users. But "People" are doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, mechanics, etc that want an "internet appliance". They want facebook, photos, e-mail. These are the people that are buying the iPad. They don't want to search google for an app. They just want to be able to get it.
My girlfriend wouldn't have Ubuntu if I wasn't there to support it. Between grub failing to install and me having to walk her through a grub recovery on Live to her printer/scanner combo not working. Sure the Software Repository is nice, but that's exactly what this is.
Not everyone wants to come home and tinker with OS, Firmware or Applications. People will pay 10% more if it "Just works". Think of all the branding people did back in the day with "PC Compatible". Slap an iOS approved logo on a printer, scanner, camera and it'll sell. Everytime I read of these doom and gloom stories/comments I can only think of the XKC: Rock Band. "Guys Apple isn't Open! They have a walled garden. Listen to me. Stop getting stuff done that you wanted to".
Slashdot claims that everyone wants a "Choice". Here's a great TED Talk on Paradox of Choice. What has "Choice" gotten us with the Android Market? Fragmentation, articles on how "What will happen with all these different GPUs" etc. Most people don't want a choice. They want to be told how it is. When you decide where to go for dinner with a group of friends more often than not its "I don't care. No seafood." "I don't care. What ever.". It's 20 minutes of no-decision making until someone steps up and says "We're going to This Italian restaurant, and 99% of the time everyone has no problem with it.
It's what helped Facebook become popular over Myspace. There was no editing HTML. There were a few boxes. This is how it is. Enter your info. Everyones page looks the exact same. Myspace made Geocities look like the css zen garden.
iOS devices outsell OS X devices 7 times over. OS X also doesn't provide further revenue for Apple in App Sales.
OS X in fact provides a huge amount of revenue. It sells laptops and computers for Apple.
If you listen to the last quarterly report, Apple stated that if you took just the computer division alone, it would be a fortune 500 company by itself.
It's pretty obvious the Mac as we know it is going to be around for a long time.
I agree that lots of people are also buying iOS devices, but they will tend to be companion devices (although there are people buying only iOS devices and that's it).
As for a world where 99% of the population has no more viruses (thinking computers will be immune from crashes in our lifetime is wishful thinking), well what's wrong with that for MOST PEOPLE? The fact that you think of it as horrific shows you care not a whit for the poor average user who doesn't undertstand how to maintain a computer, but only about your own selfish needs.
We'll always have computers we can tinker with. But isn't it about time we ALSO had computers where people didn't have to? That's what iOS devices, and to a lesser extent the Mac, are meant to be.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
True, the DVD is an install-time requirement only; if you want to install it on an MBA, you'll need the external superdrive or the remote install using a DVD drive shared from another system.
You never stumbled onto macupdate.com? That replaced versiontracker.com as my preferred clearinghouse long before cnet bought vt.
Also, I highly recommend you check out AppFresh -- I've been using it to track and install updates for about a year now, and it works very well.
(Meanwhile my 9 year old XP-PC is still going strong and is upgradeable to Seven
*blink*
You must be joking, what are the specs on that box?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
I'm pretty sure Redhat and Novell have profited from from the existence of package managers running on their distros, even if people aren't buying individual packages.
That's because no Linux package manager so far had that objective. It's like comparing a Ferrari and a Sail Boat only on how water tight they are.
Boxed software, like anything you can buy off the supermarket shelves has a typical offset price of about 50% for the distributor. If anything, this hurts the middle man more than anyone, and I'm all for it.
To do list for Windows
No, all Intel Macs are fully supported. Some advanced features might not work with early Intel graphics chips, but those are not required features. The OS simply uses alternate methods to get the same thing done - with less eye candy. I have a core duo that works great with Snow Leopard - first iteration of the Intel Macs.
Then that simply underscores the fact that C64_love is lying through his teeth in a blatant attempt at trolling:
There is NO 4-year-old intel Mac (early 2007) that "does not meet the requirements" for Snow Leopard.
Rapidshare?
My dual G5 is IMMUNE to your evil "App Store" Virus. Suck it, Jobs.
It's still a supercomputer, and it's STILL a weapon.
Even if I can't watch Flash video on it.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It would be good for you to kill yourself. Messily and painfully, please.
I mean, really. There is no cage. Your extreme jealousy and/or hatred of Apple is not warranted.
Apple "innovates" again and re-invents the package manager Linux has had for ages...
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installer_(Mac_OS_X)
The .pkg format installer packages used by OS X originated on NeXTStep. It has been used in disk images for ages. The .app application package directory format originated on NeXTStep as well. These formats predate Java as .jar files are loosely based on the structure of .app directory packages.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Yeah, but the developer is still getting $15 per box. This is great news for them.
Actually, Linux relies upon dependency resolution at install time. OS X uses self contained packages with a dynamic linking scheme. That's the difference I was bringing up and what enables OS X to have more easily portable applications and better ability to use remote software.
Again, no, you seem to misunderstand what linux does and does not do.
Both systems work in both of the ways you have described. See e.g. MATLAB for linux (no install time dependency resolution), or Fink/Macports which does install-time dependency resolution on OSX.
On OS X the executable(s) and resources are in the same directory along with the libraries that aren't standard on the OS.
That's exactly the same way that 3rd party self-contined rather than package-managed software works on Linux. And the standard Linux way is exactly the same way that third-party package-managed software works on OSX (e.g. Fink).
As for unable to share libraries, that's not true. They do share libraries dynamically linking to the most up to date within the stable line. You can literally install a singed package and your other apps will upgrade or fall back to their own copy as needed because multiple copies are stored (one per app that uses it).
Are you claiming that if two different .apps have the same .dylib buried in their directory somewhere, then when the two apps are running, only one copy of the .dylib will reside in RAM? If so, then [citation needed] because I've never heard of that happening before.
It doesn't work as well, especially for...
No, it works vastly better except for... ...apps installed not using the package manger (as a Linux user I'm sure you have to deal with these as well) and it falls down in the several, specific use cases I mentioned in my last post (and which you did not address).
Of course the package manager doesn't manage non-packages. Much like the .app method doesn't help executables that aren't .apps. For non managed packages the install process is usually a case or running the installer executable, which is I will grant more awkward than using a .app on OSX (though plenty of OSX programs also seem to require installing, too). But not much, given that the majority of installed software is done through the package management system.
For the managed packages everything works effortlessly, like magic.
OK, back to your other points. I've never had a problem with networked executables. Things seem to run over NFS just as well as locally. And multi-arch programs also seem to run just fine. I believe that matlab uses a wrapper script internally to invoke the correct binary. But frankly, I run it and it works.
You do know that basically no applications get stored in /sw/bin right? That's mostly for bad ports and legacy software. Even OpenOffice installs as a .app these days and it can be stored anywhere the user likes.
No, everything fink installs goes in /sw. It isn't just "legacy" things as fink has up to date versions of plenty of packages. I find that the term "legacy" in computing is generally used as a pejorative, to dismiss a piece of software without offering any coherent reasons.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It would be good for you to kill yourself. Messily and painfully, please.
Your extreme jealousy and/or hatred of me is not warranted.
I mean, really. There is no cage. Your extreme jealousy and/or hatred of Apple is not warranted.
Nothing in my post inferred extreme jealousy and/or hatred of Apple. You’re imagining things.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
This is just going to be the Apple Sweat Shop. Apps that used to be $75 now for $25 and Apple taking a big chunk. Not many developers are going to survive. I'll keep buying from indie programmers and not from the App Store. I'd rather dead directly with the developer.
You might wish to learn about the difference between wholesale price and retail price. Hint: the retailer has always had the opportunity to take a large chunk of the sale price.
> Weird I thought you were going to argue the point too, but then you
> didn't address any of the real and practical application differences
> I pointed out. That's not much of an argument.
What Macs do is not a system. It's just wishful thinking. Throw everything together and hope for the best.
Unix in general can do that too. That's probably where the original idea for this came from in NextStep to begin with.
Linux apps were using this sort of approach when MacOS was still in it's original form. ...and yes some of us have dragged binaries across distributions. Quite effectively too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How high is the death toll of the predicted Macdevelopermageddon so far?
Fandroids hate facts.
Just a minor point. Pretty much every application will re-create a preference file if needed. They always do so on first run, so if you move it to another Mac, it simply recreates any preference files in ~/Library/Preferences
This is not something that well written apps do, but pretty much what every app does. Those that don't automatically recreate preference files would be a rare exception.
My dual G5 ... Even if I can't watch Flash video on it.
Go back to Flash 9.x - it becomes almost bearable and most things still work.
Fandroids hate facts.
Yes, I know Apple already gave up on those of us that administer Macs when it torched the XServe line, but do they kindly provide a way to not install this as part of the core OS, or limit it?
It appears to require an administrator password the first time it's run, but all subsequent runs go without it. So the administrator can't use it, lest they unlock the store. But in the meantime, Apple drops their shiny, happy "new" app right into everyone's menu bar.
There is no requirement to use .APP. You can use any old file marked as executable. You can also package any app into a DMG file which takes a few seconds in Disk Manager (Shift + Command + N) to create a new DMG from a folder.
They are not 'big'. They are as big as they are, ranging from a few KB to any size needed. You can also run an .APP from the DMG itself if you don't want to copy it to your hard drive. It really makes little difference. Run it from anywhere, and when you're done with it, just drop it in the trash.
Unlikely. The guidelines state that 'useless' apps like fart apps won't be accepted. If folks want those, they'll have to get them from the developers website.
No they haven't. No more than Apt has replaced getting software from any other place for Debian systems.
Take off your tinfoil hat and go outside. Enjoy the sun. Or snow, depending on where you are.
I gave my sister an old Dell Optiplex Pentium 4 (Prescott system dated 2003, 3GHz+). I spent $50 on it get it up to 2GB of RAM and dropped in a 7400GS video card. My brother in law plans on dropping in a new hard drive and trying windows 7 in it.
And it -more- than meets the specs. I could see an even older unit pulling it off. Really, 32-bit Vista and 7 run on just about anything, as long as the video card is remotely modern and you've dumped ram into it, in my experience at least.
You don't have to use it. If you never open it up, then you'd never know it was there.
One thing that concerns me regarding the App Store is whether they will continue with artificial national boundaries for their content. I am quite mobile regarding country, having lived in the UK and now in the US, and one thing that really pissed me off regarding my purchases for my iPod touch is that when I moved here and moved my account to the US, I can no longer get updates for most of the apps I bought in the UK. Moreover, the couple of books I bought while in the UK are not accessible to me while my account information says I am in the US. The main advantage of the previous Mac Software was that if you bought the DVD at the store, you could move country and reinstall your app. Does anybody know if there is any restriction about country for this App store then?
www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
Well looking through it it looks like someone already has Baobab repackaged as a $20 app. (see Daisy Disk in Utilities) This could be a good tool to identify GPL violations.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Even fifty percent is pretty good. I recall a book publisher telling me once that small publishers were lucky to get 35% of the cover price after channel costs were taken into account. It's shocking how much of the U.S. economy comes from adding negligible value and tacking on a huge profit.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In the early days of safari on windows they put it selected by default in the list of "updates" with no indication that it was a whole new program rather than an update to something already installed.
I think they may have changed it now but it's a while since i've used a windows computer with apple stuff installed so i'm not sure.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Interestingly Pixelmator, which I own allready says V 1.6.4 on the store, but version 1.6.2 on my machine dosn't say there is an update available ! Mmmmm.
4) DVD Drive
There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.
Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?
Uh, what about the Macbook Airs ? Do *they* have a DVD drive ?
I've been a long time Linux user and a relatively recent Mac user. One of the things I've recognized for a long time is the severe lack of a package manager for nearly any commercial OS (other than Linux).
And while I like a lot of what the Mac provides from a user perspective, I was a bit dismayed that they didn't have a package manager.
However, after using it for a while, I realized why. For the standard application distribution method they provide, it's largely unnecessary. They really do provide a mechanism that's simple and elegant and self-contained.
The only times I've found myself wishing I had a package manager for OSX is if I'm installing a lot of open-source software... particularly ones through macports and the like.
Or alternatively, I'd sometimes like to know what ancillary files a program installs (eg. extensions to other programs, perhaps user data files, etc.). However in many of those cases, these are things that Linux package manager don't answer either.
All-in-all I have to agree... program distribution the Mac way is far superior.
For anyone wanting to achieve the same thing in Linux, I believe the GnuStep project provides a similar application distribution format.
To re-iterate, though.. it may look like a strange and not very useful method if you're used to Linux. But if you use a Mac for a bit and install a few programs, it all starts to make sense.
I gave my sister an old Dell Optiplex Pentium 4 (Prescott system dated 2003, 3GHz+). I spent $50 on it get it up to 2GB of RAM and dropped in a 7400GS video card. My brother in law plans on dropping in a new hard drive and trying windows 7 in it.
And it -more- than meets the specs. I could see an even older unit pulling it off. Really, 32-bit Vista and 7 run on just about anything, as long as the video card is remotely modern and you've dumped ram into it, in my experience at least.
That would be an upgraded 7 year old system, not a 9 year old system. Average system configurations changed radically between 2001 and 2003 due to the uptake of WinXP.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
More interesting question: When will the first enterprising individual start to offer the GIMP in the McAppStore for $0.99?
AFAIK you'll have to rewrite pretty much everything to use OS X libraries to fit Apple's requirements so I'd say the buck is well earned... assuming they follow the GPL of course.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Oh my god, you're so clever!
Actually yes, Macbook Airs *do* have a DVD drive. It just happens to be an external peripheral, known as the External SuperDrive.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC684ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA2Nw&mco=MTk0MjUxMjc
And if you want to install Snow Leopard on an MBA, you will need one of those (or perhaps a similar external DVD drive), or another system capable of sharing *its* DVD drive for a networked install.
I think the opposite is true. It will be a boon to the small developer. Reduced overhead, no payment handling headaches, and reduced piracy make it much easier for a small shop to compete. The 30% is a bargain.
I updated my system software and browsed the store earlier this morning. I found and purchased a couple games (Flight Control HD is great with a tablet!) and a really useful utility (Find Any File -- it can search within a file name, unlike OSX's find). As I was looking over some of the other selections, I inadvertently clicked on on of the sidebars, where Apple Remote Desktop ($79.99) was listed. There is no warning if you click on the Buy button -- the application was downloaded, installed, and charged to my account faster than I could say, "Noooooooooooooooo!"
I have an email into Apple Support, I am hoping they will refund the transaction (I haven't even opened the application once), but who knows... I mentioned in my email that you ought to get a popup or screen indicating that something pricey was about to happen.
Be careful where you click.
-g-
It's not that much different form a package manager and a lot (if not all) of the software is available through traditional means. To be honest if it means all those clueless users that install anything will go there first and get something that's safer then it's probably a good thing so long as it doesn't become the only source for software.
That would be an upgraded 7 year old system, not a 9 year old system.
Happy new year! Its 2011. 2003 is now 8 years ago, not 7.
Average system configurations changed radically between 2001 and 2003 due to the uptake of WinXP.
I disagree. RAM jumped from 128 to 256/512. That's about it. Northwood/Willamette P4's were superseded by Prescott... which would have happened anyway. Piles of people including me upgraded our older Win98/ME/2k PCs with Pentium III 500/800/1000MHz CPUs to XP.
Having said that a 9 year old system with a northwood cpu and 256/512MB of ram would need the same $50 in upgrades... 2GB RAM and a modern video card. The directx video card requirement kills a lot of old laptops, but its a minor and inexpensive upgrade on a desktop.
For the standard application distribution method they provide, it's largely unnecessary. They really do provide a mechanism that's simple and elegant and self-contained.
I actually disagree. For updates and app discovery, Linux is still ahead of OS X, likewise for the ability to handle multiple repositories. That said, Apple took a big step in the right direction today. Apple's application format, on the other hand, still provides significant benefits not yet matched by Linux formats. There is no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive.
PC-BSD (based on FreeBSD) is doing this with their PBI system right now:
Interesting, although it looks like it is still placing multiple parts of the app in different locations and both must be copied in order to transfer an app (instead of a single package). Also, I'm not sure I see how this addresses running apps off a flash drive when they need to be run by multiple platforms and OS versions. Assuming you installed an app on the Flash drive, wouldn't you still need to create a local symlink on each machine so it could find the resources?
In general most software on Linux systems comes from the distro's repositories, so having a decent GUI is generally sufficient to allow for easy installation.
Look, I'm a Linux user as well as an OS X one. Yes, most of the software is in the repositories... but by no means all of it. I still end up having to manually move or re-install a lot of software because a LOT of software I need or want is just not there, especially commercial packages.
It also gives you a central location for updates, whereas on Mac OS X each app--along with the OS--has its own update mechanism.
It only gives you a central location for updates for software provided through it, not for all software. And as of today, that's basically the same situation on OS X.
Similarly if you add a third-party repository...
And here is where other repository systems are still ahead of OS X. That said, commercial vendors find setting up their own repositories too cumbersome compared to Web downloads and hosted repositories take distribution out of their own control too much. So far, only Ubuntu has really addressed the need for payware software developers to distribute through the central repository.
How does an uninformative reply like this, that has no useful information or even argument get modded up? All you have is an opinion that Macs are not a "system" and everything is thrown together? Do you have any idea what the hell we're talking abut?
Does it? As far as I know, it does nothing new besides offering Mac users a shortcut.
If I was a cynic, this is what I would think the plan is:
1. First you make all users embrace the app store
2. Then you extend apps so they have unique features
3. Then you extinguish non-app software
This is step one. You don't have to end up at step three, but given how successful it's been on the iPhone/iPad I'm sure they will if the market will let them.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1) It's $29 per seat retail. Less in bulk purchases, unless you have horrible, horrible legal & purchasing teams. And yes, if you opt not to pay that upgrade fee, *you* have *decided* not to upgrade.
2) Do you really think that Microsoft is issuing free bulk licenses for Windows 7 to enterprises? I can assure you that my company (of about ~50,000 people) is paying a whole lot of money to Microsoft every year for enterprise licensing & support.
3) Enterprises didn't adopt Vista in great numbers because it was an unusable mess of an operating system. Windows 7 has corrected many of the shortcomings of Vista, and so enterprises are looking to upgrade their software now.
4) No piece of Mac hardware released in the last 5 years (since the initial intel conversion) is being "left behind" by anything more than a refusal to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
5) The Mac App store would never have a substantial penetration in "the enterprise" anyway. This is simply not an "enterprise" feature - your IT staff doesn't want you downloading and installing a bunch of random stuff onto your corporate-owned PC.
6) Most corporations I've dealt with depreciate hardware and have it on a hardware refresh cycle of 3-5 years. If you're not doing that, I'd suggest you're working at a "small business" that doesn't really fit the term "enterprise".
When your criticism takes the form of ill-informed trolling, don't be surprised when it's considered a troll.
Oh yes, Linux's repositories for storage and delivery of packages is awesome. Haven't seen anything else come close to it.
I was actually referring to the .app structure when I said "application distribution method". I didn't want to call it a "package" exactly, because I think rpm/deb packages really are a different animal.
Redhat made over 200 million dollars last quarter alone.
auto updates, streaming video, cloud computing, and now we'll se downloads for minor updates to minor (often unused) apps, as we watch as the internet choke and die.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
you kind of ignored the last two paragraphs of his reply.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This is not something that well written apps do, but pretty much what every app does. Those that don't automatically recreate preference files would be a rare exception.
Right, I was referring to other types of files such as stuff that gets placed in /Library/Application Support and ~/Library/Application Support. There are also fonts, kernel extensions, preference panes, and so on. A well-written application should detect that those are missing (or damaged) and attempt to replace them when it is run.
Of course all of those will still hang around if you just move the application package so programs that install those sorts of items should provide the user with a method of doing a complete uninstall and inform the user about it. This goes for any operating system really.
That's why I prefer using .pkg files (installer packages) for installing rather than the Apple-recommended .dmg files (disk image files). With .pkg installers you can use pkgutil to see exactly what was modified or installed. The installer packages also usually have an uninstall script which cleanly removes all traces of the application. As a developer I almost always distribute my applications as installer packages rather than disk image files for this very reason.
Sapere aude!
Having said that a 9 year old system with a northwood cpu and 256/512MB of ram would need the same $50 in upgrades... 2GB RAM and a modern video card. The directx video card requirement kills a lot of old laptops, but its a minor and inexpensive upgrade on a desktop.
A matter of perspective perhaps. If all you are going to do is browse the web and run Word it might be tolerable. Given what I do with computers I would rather give up computing entirely rather than try to run Win7 on a P4, the license alone costs more than the computer is worth.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Actually, Linux relies upon dependency resolution at install time. OS X uses self contained packages with a dynamic linking scheme. That's the difference I was bringing up and what enables OS X to have more easily portable applications and better ability to use remote software.
Again, no, you seem to misunderstand what linux does and does not do. Both systems work in both of the ways you have described. See e.g. MATLAB for linux (no install time dependency resolution), or Fink/Macports which does install-time dependency resolution on OSX.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Yes, the Macports system uses the same mechanism as Linux, but that's an edge case. The vast majority of applications installed on OS X are installed as openstep bundles and that is quite different. As for Matlab, it does not, however, gain the benefits of a portable application bundle described in my previous post. Sure you can bring up edge cases like Linux distros based upon GNUStep, but those are rarities where they have addressed this deficiency. That is not the case in mainstream distros.
On OS X the executable(s) and resources are in the same directory along with the libraries that aren't standard on the OS.
That's exactly the same way that 3rd party self-contined rather than package-managed software works on Linux. And the standard Linux way is exactly the same way that third-party package-managed software works on OSX (e.g. Fink).
No, it is not. For the most part third party software on Linux is distributed as a binary installer, which then writes out binaries in /bin and resources elsewhere. While some Linux distros save binary installers so those can be used to reinstall elsewhere, that is less common and you still can't just grab the application you're running and let the system worry about moving it. Further, for remote applications it does not do a good job about handling multiple configuration setups unless you're using a mess of symlinks or a file server protocol for that specific purpose.
As for unable to share libraries, that's not true. They do share libraries dynamically linking to the most up to date within the stable line. You can literally install a singed package and your other apps will upgrade or fall back to their own copy as needed because multiple copies are stored (one per app that uses it).
Are you claiming that if two different .apps have the same .dylib buried in their directory somewhere, then when the two apps are running, only one copy of the .dylib will reside in RAM? If so, then [citation needed] because I've never heard of that happening before.
That is not exactly what I was talking about. Two different apps have different versions of the same library, but the prebinding will bind to the most up to date, compatible one. This does not translate directly to RAM savings it can result in cache savings. The main advantage, however, are security and stability and bug fixes being more rapidly propagated.
Of course the package manager doesn't manage non-packages. Much like the .app method doesn't help executables that aren't .apps. For non managed packages the install process is usually a case or running the installer executable, which is I will grant more awkward than using a .app on OSX (though plenty of OSX programs also seem to require installing, too). But not much, given that the majority of installed software is done through the package management system.
The difference is, most users on Linux, whether home users installing games or pro users installing dev tools do end up installing applications utside of te package manager. Very, very few users ever install software on OS X that is not a .app bundle.
Getting the product to someone who is willing to buy wasn't "negligible value" until fairly recently. If it was so damned easy to do, it would be ripe for undercutting.
I know, I know, this is Slashdot and making money is evil. Save it.
...it's like Synaptic, only it eats my bank account. Yay.
WALSTIB!
True, the bookstores contribute something useful. My point was that I'm not convinced that the chain of distributors between the publishers and the bookstores was contributing much of consequence (or at least not significantly more than a random fulfillment house contributes). It seems like it was more a matter of momentum than anything else. Print-on-demand will likely lessen their importance further in the coming years.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
some simple questions //
_ if i purchase an app, am i the owner of the copy + or "only" a user?
_ can i resell the app officially to somebody else?
_ you don't get a bill/invoice for your purchase, right? // thx in advance
A matter of perspective perhaps. If all you are going to do is browse the web and run Word it might be tolerable.
Agreed.
Given what I do with computers I would rather give up computing entirely rather than try to run Win7 on a P4, the license alone costs more than the computer is worth.
In their case, they picked up Win7 through some promo... $35 for 7HomePrem. But otherwise, I agree completely.
Ironically AppFresh itself isn't very fresh - it hasn't been updated since version 0.8 in September 2009. I find that in reality it only works for maybe 40% of applications at best and the developers don't seem interested it continuing it so it seems a dead end really.
I loved the concept though and I hope the App Store does well with replacing it. Apple are great at getting everyone on board to "their way" so it should certainly do better than Appfresh :)
Google then comes back with a page full of spammers who capture the search phrase, steal..er,"consolidate" posts from web forums etc and dump it all in a page full of ads and misleading links. When you finally find something it's difficult to find other applications of the same type to compare against (iusethis helps a little but is not very well maintained). Sometimes the developers don't even want to pay for file hosting so the next battle is with some shitty free file hosting site where you have to play "guess the legitimate download button amongst the 5 that are on the page".
With Synaptic (not so evil when it's Ubuntu, huh?) or the Mac App Store you type in what you are looking for - or browse to a category - and get a list of everything that applies, all in one go, free of digging, free of ads, free of spam. Seems pretty good to me.
I used to think the way you do: Have a problem, search the net, download software solution.
Then this morning I looked at the Mac app store, and was really surprised by all the useful software that's out there that I never knew about. Even in the small selection in the "Development" section, there were a couple of apps that made me think, "Oh, that's neat! I could use that for ____ project!"
The moral of the story is to keep an open mind. You never know what's out there if your eyes are closed.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
That's a good thought. I wonder if the seed that sprouted into the Mac app store started with the devolution of Versiontracker.
I mean, there are thousands of Mac users at Apple. It's not like they didn't notice that the internet's biggest clearinghouse for Mac software turned into crapola almost overnight. It affects them as much as it affects the end users.
Now I'm starting to think that the Mac app store was a more brilliant move than I realized. It's also restored my faith that Apple isn't going to get out of the computer business anytime soon. A project like this only enhances the value of Macs to the end users.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
The rankings are very simple, and spelled out: Top Paid, Top Free, Top Grossing. That's it.
Then perhaps my hypothesis was wrong. Please allow me to suggest another: Because Adobe promotes the Photoshop brand elsewhere on the Internet, it can run up more brand recognition, and people will choose Photoshop Elements over a similarly priced independent photo editor. Furthermore, Adobe marketing materials can link directly to the product on iTunes Store, as I'll explain below.
those change so often that they are unlikely to be related to any external factors, like inbound links from the internet; assuming that's even possible since this is an application, not a web page.
Just because it's not a web page doesn't mean it can't have a URL to which web pages can link. In the days of AOL dial-up, AOL registered a custom URL scheme aol: with operating systems upon installation. Likewise, each product in iTunes Store has a corresponding web page that tries to open the same product in iTunes Store if iTunes is installed. Try opening iTunes Store, right-clicking an album's cover art, and choosing copy URL.
It may not blow up, but there will certainly be a benefit to it. Most people don't know where to find Mac apps, and brick and mortar stores don't stock many Mac apps. This store will help dispel the long-running myth that there's little software available for the Mac. (Once the store fills up properly in the next few weeks.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack $49.00
Less than $10 per seat. It is way cheaper than any Windows version on sale and you don't need to worry about activation keys.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I guess "being used" as an objective conflicts too deeply with "evangelize my ideals" huh?
.jar files are loosely based on .app packages only in that both encapsulate directory structures.
This isn't actually true is it? Can I send an app built on my linux box to someone running a different arch & distro -- no! Can an Apple user send a current intel-only app to someone running OSX on PPC or iOS on a mobile device -- no! Then we get to the question of why anybody would ever want to copy a raw binary instead of using a linux distros package manager?
Fat binaries were a temporary workaround and both Apple and MS include emulators. Can I run a linux ARM binary via a distro under QEMU from another arch -- yes.
Uh, you have split x86/x86_64 binaries _right_now_ on Linux & Windows & Solaris even. Whats this about fat binaries being temporary?
How long were you using x86 binaries optimized for a i386, because there was no way of supporting multiple archs simultaneously?
How long before your x86_64 binaries start getting long in the tooth and missing modern optimizations? Whats the plan for those?
You're also missing the huge point that a .app is what under other operating systems you'd call "portable". It is a directory with fat binaries under it AND application data/defaults. These portable apps exist, and are in demand, but unlike OS X don't comprise 99% of these other systems.
This portable configuration is also something UNIX admins go out of their way to achieve manually by ripping apart the distro provided software and installing everything under one directory somewhere to manage easier instead of /etc, /var/foo, /usr/libexec64/wtf, /usr/bin, /WhereverTheFuckCPANIs, /StupidFuckingRubyGEMs/bin, etc. /usr/local/apache/bin|etc|lib. Which gets backed up or rsynced around easily.
Like
So, don't tell me centralized repositories provide this, because anyone actually working with UNIX for a living knows repos, gem, cpan, etc are all bullshit. /Applications/ActiveMQ.app, /Applications/Apache.app, /Applications/MySQL.app on Linux right now, and point them all to /opt/my_integrated_application/conf which I back up nightly and rest at ease knowing updates wont touch it.
I would LOVE to be installing
I could upgrade Whatever.app without screwing my local configuration. Look how painstakingly slow this gets worked out on Linux, how long it took for various apps to have a modular config with overridable defaults. Apache STILL has basic bullshit in the distro provided httpd.conf you can't override from a conf.d fragment. Like... listening on 0.0.0.0:80 for christ's sake.
Taking your made up example at face value: If the same product that used to be $75 is now $25, then they'll sell more of them. If they sell 5 times as many, then they'll have more income.
And it's not just the lower prices that are going to drive increases in unit sales, it's convenience. Just as it was with the iPhone App Store.
Indie developers with decent products are going to be doing much better out of the app store than they did before it.
you kind of ignored the last two paragraphs of his reply.
Yup, because they were empty of coherent content.
But just for you:
Unix in general can do that too.
Can do what? What are you talking about? Do you even know what you're replying to?
That's probably where the original idea for this came from in NextStep to begin with.
The original idea for application bundles in NextStep came from what? Unix? Umm, NextStep was Unix. Again, WTF are you talking about? The idea for bundles came about to simplify and compartmentalize applications to make things cleaner, easier and better architected to solve the problems traditional Unix had with messy applications leaving bits everywhere and creating dependency hell.
Linux apps were using this sort of approach when MacOS was still in it's original form...
Gee, don't specify what approach you're talking about or anything. How does one graduate high school writing class without being able to compose a specific sentence?
In short, I suspect the previous poster did not even read the thread and was just writing some sort of nonsense in the hope of a reply or is really, really drunk and trying to defend Linux against some imagined threat or something. Really, it's incoherent and makes no specific mention of ANYTHING. I mean he fucking quoted my personal observation about a reply, not any argument made in the reply.
Right, because that's what computer users want. The choice to use unstable software rather than stable software, and to decide on which app to buy based on whether they can look at the source code or not. That's far more important than making it as easy to use as possible.
Here's the clue that Linux geeks haven't got the first idea about what normal computer users want. The reason why "The Year of Linux of the Desktop" predictions always fell flat.
The disk space argument is irrelevant in this day and age. Code is tiny. A single MP3 file or a photo will probably be several times the size of a typical library. Don't even think about how many libraries you could fit into the space taken by a movie. Nobody fills up a modern day HD with code.
Increasingly the same is true of RAM.
Shared libraries were once a good idea. The dependancy problems were worth the space saving. But that's no longer the case. At least for PCs. Far better for the developer to make an application work with a particular set of libraries, then bundle those libraries in with the application.
That's Fink isn't it? Fink doesn't ship on the Mac. There's no such directory on a Mac. Well not unless you create one. In which case you can do whatever you like with whatever you put in there. It has nothing to do with Mac Applications, which is the topic here.
This comment strangely appears on a day when Apple have just launched a new OS version with an App Store (repository) that standardises the update mechanism for all apps distributed through it.
Thankfully, that detail will start to become a distant memory. Most app installs will be done by the Mac App Store in future.
In this day and age that isn't a benefit. Code is tiny compared with the other assets an app has. And tinier still compared with all the media files that fill up the average hundreds of GB HD these days. Same argument goes for the size and usage of RAM these days. Better to have the security of an app shipping with copy of a known version of a library, than risk sharing libraries between apps.
Shared libraries were a good space saving trick when Unix was young. And even when Linux was young. But they are a pointless anacronism now.
No, there isn't a single one.
There's some great games for 99c though.
Or more likely taken the idea of Baobab and written it from scratch. (Or perhaps the copying was the other way around). Scanning a directory structure for file sizes is hardly complicated. Most of the work in these two apps would be the UI, and that would be completely different code for the two platforms.
Bullshit. This upgrade will run on all Intel Macs. It you've bought Snow Leopard. You of course don't get updates to software you haven't bought.
Just like your Intel Mac is upgradable to Snow Leopard. For considerably less money than the Windows upgrade would cost you.
Just to be pedantic, the first gen Intel iMacs shipped with one stick of 512Mbytes of RAM in 2006 (I know this because my family has one). Putting an extra 1Gbyte stick of RAM in the bottom is straight forward but the machine can only take a maximum of 2Gbytes RAM in total.
Now now, it's just barely possible he's too cheap to spend $25 on memory.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Yes, the Macports system uses the same mechanism as Linux, but that's an edge case. The vast majority of applications installed on OS X are installed as openstep bundles and that is quite different.
Depends what you mean by vast majority. There are an awful lot of programs in the ports tree.
As for Matlab, it does not, however, gain the benefits of a portable application bundle described in my previous post. Sure you can bring up edge cases like Linux distros based upon GNUStep, but those are rarities where they have addressed this deficiency. That is not the case in mainstream distros.
I have no idea about GNUstep. I've never used it.
No, it is not. For the most part third party software on Linux is distributed as a binary installer, which then writes out binaries in /bin and resources elsewhere. While some Linux distros save binary installers so those can be used to reinstall elsewhere, that is less common and you still can't just grab the application you're running and let the system worry about moving it.
Now its your turn to be obtuse. Most installers dump the contents into a directory tree of your choice, usually /opt/appname. That directory can be freely copied around as all resources are contained in it.
Also, world of goo came as a tar.gz with the tree structure ready made. Untar it and go, as it were.
Further, for remote applications it does not do a good job about handling multiple configuration setups unless you're using a mess of symlinks or a file server protocol for that specific purpose.
I really have no idea what you're referring to. Multiple achitectures? Multiple per-user configurations? All of that works fine on linux without a symlink mess. Can you give a oncrete example?
That is not exactly what I was talking about. Two different apps have different versions of the same library, but the prebinding will bind to the most up to date, compatible one. This does not translate directly to RAM savings it can result in cache savings. The main advantage, however, are security and stability and bug fixes being more rapidly propagated.
I still don't quite follow the first part. Do you have a link?
Unless you want to transfer it and it has been removed from the repository or you're moving between architectures and don't want to have to download everything over the network yet again.
So the only advantage is that sometimes packages disappear from the respository and it saves a bit of network bandwidth every time I replace a computer?
You do realize 99% of Mac users have never heard of Fink, right?
To be honest, I dont really care about them. I care about me much more.
It's for ports of software from Linux or FreeBSD, and is on par with complaining about the limitations Apt in relation to WINE apps.
Not really. Apple actually sells OSX as a version of UNIX. Fink is about the best way to get hold of all those marvellous unixy programs that make unix actually worth using.
It's just that equivocating between problems with a method of software install basically everyone resorts to with an edge case.
No, it's not. Basically the well designed methods for installing software tend to work very well for the use-case they have been designed for and don't apply or work poorly for other usecases. The problem occurs when someone comes along and states that method A is bettre than B and the users of B should just realise how much better A is and get on with it.
The user of A, however may well not realise that method B works vastly better for the use cases that the users of B base about.
Regardless, both OSs support both systems just fine, as I've given examples of both cases on both systems.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Look I'm not going to go through all this again. You seem to be replying to only parts of my post, parts where I don't address the direct failures of the current system on most Linux distros. So lets simplify. For use cases where you need to move an application between two systems, non-bundled apps are harder to move. You must either re-download a copy from somewhere on the internet if it is available or you must gather up the binary and the resources, possibly zipped then extracted or whatever, and then copy them over into the correct location and make the binary executable. The latter is much, much more cumbersome and beyond the capabilities of many normal users.
For use cases where you're running an app remotely, OS X makes use of locally stored three tiered configuration files paired with an optional config file in the bundle. This means you can run an app stored on a flash or remote drive from computer A, and it will inherit the configuration changes made for that computer (A), group, and user as well as global changes for the app if the developer wants that. When you run the same app from the same location using computer B it will inherit the configuration changes for computer B, group, user, and app. These are persistent so replacing an app with a newer version or using apps where you have five floating copies on flash drives "just works" exactly as the user who has no idea what's happening in the background would expect.
To replicate the above using Linux, especially when Linux is running on computers with different architectures takes a great deal of work by a sys admin setting up some cool symlinks. It is way, way, way beyond the understanding of a normal user, brittle, and complex.
Lets be clear. Linux does not work "just fine" for these same cases. Linux falls down because it does not support bundled apps with proper hooks in the OS for FAT binaries and storing of preferences. Further, there is no standard for bundled apps so automatically mitigating the disk cost of FAT binaries becomes very difficult for systems with limited space and extraction of resources becomes a process of hunting around and hoping.
Now as to the opposite situation. Linux still has better more capable package managers that can integrate easily with multiple repositories and it is a more widely used mechanism on Linux. As a result a smaller subset of OS X software gains the benefits of centralized auto updating when compared to OS X.
In both cases the issue is solvable and the OS can be extended to handle the deficiency just as the other OS does. The difference is, I doubt Apple will add more repositories because they don't see it as a beneficial business case. I don't see application bundles being properly supported in Linux, because most Linux developers focus on the server and don't care and those that focus on the desktop are blindly resistant to admitting there could be any way in which Linux is not perfect and thus won't even consider improvements that already exist in OS X. (As a user of both I have to say at least Apple has been slowly copying the cool bits of Linux, I've seen very little of the cool bits of OS X pulled into Linux.)
Now I think I've clearly stated specific use cases where the same task is harder or just doesn't work when using Linux. If you want to discuss those specific cases, please do, but lets not go off onto weird tangents about edge cases.
P.S. with regard to your question about memory usage and libraries; I don't want to spend a lot of time on it because as I said, memory is a minor part of the library issue. Rather faster propagation of fixes into libraries used by apps is the main benefit. If you really want to understand the issue you need to read up on both OS X's dynamic linking scheme and their pre-binding for libraries not shipped with OS X itself.