I would add NoteAbility Pro to your list, as well. It's apparently an evolution out of the NeXTStep world, so its native Cocoa-ness is very striking. I haven't used it, but I've been aware of it for a while now. Demo-ware, $225 for a license. Looks interesting, to say the least...
The Developer Tools Update that accompanies this Java release are also available at Apple's site. It's a 10.5MB download. Cut from the website:
About Java 1.3.1 Update 1 Developer Tools
This version of the Java Developer Tools contains updates to documentation, templates, examples, and tools from previous releases.
For detailed documentation, see http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/java/
Requirements This Java update requires Mac OS X version 10.1.3 and the Java 1.3.1 Update 1. The December 2001 Developer Tools should also be installed before running this update.
I'm sorry, I don't understand why non-cross-platform-ness is an objection to a web browser. The web is (ideally) platform- and browser-agnostic. Standards exist to ensure this. The browser is "simply" a viewer. What does the Omni Group gain by going cross-platform? How does that benefit the browser? How does it even benefit the user?
I'll set aside the impracticality/impossibility of making OW cross-platform. It's Cocoa through-and-through.
But then I almost exclusively use OmniWeb, myself.
I think that bundling OmniWeb would be a grand idea. Bundling IE with the Mac OS was fine when it was the best browser for the platform (showing off the Mac OS's capabilities), but it isn't and doesn't any more. So step aside.
I strongly agree with this comment. Office on the Mac has long been known to be a strong money-maker for Microsoft.
It seems likely that MS's standard MO would be to keep Apple on the hook as long as possible with this, playing up the insecurity, in order to get further concessions from Apple.
However, Apple needs a five-year guarantee less than it did, um, five years ago, especially now that MS Office has made the big technology transition to Mac OS X (using the Carbon APIs) that was absolutely crucial for Apple's survival.
My prediction is that we may see a bit of drama on this issue, but that there isn't going to be a big sweeping deal as we saw before.
Hmm. Not to discount fink--I use it myself--but I had the impression that that's the sort of system that Jordan was speaking against. It's decidedly "first generation" (as one poster later in the darwin-dev thread distinguished).
Jordan was calling for more advanced internals (XML-based index, separation of data from control from execution engine, etc.), and not just smooth functionality, which has evolved to a good point in existing systems. Truth is, fink is very inflexible (e.g. little choice in install directory), offers very limited individual configuration options, and has its data entwined with its execution engine.
What Jordan suggests may even imply a step back in functionality at first, but I do believe it's the way forward, long-term.
Slashdot Mirror
:)
That, my friend, was part of the original point when I came up with the thing.
I would add NoteAbility Pro to your list, as well. It's apparently an evolution out of the NeXTStep world, so its native Cocoa-ness is very striking. I haven't used it, but I've been aware of it for a while now. Demo-ware, $225 for a license. Looks interesting, to say the least...
I'm sorry, I don't understand why non-cross-platform-ness is an objection to a web browser. The web is (ideally) platform- and browser-agnostic. Standards exist to ensure this. The browser is "simply" a viewer. What does the Omni Group gain by going cross-platform? How does that benefit the browser? How does it even benefit the user?
I'll set aside the impracticality/impossibility of making OW cross-platform. It's Cocoa through-and-through.
But then I almost exclusively use OmniWeb, myself.
I think that bundling OmniWeb would be a grand idea. Bundling IE with the Mac OS was fine when it was the best browser for the platform (showing off the Mac OS's capabilities), but it isn't and doesn't any more. So step aside.
I strongly agree with this comment. Office on the Mac has long been known to be a strong money-maker for Microsoft.
It seems likely that MS's standard MO would be to keep Apple on the hook as long as possible with this, playing up the insecurity, in order to get further concessions from Apple.
However, Apple needs a five-year guarantee less than it did, um, five years ago, especially now that MS Office has made the big technology transition to Mac OS X (using the Carbon APIs) that was absolutely crucial for Apple's survival.
My prediction is that we may see a bit of drama on this issue, but that there isn't going to be a big sweeping deal as we saw before.
Hmm. Not to discount fink--I use it myself--but I had the impression that that's the sort of system that Jordan was speaking against. It's decidedly "first generation" (as one poster later in the darwin-dev thread distinguished).
Jordan was calling for more advanced internals (XML-based index, separation of data from control from execution engine, etc.), and not just smooth functionality, which has evolved to a good point in existing systems. Truth is, fink is very inflexible (e.g. little choice in install directory), offers very limited individual configuration options, and has its data entwined with its execution engine.
What Jordan suggests may even imply a step back in functionality at first, but I do believe it's the way forward, long-term.
perhaps "Objective Unix" would be more appropriate in this case?...