No, it classifies all Apps in your Applications folder (or should we call it Apps folder now) as well as those you downloaded through the Mac App Store.
Those might be the same thing if the App Store app puts downloaded apps into/Applications rather than, say, ~/Applications. (Or perhaps it'll look in ~/Applications as well for stuff to put into the Launchpad.)
Funny, Opera is already distributed via the App Store... for free.
Given that the only (Apple) "App Store" that's distributing stuff is the iOS App Store, not the Mac OS X App Store, you're presumably referring to Opera Mini, not full-blown Opera. Whether Opera Mobile would be allowed into the iOS App Store, or Opera would be allowed into the Mac OS X App Store, is another matter.
Imagine you've got a program called "Opera Browser" and you are Not distributed through the app store. That means you won't be able to use the LaunchPad
According to what reliable source is that the case?
Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features. The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application
Was it explicitly stated that you can't add, for example, applications you've already bought to the Launchpad, or is that just somebody making a possibly-incorrect guess?
This comes the same day that users report the new MacBook Air doesn't have Flash preinstalled; and while you can install it yourself, Safari doesn't prompt you to do so (just displays a generic "missing plugin" over Flash content and ads).
Is that different from "normal" Macs up to now?
Yes. Up until now, Mac OS X, as shipped pre-installed on Macs, had the Flash plugin bundled with it.
(This probably has nothing to do with the MacBook Air itself; that just happened to be the first machine that came out after the policy changed. Heck, the policy change got me to finally install the latest Flash from Adobe, rather than wait to see if it showed up in a Software Update - not that Flash runs a lot on my machine, given that I've also installed ClickToFlash. Made an big difference in the CPU time consumed on a nominally-idle machine - but then so did not keeping 60+ Safari windows open.)
The way "they excluded Flash on the iPhone" was not to ship it, not to allow a Flash interpreter into the App Store, and not to allow any way other than the App Store for adding code to your iPhone. The same applies to Java.
One of those three is not currently true on Mac OS X. There's a lot of speculation going on as to whether it will be true at some point in the future. I have no idea whether it will be true at some point in the future or not.
With Apple's new Mac app store, Mac OS X users will probably still be able to get their updates using the same application. It seems likely that any forthcoming Oracle JVM and system updates will all come from said app store.
...if it doesn't violate any of the App Store requirements (I don't know whether a JVM would inherently violate one or more of the guidelines).
The future might be "enough power for most people, and you can buy a higher-end machine, for more money, if you need it".
at more cost
If it's too expensive, people won't buy it, and it'll be a little difficult for it to be "the future of computing" if it's only bought by highly-paid road warriors.
with less control.
Why does the MacBook Air offer "less control"? (If Mac OS X does go down the "locked down" path, that wouldn't be unique to the MBA.)
looks to me like the emphasis is on moving ideas and features 'Back to the Mac', and not the other way round.
The emphasis for Lion might be that, but there's obviously not much Lion can do about moving ideas and features from the Mac to iOS machines - if that happens, it would obviously have to be done in iOS 5.0 or whatever.
If you look at the Mac App Store guidelines, you'll see that Apple are moving very definitely in the direction of iOS in terms of control over binaries on their platform and guiding developers to use just one tool-chain. There are a lot of clauses in there (including the exclusion of Java) which are very unusual for a desktop OS.
The App Store isn't a desktop OS, it's an online store for applications. Having a vendor-provided app store is unusual for a desktop OS, but not unheard of (to be fair, that page says that "In version 3, we plan to offer commercial software for sale,..., and allow ratings and reviews of software." - are they up to version 3 yet?).
"Time will tell" whether Mac OS X ever gets to the point of supporting only apps from the App Store. It might be that most app vendors will choose to sell their apps through the App Store; whether the App Store will be so popular that it becomes effectively impossible to sell software for the Mac in any other fashion is another matter.
I'm sure you're also mad at Adobe for not making you a version of flash too, right?
If the person to whom you're replying is an OS X user, then if they're mad at Adobe for not making them a version of Flash, somebody needs to inform them that Adobe do make a version of Flash for OS X.
I remember, many many many many many years ago when I was at Sun, that SunOS (or "Sun UNIX 4.2BSD", or something such as that, as it called itself at the time) shipped with a version of the B News software. Unfortunately, the version it shipped was an older version that didn't have the "line-eater bug" fixed, and a lot of people with Suns just ran the bundled version without updating, so the line-eater bug wasn't getting fixed in the field as fast as it should. Eventually, we stopped shipping B News with the OS, so as to force people to get the updated version from the original source if they wanted to run B News.
Except of course the fact that there are roughly a gazillion different ways to handle version numbers.
I'd divide all ways of handling them into "ways that match what Sun had in mind when they came up with the SunOS 4.0 scheme" (which evolved into the ELF scheme) and "ways that don't".
If the version number has a major version number as its first component, and that's changed if, and only if, binary compatibility with previous versions is broken, it matches what Sun had in mind, and it should work (as long as the library developers understand what does, and what doesn't, break binary compatiblity).
Otherwise, it doesn't, and it shouldn't be used, no matter how clever the (bogus) arguments posed in its favor sound.
Clearly you don't use your Mac for anything remotely interesting.
Just "casual" use of a Mac can easily cause a much larger drive to be completely consumed.
$ df -g/ Filesystem 1G-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/disk0s2 148 136 12 92%/
on a machine that I only use for uninteresting stuff such as libpcap/tcpdump/Wireshark development (with XP, Ubuntu 7.10, Fedora 9, FreeBSD 7, OpenBSD 4.2, DragonFly BSD 2.0.1, Solaris 10, and Ubuntu 9.10 virtual machines; doing development work on a multi-platform app is fun, and doing development work on a multi-platform library that sits atop rather platform-dependent packet capture mechanisms is even more fun), as well as the usual Web/email/downloading and playing movies (those VMs are one of the biggest consumers of disk space).
Yeah, anything less than the top-of-the-line Air would be a stretch - but the top-of-the-line Air would give me a lot more space (not that I'd go for an Air in any case - I like my screen real estate, so I've currently got a 17" MBP).
However, there is still the issue of/usr/lib or/usr/local/lib slowly growing to contain versions 0.9.2, 0.9.12, 1.0.4a, 1.2.0, 1.4.1, 2.0.1 and so on of a lib...
So the way that Linux distributions handle it is to use the ELF shared library versioning scheme to allow multiple versions of the shared library to be installed side-by-side (although there should, in that case, really only be:
0.9.12, which should be binary-compatible with 0.9.2;
1.4.1, which should be binary-compatible with 1.0.4a and 1.2.0;
2.0.1
because you should change the major version number if you break binary compatibility with older versions of the library).
There's a difference between publicly refusing to speculate on the future, and reneging on previous promises. If Apple locked down OS X, there would be one hell of a lawsuit.
And the promises made by Apple, with sufficient legal authority that an attempt to lock down OS X would be grounds for a lawsuit, are?
We've just entered Fall, so to say that OS X Lion will be out this summer is saying that it's due a year from now.
For a (Northern Hemisphere) company to say (in a talk given in the Northern Hemisphere) that it will be out this summer is saying that it will be out sometime between 2011-06-21 and 2011-09-23; it's 2010-10-21 now, so that would be somewhere between 243 and 330 days, which is between 2/3 of a year and close to a year, to be precise.
Plus the App Store isn't used for titles that would otherwise be published via store shelves it's for small apps.
The only App Store(TM) that is or isn't (present tense) being used for anything is the iOS App Store, and it's used for everything (...that's not made available only for jailbroken systems with Cydia etc.). Perhaps the Mac OS App Store will not be used for titles that would otherwise be published via store shelves, and will be for small apps, but, as it's not available yet, we don't know whether that's the case. (I suspect that it's mainly intended to make it easier for new small apps to be made available, rather than to provide an outlet for existing apps or big apps, but that might not be the case.)
Digital software distribution has been around for a while now.
Yeah, but I remember when only analog software distribution was available. It was a royal pain having to listen to those damn tapes and type the octal digits into the transcription program.
Presumably you meant something other than "digital"; buying a bunch of 8" floppies from a store is "digital software distribution" - and so is getting a 9-track tape, or even a 7-track tape, or a box of punched cards, or a punched paper tape, with the software on it/them.
How likely is Apple to leave it up to the consumer whether or not they utilize Steve's "best way" to get things done?
Yeah, it really sucked when iTunes stopped letting me play music that I'd bought from the Amazon store.
Oh, wait....
(Yes, I just bought "Squad Car" by Los Straitjackets from Amazon just to make sure; the Amazon downloader even helpfully added it to my iTunes library.
Speaking of buying music, anybody know where I can get the version of Luna Live with "Double Feature"? It's not in the US version....)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Launchpad was introduced EXACTLY for Mac App Store apps only. It is basically just a big iPad interface with folders and everything.
Of course you can still have normal apps outside of Launchpad, but Launchpad is definitely only for Mac App Store apps.
And you were told this by which reliable source?
No, it classifies all Apps in your Applications folder (or should we call it Apps folder now) as well as those you downloaded through the Mac App Store.
Those might be the same thing if the App Store app puts downloaded apps into /Applications rather than, say, ~/Applications. (Or perhaps it'll look in ~/Applications as well for stuff to put into the Launchpad.)
Funny, Opera is already distributed via the App Store... for free.
Given that the only (Apple) "App Store" that's distributing stuff is the iOS App Store, not the Mac OS X App Store, you're presumably referring to Opera Mini, not full-blown Opera. Whether Opera Mobile would be allowed into the iOS App Store, or Opera would be allowed into the Mac OS X App Store, is another matter.
Okay just some random conjecture:
Imagine you've got a program called "Opera Browser" and you are Not distributed through the app store. That means you won't be able to use the LaunchPad
According to what reliable source is that the case?
and 1-Click Updates.
To be precise, you won't be able to use the App Store code's 1-click updates. Imagine you're a company called "Opera Software", large enough to be listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange; you might well be able to provide your own auto-update mechanism and infrastructure on your Web site to support it. Hey, maybe someday somebody will even provide some free software that lets you put auto-update into your OS X application.
Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features. The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application
Was it explicitly stated that you can't add, for example, applications you've already bought to the Launchpad, or is that just somebody making a possibly-incorrect guess?
To paraphrase Morecock, "Apple is a thousand times more evil than Microsoft"
Because, after all, not shipping a JVM with your OS is right up there with killing and eating babies.
(I'm inclined not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by wanting to dump onto somebody else a software maintenance burden.)
This comes the same day that users report the new MacBook Air doesn't have Flash preinstalled; and while you can install it yourself, Safari doesn't prompt you to do so (just displays a generic "missing plugin" over Flash content and ads).
Is that different from "normal" Macs up to now?
Yes. Up until now, Mac OS X, as shipped pre-installed on Macs, had the Flash plugin bundled with it.
(This probably has nothing to do with the MacBook Air itself; that just happened to be the first machine that came out after the policy changed. Heck, the policy change got me to finally install the latest Flash from Adobe, rather than wait to see if it showed up in a Software Update - not that Flash runs a lot on my machine, given that I've also installed ClickToFlash. Made an big difference in the CPU time consumed on a nominally-idle machine - but then so did not keeping 60+ Safari windows open.)
> They won't exclude Java in the way that they excluded Flash
See recoiledsnake's post for a reality check.
The way "they excluded Flash on the iPhone" was not to ship it, not to allow a Flash interpreter into the App Store, and not to allow any way other than the App Store for adding code to your iPhone. The same applies to Java.
One of those three is not currently true on Mac OS X. There's a lot of speculation going on as to whether it will be true at some point in the future. I have no idea whether it will be true at some point in the future or not.
With Apple's new Mac app store, Mac OS X users will probably still be able to get their updates using the same application. It seems likely that any forthcoming Oracle JVM and system updates will all come from said app store.
...if it doesn't violate any of the App Store requirements (I don't know whether a JVM would inherently violate one or more of the guidelines).
It allows for a degree of "inconsistency and chaos" that Mac Zealots would eviscerate Linux for.
If your OS doesn't do at least one thing annoyingly differently from every other UN*X out there, it's not a UN*X. :-)
Mac OS X is actually based on the mach kernel, which, along with OS X's userland is a certified implementation of UNIX. /pedantic
Yes, but from what I've seen, the userland seems to be mostly FreeBSD. /mildly pendantic
Mac OS X includes:
/youreallydon'twanttoseehowpedanticIcangetifIwant
Hope this helps.
It's not the size that concerns me.
It's that the future is less power
The future might be "enough power for most people, and you can buy a higher-end machine, for more money, if you need it".
at more cost
If it's too expensive, people won't buy it, and it'll be a little difficult for it to be "the future of computing" if it's only bought by highly-paid road warriors.
with less control.
Why does the MacBook Air offer "less control"? (If Mac OS X does go down the "locked down" path, that wouldn't be unique to the MBA.)
looks to me like the emphasis is on moving ideas and features 'Back to the Mac', and not the other way round.
The emphasis for Lion might be that, but there's obviously not much Lion can do about moving ideas and features from the Mac to iOS machines - if that happens, it would obviously have to be done in iOS 5.0 or whatever.
If you look at the Mac App Store guidelines, you'll see that Apple are moving very definitely in the direction of iOS in terms of control over binaries on their platform and guiding developers to use just one tool-chain. There are a lot of clauses in there (including the exclusion of Java) which are very unusual for a desktop OS.
The App Store isn't a desktop OS, it's an online store for applications. Having a vendor-provided app store is unusual for a desktop OS, but not unheard of (to be fair, that page says that "In version 3, we plan to offer commercial software for sale, ..., and allow ratings and reviews of software." - are they up to version 3 yet?).
"Time will tell" whether Mac OS X ever gets to the point of supporting only apps from the App Store. It might be that most app vendors will choose to sell their apps through the App Store; whether the App Store will be so popular that it becomes effectively impossible to sell software for the Mac in any other fashion is another matter.
And yet, that's what they're doing for Lion - adding app signing,
App signing isn't something that will first show up in Lion.
deprecating other languages and toolchains
Where did it say that was being done for Lion?
adding mandatory sandboxing (at present it's only the Mac Store agreement, watch it spread).
The App Store isn't Lion-only.
I'm sure you're also mad at Adobe for not making you a version of flash too, right?
If the person to whom you're replying is an OS X user, then if they're mad at Adobe for not making them a version of Flash, somebody needs to inform them that Adobe do make a version of Flash for OS X.
I remember, many many many many many years ago when I was at Sun, that SunOS (or "Sun UNIX 4.2BSD", or something such as that, as it called itself at the time) shipped with a version of the B News software. Unfortunately, the version it shipped was an older version that didn't have the "line-eater bug" fixed, and a lot of people with Suns just ran the bundled version without updating, so the line-eater bug wasn't getting fixed in the field as fast as it should. Eventually, we stopped shipping B News with the OS, so as to force people to get the updated version from the original source if they wanted to run B News.
Except of course the fact that there are roughly a gazillion different ways to handle version numbers.
I'd divide all ways of handling them into "ways that match what Sun had in mind when they came up with the SunOS 4.0 scheme" (which evolved into the ELF scheme) and "ways that don't".
If the version number has a major version number as its first component, and that's changed if, and only if, binary compatibility with previous versions is broken, it matches what Sun had in mind, and it should work (as long as the library developers understand what does, and what doesn't, break binary compatiblity).
Otherwise, it doesn't, and it shouldn't be used, no matter how clever the (bogus) arguments posed in its favor sound.
What the heck is a beta?
I'm not sure, but remember - values of beta will give rise to dom!.
Clearly you don't use your Mac for anything remotely interesting.
Just "casual" use of a Mac can easily cause a much larger drive to be completely consumed.
on a machine that I only use for uninteresting stuff such as libpcap/tcpdump/Wireshark development (with XP, Ubuntu 7.10, Fedora 9, FreeBSD 7, OpenBSD 4.2, DragonFly BSD 2.0.1, Solaris 10, and Ubuntu 9.10 virtual machines; doing development work on a multi-platform app is fun, and doing development work on a multi-platform library that sits atop rather platform-dependent packet capture mechanisms is even more fun), as well as the usual Web/email/downloading and playing movies (those VMs are one of the biggest consumers of disk space).
Yeah, anything less than the top-of-the-line Air would be a stretch - but the top-of-the-line Air would give me a lot more space (not that I'd go for an Air in any case - I like my screen real estate, so I've currently got a 17" MBP).
However, there is still the issue of /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib slowly growing to contain versions 0.9.2, 0.9.12, 1.0.4a, 1.2.0, 1.4.1, 2.0.1 and so on of a lib...
So the way that Linux distributions handle it is to use the ELF shared library versioning scheme to allow multiple versions of the shared library to be installed side-by-side (although there should, in that case, really only be:
because you should change the major version number if you break binary compatibility with older versions of the library).
There's a difference between publicly refusing to speculate on the future, and reneging on previous promises. If Apple locked down OS X, there would be one hell of a lawsuit.
And the promises made by Apple, with sufficient legal authority that an attempt to lock down OS X would be grounds for a lawsuit, are?
We've just entered Fall, so to say that OS X Lion will be out this summer is saying that it's due a year from now.
For a (Northern Hemisphere) company to say (in a talk given in the Northern Hemisphere) that it will be out this summer is saying that it will be out sometime between 2011-06-21 and 2011-09-23; it's 2010-10-21 now, so that would be somewhere between 243 and 330 days, which is between 2/3 of a year and close to a year, to be precise.
Plus the App Store isn't used for titles that would otherwise be published via store shelves it's for small apps.
The only App Store(TM) that is or isn't (present tense) being used for anything is the iOS App Store, and it's used for everything (...that's not made available only for jailbroken systems with Cydia etc.). Perhaps the Mac OS App Store will not be used for titles that would otherwise be published via store shelves, and will be for small apps, but, as it's not available yet, we don't know whether that's the case. (I suspect that it's mainly intended to make it easier for new small apps to be made available, rather than to provide an outlet for existing apps or big apps, but that might not be the case.)
Digital software distribution has been around for a while now.
Yeah, but I remember when only analog software distribution was available. It was a royal pain having to listen to those damn tapes and type the octal digits into the transcription program.
Presumably you meant something other than "digital"; buying a bunch of 8" floppies from a store is "digital software distribution" - and so is getting a 9-track tape, or even a 7-track tape, or a box of punched cards, or a punched paper tape, with the software on it/them.
How likely is Apple to leave it up to the consumer whether or not they utilize Steve's "best way" to get things done?
Yeah, it really sucked when iTunes stopped letting me play music that I'd bought from the Amazon store.
Oh, wait....
(Yes, I just bought "Squad Car" by Los Straitjackets from Amazon just to make sure; the Amazon downloader even helpfully added it to my iTunes library.
Speaking of buying music, anybody know where I can get the version of Luna Live with "Double Feature"? It's not in the US version....)
He is not your guy, buddy.
He's probably not Buddy Guy, either.