Why? Give me one good reason anybody should do that.
So your product and code can reach more users? To facilitate portability and platform agnosticism?
It's open source, why don't you do it?
In Azureus' case, it'd be pointless. So what if I got a Java back-end for Azureus' stuff? I'd still be stuck writing a Java UI, which blows. Unless I wanted to use the Cocoa-Java bridge that's falling apart.
Again. Why bother. It's not like we are getting paid for this. Why bother trying to make ungrateful spoiled brats happy? What's in it for me except being pissed on by the likes of you?
Better, more portable code. With all the "we" pronouns you're throwing around, I'm betting you're either an open source dev or some wannabe. In either case, if you're going to argue that coding for free entitles you to short-change the people you're supposedly coding for, then you should re-evaluate your philosophy. I don't necessarily expect open source projects to be the best apps ever written (Adium is a shining exception), but I don't expect them to be shit, either. Take some pride in your work.
Newsflash. MS is a company trying to sell shit.
And apparently, you're a dev who doesn't care whether or not he's peddling shit for free. You actually seem to view distributing shit code on one platform as some sort of punishment for how you think the users of that platform act. Boy, I wish I could write shitty code and feel good about it, but I actually take a certain measure of pride in my work. And I doubt my employer would appreciate it either.
So your original contention that the Adium folks have done a favor to libgaim is bullshit then.
When did I say they did libgaim a favor? I think they have by popularizing it, and I think that the popularization of libgaim is a boon to the IM sector as a whole. But I never said they've done anything for libgaim. I would assume that they file bug reports and submit patches, since that would be an essential part of integrating a non-1.0 framework into your product, especially when you rely on something like Objective-C++.
Why not? I tell you why not, it's because Apple chooses not to. This goes back to the whole selfishness of the apple crowd.
Apple is "selfish" for not handing over trade secrets to other platforms? Just how retarded are you, exactly?
Anyway the same thing can be said of the win32 API. The point is that the vast majority of the open source community shuns proprietary frameworks in favor of open frameworks, even if they choose proprietary frameworks they choose the ones that are cross platform.
So? Neither Apple nor Microsoft are under any obligation to open up their sources for everyone to see. Just because you write or only use open source code doesn't make you some sort of moral paragon.
Oh the humanity!!!. I really feel your suffering there. Imagine that. Tolerating the UI of a program somebody gave you for free. Oh the agony of it all.
Ah so I see you have absolutely no legitimate counter-argument. Just "Suck it up, you spoiled brats!" Obviously then, Windows users would have no right to complain if iTunes put a menu bar at the tops of their screens every time they launched it in Windows.
Bhahaha. Deal with it!!!. Yes we will all bow down to your demands and rewrite all of our apps in cocoa.
You don't even have to do that. Just provide a framework that others can link against to get the necessary back-end features and the necessary documentation. Instead of having to write a Mac app, GUI and all, you just have to factor out your back-end code and provide a library. And I don't want you to rewrite your apps in Cocoa. You obviously don't want to, so you'd probably just do a shitty job. I don't care what you do. But if you're going to release a Mac version of something, you should do it right. And if you can't do it right, enable someone else to.
Look man you keep making my point over and over again. There is nothing to be gained from an open source project making any effort to port to the mac. All they will get is the likes of you shitting on them constantly while not lifting a finger to help. They all have to deal with your attitude. You will not tolerate crappy windows or java or gtk or qt or swing or swt or wxwindows GUIS. No sir. Those all beneath you. You will not be satisfied till every line of cross platform GUI code gets ripped out and replaced with objective C and cocoa so that the application will be mac only.
No, I will be satisfied when people who make Mac applications actually bother to do it correctly. If that's too much to ask, then don't complain when you get complaints. It's just that simple. Microsoft learned this lesson. The geniuses over in the Windows Media team had a shockingly, almost criminally bad Windows Media Player for OS X. It was slower than shit, couldn't do proper scaling, had a shit UI, didn't support DRM,... The list goes on. Then they finally got the wise idea to can that piece of shit and support Flip4Mac's development of a Windows Media codec for QuickTime. And the results have been immensely positive. Far better than if Microsoft kept their existing piece of shit out there. Honestly, whoever was tasked with developing that thing must've lost a bet or been an intern who got promoted from getting the devs' coffee.
What have they done FOR libgaim? As far I can see they have used it and that's it.
That's the whole point: for them to use it. Why do you think the Gaim folks started libgaim in the first place? If the Adium devs come across a bug in libgaim, they file it or offer a patch just like anyone else.
Also why is adium Mac only? How come the mac users want to run linux programs but when it comes to writing an app from scratch they make it Mac only?
The Cocoa APIs do not exist on Windows or Linux, neither does the Objective-C runtime. Unless you count GNUStep, but that's only source-compatible for very, very simple applications. Again, the whole point of libgaim was to factor out Gaim's connection code and back-end into a portable library so that you could use it as the foundation in a native client. That's why it's written in C++. That's smart design, separating the back-end from front-end. There's nothing stopping some enterprising Windows developers from creating an OSS Adium clone using libgaim as the back-end and.Net for the front-end. In fact, that'd be great for interoperability. Then Windows and Mac users could IM with OTR encryption.
Bingo!. This is just the attitude I am talking about. The Azureus application is written so it can run on any OS. The windows and linux users are appreciative. The Mac users piss on it and on the developers and constantly critize it without ever helping out.
That's because Azureus' GUI is laid out for Windows. Since all Linux seems to be able to do is copy Windows when it comes to GUI design, Linux users don't notice that it sucks. Mac users get the "scraps from the table" when it comes to Java apps. And they're right to be resentful of it because the user experience blows. They're not obligated to tolerate it silently.
You just made my point for me. The Mac users are spoiled brats. They whine, bitch and moan and never help. So given your attitude why should the Azureus developers ever do anything for the mac crowd. What's in it for them (other then being continuously insulted)
We have standards. Expecting developers to live up to those standards isn't being "spoiled". "Spoiled" is when everyone writes web pages to cater to one platform's broke-ass browser. Spoiled is getting every game first and not having to wait a year, if it even comes out. We're not beggars, so we're allowed to be choosers. Deal with it.
As for what's in it for the Azureus folks to make the app more Mac-friendly, I don't know, maybe having a better application? In any case, that simply won't happen. It doesn't make sense. They'd have to special-case their GUI code. (Since Java GUI toolkits require you to lay out your GUI in code, pixel-by-pixel. Brilliant.) Azureus would be a lot more useful if it had a back-end written in C or C++ available for people to use on their own clients. But I suppose that, since CS curricula are phasing out C and C++ in favor of this strange obsession with Java, that's not very likely either. Anyway, the larger issue here is Java's general suckiness. Azureus is a perfect demonstration of why Java's "one size fits all" approach doesn't work for anything but simple GUI apps.
You're right, they do. But they couldn't even make the trial appear fair. Seriously, how many judges did that case go through? How are we supposed to set up a democracy there when we can't even set up a criminal justice system that passes for impartial?
Oh yeah, because no one appreciates what the Adium guys have done with libgaim. It doesn't have a legion of users swearing by the application as the best IM client, anywhere, ever.
Mac users appreciate native apps very, very much. Why do you think no one is worried about cannibalized Mac development now that you can run Windows natively on Macs? Because if one software vendor says, "Screw you Mac users, just use our app within Parallels", then the competition has low-hanging fruit which can be picked. If a competitor releases a native Mac application, even if it's not as featured as the Windows one, Mac users will buy it. Know why? Because it runs natively and doesn't force them into haphazard workarounds and hacks to get their work done.
The issue here is that open source programmers may be good programmers, but they generally aren't UI designers. And if they are, they aren't Mac UI designers. So even if they write a native Mac app, it will be implemented with UI conventions from another platform. They'll overuse tabs, make every dialog modal, put the Preferences menu option in the wrong place, etc... You often see this stuff in Qt apps on OS X. Hell, you see it in Carbon ports of old Mac applications which ran on OS 9. But the worst offenders are Java apps. Jesus god, they look and feel like ass on OS X. I hate that Azureus is the most featured BT client out there because it sucks when it's not running on Linux or Windows, where looking robotic and using tabs for everything is apparently acceptable.
Then as soon as one of your competitors makes a native Mac OS X app, you'll lose all your Mac customers, even if it's short on certain features. Know why? Because making people boot a virtual machine just to run your application is stupid, and it shows that you don't give a fuck about what your customers want. So yeah, go ahead and be stupid about it. It'll just leave your Mac customers as low-hanging fruit for any intermediate Cocoa engineer to pick off.
You can install any x86 OS you want on an x86 Mac. What BootCamp provides is a set of Mac hardware drivers for Windows XP. You don't even technically need BootCamp as long as you've got the EFI firmware patch applied. That's the real magic that lets EFI emulate BIOS and thus boot from a Windows XP CD.
Now I've got a Motorola RAZR, and they've somehow lost the ability to recognize that a single person can have multiple numbers. If I have office, home, and cell numbers stored for the same person, I get three entries for them, making the full list of names much longer. Not only are phone makers not making steps forward, they're moving backwards.
Do you have Cingular? If so, that feature is still in the RAZR, although it's not very well-exposed (like so many things on so many cell phones). The RAZR's OS is different across providers I think. Anyway, to get multiple numbers associated with a contact, select that contact and hit the middle screen option. From there, choose the "Edit" option. Then go to the last option, "... More...". That's the screen where you'll see "Add new... phone number". The catch is that, if you sync with your computer, this association gets screwed up. The RAZR won't pick up multiple phone numbers for a single contact; it'll just add new contacts for each number. That's how it works on iSync and OS X anyway.
And yeah, cell phone UIs suck. Really, really badly. If anyone can fix that, it's Apple.
All QuickTime components go into/Library/QuickTime. Simply quitting and relaunching apps which link against the QuickTime framework will automatically load new components. I just installed DivX on my laptop, and it did not ask for a restart. And I was able to open a DivX movie immediately. (I had not had DivX previously installed on this machine.) The Perian QuickTime component is a drag-n-drop install.
Sorry man, you've got to be doing something wrong.
Then something is seriously wrong with your install. Hell, Perian is a drag-n-drop install, and it worked just fine for me. So did the AC3 decoder component. I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codec, and the last time an installer told me to, I force-quitted it and went about my merry way.
Do you think a full percent of marketshare growth is something trivial? Here's the interesting thing about marketshare numbers: they include corporate workstations. So when a business buys an ass-load of workstations from Dell for dirt-cheap, that's factored into marketshare calculations. Since Apple has virtually no presence in the dirt-cheap, bargain-basement corporate workstation arena, their numbers suffer as a result. If you looked at just what home users were buying, Apple's numbers would probably be higher. Hell, in the retail space, Apple's laptop marketshare is 12%. That's nothing to sneeze at.
anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.
What are you, fucking retarded? C# isn't "written in" anything. It's a programming language, and OS X users can use Mono if they really want to work with it.
Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer
Oh yeah, Final Cut Pro is just a niche product. As is Logic. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Here's something serious for you that a Windows PC can't do: run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X without resorting to kernel hacking. My old help desk started moving to Intel Macs because the analysts could troubleshoot Windows and Mac OS X issues from the same machine using Parallels. Giving tech support jockies an all-in-one in both the hardware and software sense is very appealing if you're a help desk that supports Macs, like most universities.
I'm not dissing macs, I'm just correcting people who think that Macs are better for video editingm programming, etc.
Oh yeah, Windows machines are way better for programming. I forgot, Mac OS X isn't Turing Complete. It can't do "for" loops.
Dude, have you ever actually used a Mac, much less coded on one? You sound like a first-year CS student whose school is pushing.Net on students as The One True Way, so now you're concluding that since Macs can't compile.Net applications (they can), they must therefore be "worse at programming".
If a video codec installer told you to reboot, contact the developer immediately and tell him to take that out of the installer. You do not need to reboot to use newly-installed QuickTime codecs. You just need to relaunch any running QuickTime applications.
Your software doesn't even run on Mac OS X. You (if you're the guy who wrote it) obviously designed it for Windows' UI conventions, which include heavy use of the right-click. I'm having a problem imagining a scenario where the lack of a right button actually hinders you in everyday use of OS X (outside of games and some specialized applications you wouldn't want to use with a trackpad anyway).
So no offense, but surprise! You bought a Mac, and it works best when used with Mac OS X. Apple's UI design guidelines specify that there should be no functionality that is exclusively available through the right-click menu. It should be available through the menubar or a palette too. In Windows software, there's a ton of functionality in a ton of software that's right-click-only. You're dealing with two different design philosophies. You might as well complain that the submarine you bought doesn't drive on the highway. "For $100 million, I really would have liked to be able to cruise down stinking Route 66 in my submarine."
I'm amazed that people don't know about the second virtual button on Apple's laptops with OS X. Hold both fingers on the track pad. Click. Boom, right-click. And to be honest, I think that it works better than actually having a second button. My thumb isn't very accurate, so sometimes, on a PC laptop, I hit the wrong button. With one, big button to hit, I never mistakenly right-click when I want to left-click. The second physical button works well on mice because you click right- and left-buttons with different fingers. But with laptops, you use the same finger. Apple's two-finger scrolling and right-clicking are simply better solutions than trying to shoe-horn scroll wheels and more buttons onto a laptop.
Humans are the ones counting. Humans are slow, have bias, are prone to error, and it's impossible to really tell whether the guy who messed up a vote count was malicious or just getting bleary-eyed.
Counting is what computers do. They can count to a million without breaking a sweat or making an error. Can you? No. Humans are bad at counting. That's why we have computers at all. A properly-done, open-source electronic voting system would be more reliable, efficient and secure than hand-counting paper ballots. And it's not that hard to do. Diebold is just incompetent.
Very cool. But a method that might work even better is looking for that gigantic, obnoxious TV rating graphic that comes up on the show when it returns from a commercial break.
You know damned well that when (not if) iPod comes out with wireless, his tune on that will change in a hurry. Kind of like Intel was slow until Apple was using it.
Yes it will because Apple will do it better and faster. Jobs isn't dissing the idea of wireless music transfer there; he's saying that the Zune's wireless sucks.
And by the way, Jobs said the Pentium 4 was slow, not Intel chips in general. Hell, he basically admitted that the PowerPC 970 was getting its clock cleaned by the CoreDuo, to say nothing of the G4, which was on life support in its last days. I don't see anything strange about Apple moving to whoever's offering them the best chips for their plans, because it certainly wasn't IBM.
Of course, he'll have an answer about how impersonal wireless was until Apple did it. And he'll be partly right. But for now, wireless is a Zuma advangage - right now, the guy can podjack (zumajack?) the pretty girl, then when she likes the song, he can Zuma it to her. That would be pretty cool. MS should let users associate a text message with the song, that would be better. Also, would be even cooler if it didn't disappear immediately, but whatever.
How's he going to "zuma" the girl (that sounds like it might be punishable by prison time) when the girl doesn't have a Zune? Merely having a feature does not translate to being an advantage. The feature must be implemented well. By the accounts I've seen, Zune's wireless is next to useless.
Very funny. So I guess it's sheer coincidence that the planet's orbital tilt just happens to be the same as the surrounding dust ring's? Maybe you should actually read the article before presuming that you have the authority to question astronomers on matters which they've spent years studying, while you're lucky to get a few minutes'-worth of exposure to them on a weekly basis on Internet news aggregators.
What's to stop Sony from simply getting a certificate and signing its drivers? Do you really think Microsoft would revoke Sony's certificate if they replaced a CD-ROM driver? Of course not, because they're doing it to fight terrorism! I mean, prevent piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
We have standards. Expecting developers to live up to those standards isn't being "spoiled". "Spoiled" is when everyone writes web pages to cater to one platform's broke-ass browser. Spoiled is getting every game first and not having to wait a year, if it even comes out. We're not beggars, so we're allowed to be choosers. Deal with it.
As for what's in it for the Azureus folks to make the app more Mac-friendly, I don't know, maybe having a better application? In any case, that simply won't happen. It doesn't make sense. They'd have to special-case their GUI code. (Since Java GUI toolkits require you to lay out your GUI in code, pixel-by-pixel. Brilliant.) Azureus would be a lot more useful if it had a back-end written in C or C++ available for people to use on their own clients. But I suppose that, since CS curricula are phasing out C and C++ in favor of this strange obsession with Java, that's not very likely either. Anyway, the larger issue here is Java's general suckiness. Azureus is a perfect demonstration of why Java's "one size fits all" approach doesn't work for anything but simple GUI apps.
"'Microsoft is way behind Google when it comes to the internet."
What does this even mean?
You're right, they do. But they couldn't even make the trial appear fair. Seriously, how many judges did that case go through? How are we supposed to set up a democracy there when we can't even set up a criminal justice system that passes for impartial?
Oh yeah, because no one appreciates what the Adium guys have done with libgaim. It doesn't have a legion of users swearing by the application as the best IM client, anywhere, ever.
Mac users appreciate native apps very, very much. Why do you think no one is worried about cannibalized Mac development now that you can run Windows natively on Macs? Because if one software vendor says, "Screw you Mac users, just use our app within Parallels", then the competition has low-hanging fruit which can be picked. If a competitor releases a native Mac application, even if it's not as featured as the Windows one, Mac users will buy it. Know why? Because it runs natively and doesn't force them into haphazard workarounds and hacks to get their work done.
The issue here is that open source programmers may be good programmers, but they generally aren't UI designers. And if they are, they aren't Mac UI designers. So even if they write a native Mac app, it will be implemented with UI conventions from another platform. They'll overuse tabs, make every dialog modal, put the Preferences menu option in the wrong place, etc ... You often see this stuff in Qt apps on OS X. Hell, you see it in Carbon ports of old Mac applications which ran on OS 9. But the worst offenders are Java apps. Jesus god, they look and feel like ass on OS X. I hate that Azureus is the most featured BT client out there because it sucks when it's not running on Linux or Windows, where looking robotic and using tabs for everything is apparently acceptable.
Why don't we just dereference him and call him 'B'?
Then as soon as one of your competitors makes a native Mac OS X app, you'll lose all your Mac customers, even if it's short on certain features. Know why? Because making people boot a virtual machine just to run your application is stupid, and it shows that you don't give a fuck about what your customers want. So yeah, go ahead and be stupid about it. It'll just leave your Mac customers as low-hanging fruit for any intermediate Cocoa engineer to pick off.
You can install any x86 OS you want on an x86 Mac. What BootCamp provides is a set of Mac hardware drivers for Windows XP. You don't even technically need BootCamp as long as you've got the EFI firmware patch applied. That's the real magic that lets EFI emulate BIOS and thus boot from a Windows XP CD.
And yeah, cell phone UIs suck. Really, really badly. If anyone can fix that, it's Apple.
Were they talking about drinking vodka? I heard "vodka" at the end.
Couldn't tell you; I'm not on your system. But if it's reproducible, file a bug with Apple. That's not what should be happening.
All QuickTime components go into /Library/QuickTime. Simply quitting and relaunching apps which link against the QuickTime framework will automatically load new components. I just installed DivX on my laptop, and it did not ask for a restart. And I was able to open a DivX movie immediately. (I had not had DivX previously installed on this machine.) The Perian QuickTime component is a drag-n-drop install.
Sorry man, you've got to be doing something wrong.
Then something is seriously wrong with your install. Hell, Perian is a drag-n-drop install, and it worked just fine for me. So did the AC3 decoder component. I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codec, and the last time an installer told me to, I force-quitted it and went about my merry way.
What are you, fucking retarded? C# isn't "written in" anything. It's a programming language, and OS X users can use Mono if they really want to work with it.
Oh yeah, Final Cut Pro is just a niche product. As is Logic. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Here's something serious for you that a Windows PC can't do: run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X without resorting to kernel hacking. My old help desk started moving to Intel Macs because the analysts could troubleshoot Windows and Mac OS X issues from the same machine using Parallels. Giving tech support jockies an all-in-one in both the hardware and software sense is very appealing if you're a help desk that supports Macs, like most universities.
Oh yeah, Windows machines are way better for programming. I forgot, Mac OS X isn't Turing Complete. It can't do "for" loops.
Dude, have you ever actually used a Mac, much less coded on one? You sound like a first-year CS student whose school is pushing
If a video codec installer told you to reboot, contact the developer immediately and tell him to take that out of the installer. You do not need to reboot to use newly-installed QuickTime codecs. You just need to relaunch any running QuickTime applications.
Your software doesn't even run on Mac OS X. You (if you're the guy who wrote it) obviously designed it for Windows' UI conventions, which include heavy use of the right-click. I'm having a problem imagining a scenario where the lack of a right button actually hinders you in everyday use of OS X (outside of games and some specialized applications you wouldn't want to use with a trackpad anyway).
So no offense, but surprise! You bought a Mac, and it works best when used with Mac OS X. Apple's UI design guidelines specify that there should be no functionality that is exclusively available through the right-click menu. It should be available through the menubar or a palette too. In Windows software, there's a ton of functionality in a ton of software that's right-click-only. You're dealing with two different design philosophies. You might as well complain that the submarine you bought doesn't drive on the highway. "For $100 million, I really would have liked to be able to cruise down stinking Route 66 in my submarine."
I'm amazed that people don't know about the second virtual button on Apple's laptops with OS X. Hold both fingers on the track pad. Click. Boom, right-click. And to be honest, I think that it works better than actually having a second button. My thumb isn't very accurate, so sometimes, on a PC laptop, I hit the wrong button. With one, big button to hit, I never mistakenly right-click when I want to left-click. The second physical button works well on mice because you click right- and left-buttons with different fingers. But with laptops, you use the same finger. Apple's two-finger scrolling and right-clicking are simply better solutions than trying to shoe-horn scroll wheels and more buttons onto a laptop.
But to each his own I suppose.
Humans are the ones counting. Humans are slow, have bias, are prone to error, and it's impossible to really tell whether the guy who messed up a vote count was malicious or just getting bleary-eyed.
Counting is what computers do. They can count to a million without breaking a sweat or making an error. Can you? No. Humans are bad at counting. That's why we have computers at all. A properly-done, open-source electronic voting system would be more reliable, efficient and secure than hand-counting paper ballots. And it's not that hard to do. Diebold is just incompetent.
Very cool. But a method that might work even better is looking for that gigantic, obnoxious TV rating graphic that comes up on the show when it returns from a commercial break.
"Shit brown" + "crippled wireless" doesn't "come close" to the iPod. Sorry.
Mac OS is in the MP3 player market?
Very funny. So I guess it's sheer coincidence that the planet's orbital tilt just happens to be the same as the surrounding dust ring's? Maybe you should actually read the article before presuming that you have the authority to question astronomers on matters which they've spent years studying, while you're lucky to get a few minutes'-worth of exposure to them on a weekly basis on Internet news aggregators.
What's to stop Sony from simply getting a certificate and signing its drivers? Do you really think Microsoft would revoke Sony's certificate if they replaced a CD-ROM driver? Of course not, because they're doing it to fight terrorism! I mean, prevent piracy.