Google Gets Serious About Open Source Mac Projects 193
mjasay sends us a link to a CNet story, which begins:
"In the '20 percent time' that Google employees have to work on projects of personal interest, it turns out that an increasing number are spending time writing open-source projects for their Macs. Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows. It is in the 20 percent employee development time, however, where this statistic becomes interesting. At Google, development time translates into products. The more Mac-friendly employees, the more Mac-related development. The more Mac-related development, the more Google-sponsored Mac-based open-source code. As Google's Mac Developer Playground demonstrates, some of this code is quite interesting."
Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac. And that makes them a lot more like Microsoft than the person who asked the original question.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:4, Informative)
Not desktop apps, but Apple has a put good effort into OSS server and network apps.
http://www.macosforge.org/
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut the fuck up (Score:2, Funny)
Asshole.
Also, you're doing it wrong.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Informative)
Please note though that I'm not particularly up on the politics here, but handbrake is a brilliant, once mac-only, video conversion tool.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Handbrake used to be cross-platform between Mac and BeOS. Apparently the BeOS version has been dropped in favor of Linux and Windows (a reasonable decision, I must say), but it could very well have been the original version.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.transmissionbt.com/ [transmissionbt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Insightful)
main()
{
printf("Hello World");
}
-
Hrm. Seems to work just fine on my Mac and my Debian Box. I guess I foiled apple again.
Or if you mean Apple has their own language, Cocoa, which isn't ported to XP or Linux. Funny thing is, you're not forced to use it.
Since we're on the topic of cross plat form stuff, it's not OSS, but it was one of the best selling games ever: Myst.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you meant Objective-C, and that is cross platform. In fact Apple uses gcc to compile all their Objective-C applications. The only thing that is platform specific is Cocoa. Apple originally had a cross-platform library for the system called "Yellow Box", though for one reason or another it was dropped. More information can be found here:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/ [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Informative)
"The launchd daemon is essentially a replacement for init, rc, the init.d and rc.d scripts, SystemStarter (Mac OS X), inetd and xinetd, atd, crond and watchdogd."
Yeah, it's open source and even written by Apple themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anything other than Mac OS use launchd?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's contributing back which is what the grand parent was complaining about. If other people don't use Apple's contributions how is that apple's fault?
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand how it works. The original author rarely ports it to a platform he doesn't use. He makes the source available, and someone who is willing and able to make it work on another platform can do that. You even said it yourself - "They've ported." If few Mac open source projects have been ported to a particular platform, blame the users of that platform, not the people who don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
He makes the source available
I think the point is that this is a crucial part of the step. So if it's true that Mac open source software hasn't got ported to other platforms, then it must be that Mac developers tend not to release their software as open source - or the software that does get released as open source isn't good or unique or interesting enough to be worth porting. This is presumably what is meant by "have given nothing useful back".
If few Mac open source projects have been ported to
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean OpenOffice was Mac first? cant be right? I mean what OTHER linux app is more significant than O.O?
STFU and stop trolling, your whole argument is full of shit.. OSX has been out for less than 10 years, Linux has been out for almost 20 and Unix (dont get me started on how much you bitches have given back to unix) has been out since forever... and been 'taken' from for about just as long.
ONE point in your favour is that MAYBE those more i
Re: (Score:2)
AND
If everything is based on unix, then what the hell is the AC going on about? BSD, Solaris, NeXT and far many other companies have thrown stuff at the open source community... if some linux troll wishes to try and pretend just because it's on their platorm therefore it must be theirs then let them burn for it
Re: (Score:2)
o.o sucks as an app
Break up MS and force them to compete fairly... petition MS office for linux now!
We need more companies like Mozilla, regardless of themselves as a company their cross-platform applications have welcomed windows switchers to linux
Re: (Score:2)
You still suck it.
Re: (Score:2)
And you suck it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, there are plenty (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have to like Apple, or use a Mac. But it's ridiculous to claim that Apple intentionally tries to make porting difficult. T
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover they eventually spawn clones like OpenOffice, some of which are open source. I realize that clones aren't strictly ports
What is OpenOffice a clone of? And I think that is scraping the barrel - if I write a closed source commercial piece of software, and then someone writes an open source free software, I hardly get
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like KDE works hard to ensure that applications written for KDE aren't easily ported to other APIs? And GNOME works hard to ensure that applications written for GTK aren't easily ported to other APIs? And X.org works hard to ensure that applications written for xlib aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Be works hard to ensure that applications written for belib aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Microsoft works hard to ensure that applications written for Win32 aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Sun works hard to ensure that applications written for Swing aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Open Group works hard to ensure that applications written for Motif aren't easily ported to other APIs? And QNX works hard to ensure that applications written for Photon aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Donald Knuth works hard to ensure that documents written for TeX aren't easily ported to other markup languages? And Intel works hard to ensure that x86 assembly code isn't easily ported to other architectures? And Toyota works hard to ensure that gasoline-powered internal combustion engines can't easily run on hydrogen?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back.
Not that I remotely agree with this statement, but for those in the OSS community that do, why did you choose a license that allows (evil) users to use your code who do not also generate original programs of their own. Why not switch to a license that states that nobody can use your code unless they first release code for their own original project. It would eliminate of large number of those pesky leaches (users).
Slightly Stacked Deck (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right, let's compare vs. Linux (1991) vs. OS X (2001).
And, since you said, 'significant', this makes it a bit harder, as to be significant, something generally has to be around for awhile, reducing OS X's ability to produce something.
And guys like you crack me up, as, a bunch of significant open source programs did not originate on Linux - the Gnu tools, gcc, perl, Apache, X11, python, samba, java, and I'm sure the list goes on.
I couldn't find out where mysql started. But that's three letters out of LAMP that didn't originate on Linux. Linux could not have originated ON Linux by definition, and I'd have a hard time counting it anyway, since it owes heavily to Unix in design and implementation. (Note: this is not a knock on Linus, or Linux, just if you're getting picky, w/o Minux or UNIX linux would not exist.)
Apple has made contributions back to open source, the easy example here is KHTML which even ended up changing it's name to WebKit.
Apple has originated open source projects as well. Take a look at iCal Server, which is an open source, cross platform Calendar server written in python.
launchd is open source, and I vaugley recall that it inspired some changes in Linux booting.
Others have noted several user supplied open source projects.
It's hardly a one way street Open Source -> Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
WebKit gave a HUGE amount back to the community. So much so that, while it started as a derivative of KHTML, now KHTML syncs to them instead. Darwin Streaming Server... iCal Sever, one of the first good CalDAV implementations... Bonjour... llvm's clang... And Apple's use of open source software for everything from their print services
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:4, Interesting)
And you have good evidence that this is the reason for the way they have done things, as opposed to making sure that apps written for OS X simply integrate well with the system to provide a good and consistent user experience?
In a world where most apps are written for Windows, it doesn't really make sense for Apple to try and make it hard to stop people from porting Mac apps to other platforms. Apple aren't stupid.
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac.
Or perhaps they are only interesting in creating apps for OS X? I mean, if they take from the OSS community to begin with, then how can they consider it their software? How do you know that they simply don't consider themselves porting software to OS X for the benefit of OS X users? What would they contribute back, anyway? remove all the OS X parts and give back what they took in the first place? You're not making much sense.
I think you are simply being paranoid or have something against people who use Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true for "open source" OS X software. Developers on this platform are generally opposed to cross platform application development and Apple works hard to ensure that applications written to OS X will not easily be ported to other platforms. If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?
I don't know whether Transmission works on Windows, but otherwise it fits the profile.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just plain silly. You don't have to have the source code for every tiny little bit on the computer for source code to be useful. Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel, be it Windows, OS X or Linux?
Sharing code is useful at the application level. You should re examine your zealotry, son. It's gonna cause you some grief. Mark my words ... You'll grow a beard, be shunned at parties. You will want to put posters of RMS on your wall. Your mother will disown you.
Re: (Score:2)
One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most of them are using Windows.
Is this proof that Windows is the best, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Though actually these numbers just mean that the OP I replied to was even more incorrect than I thought, since he said: One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
So most people use Linux, and not OS X - and whether it's Windows or Linux that is most used, either way the Mac is still a niche platform even among developers.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's a fair number, but it's not necessarily the number of people, but the _right_ people we need to be dinking around with the kernel. Unfortunately, with proprietary operating systems, it seems the right people are not necessarily doing that.
I don't personally dink around that much in the kernel (altho I've bypassed a bug or two in drivers), but I certainly want the genius with too much free time and the same hardware that I have who can fix the bugs to have access to the source. I dont want to hack my own paravirtualising hypervisor, but I'm very pleased to use xen technology, which would have been very difficult to implement without open source.
As a user of programs and operating systems I usually dont need the source. But I do need many improvements made by people with similar interests to me; interests that may overlap very much less with the strategic thinking of a single monolithic corporation.
Sharing code is useful at the application level.
Free software is useful at any level you want to have improved. Which is pretty much all of them. Personally I dont have the patience for proprietary products anymore; I find most tend to have issues that would never survive a few iterations in an opensource product. With free software products I know that if it annoys me enough it'll annoy someone else enough to fix it.
Now go away. I have a beard to tend to.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
My biggest gripe is with repositories. It would be absolutely trivial for MS to set up a repository & kill off 90% of the malware. Apple supposedly cares for its users - an add-remove button like ubuntu's would go a long way towards providing quality applications. I'm sure it's possible to add a repository afterwards, but it's nowhere as easy (popular) as ubuntu's default. When you find yourself having to explain to yet another person that legal, free, world class software actually exists -- remember that you're doing it because you're on someone else's platform & they want to make it difficult because they're in the business of selling proprietary software.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what you're talking about is centralized package management. I agree Apple should add it into OS X, as they are doing with the iPhone. There is even some indication they might be planning to do so in the future.
I'm not sure, however, that this is a one sided argument. Package managers are great and useful, in some cases, but all the current ones fail miserably for other workflows, sometimes in ways Apple has already solved. Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers. They also suck for installing software on remote drives for access by multiple systems, installing on removable media, easily moving installed applications to other systems, and installing from a Web page.
Right now I'd say Apple has about 50% of the solution we all want, while Ubuntu has the other 50% and neither has gone and integrated the half the other vendor got right. Apple has their half right because they have one, centralized authority willing to make hard decisions and break compatibility with others when needed to make a real advancement. Ubuntu has the other half right because they have diverse contributors and a somewhat democratic, mob like way of making decisions that work for most people. That said, want to bet that Ubuntu gets drag and drop installs and all the other benefits they could get from GNUStep before Apple adds a centralized package manager and repository to OS X?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Did you see what apple made of the iphone attempt [slashdot.org]? And it costs $99 to get a cert? I've seen devs on ubuntuforums.org get approached by maintainers wanting to package some minor app for the repository. Apple certainly isn't poor. There's a conflict of i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Did you see what apple made of the iphone attempt [slashdot.org]? And it costs $99 to get a cert?
Actually, $99 i pretty low for development fees for cell phones, actually really low. It would be nice if Apple did not charge at all, but I'm not upset either.
Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers.
You ask most ubuntu people they'll probably tell you it's working as intended. If it's not free it's not GPL & probably not OSS either. Chances are it's a binary blob & that opens up a host of issues. Is it "zealotry" to actually want control over your own computer?
I'm of the opinion that trying to make things hard to do as a security measure, is asinine. People can and still do install "binary blobs" on Linux. They just don't get automated updates to those blobs, so they are more likely to be insecure. They also get people in the habit of running binary installers, which are less secure than a "drag and d
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there are numerous solutions, but no standard and nothing implemented by multiple distros (who can't even standardize on a package format I might mention).
Actually there is a standardized package format, RPM (or more specificially a restricted supset of RPM that is gauranteed to work with alien) which is compatible with all major distros.
So far the most common workflow for installing software (research on Web then install based upon the info found) is still pretty mythical. A few developers have Web pages that will allow for fairly easy installation, if you happen to be using the right distro, otherwise, it's worse than Windows.
Almost all developers offer both a tar and source, if you cant install software from one of those two your doing it wrong. Most developers also host a RPM or a deb too, i dont know if RPM bassed distros can handle debs but for debian based systems you have 4 different ways of installing it in no more than 3 commands. OFC us
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is a standardized package format, RPM (or more specificially a restricted supset of RPM that is gauranteed to work with alien) which is compatible with all major distros.
I don't think a program to convert between package formats qualifies as distros supporting that format. In reality, a lot of software comes as Deb or RPM, but not both and that really sucks for end users and developers trying to reach general Linux users.
Almost all developers offer both a tar and source, if you cant install software from one of those two your doing it wrong.
It's not easy enough. Sure I can do it. I do it regularly and it even works, most of the time. As a developer, however, it's a shitty way to get software to normal users, since many can't build and install it without help.
OFC using tars means you lose out on package management but you dont even get that on windows.
So if you lose out on packa
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:4, Informative)
That's a bad example to use in this case, because for Mac OS the kernel is actually one of the Free Software bits! In fact, it is the application-level libraries (e.g. Cocoa) that are not Free.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
The nice thing is that they can put wrappers around the proprietary function call bits and potentially make the software run on multiple OSs. (As Firefox does.)
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't for firefox, I would never have switched from WinXP to Ubuntu.
If there are no similar apps between free OSs and proprietary ones, how would you expect anyone to switch?
Re: (Score:2)
And if it's not GUI-related, but actually something that does substantial work?
Just replace ProprietaryFunction() with an open-sourced alternative.
It's only useless if you're not willing to contribute to his open-source project. (And if that is the case, you would be the leech).
Chances are the original p
Re: (Score:2)
Does it use the reversed byte order on PPC or just Intel? Perhaps this is simply a bug with the port to x86...
OSX also wants the IP Offset and packet length fields in host byte order when constructing raw packets, whereas every other OS seems to want them in network byte order... This was never an issue on PPC since the host and network byte orders are the same, but it broke a lot of apps when ported to x86.
The point is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Operating systems seem to come with culture. Linux comes with "free" culture, and if one uses Linux (forgive me, RMS), one tends to adapt the culture and consider free soft natural state of things.
On MacOS, however, the culture goes like "you pay for everything". Apps are crippled and if you need something good - you pay. In this environment you consider being paid for software natural state of things.
Note, I have never in my life used MacOS. What I have just said is more like theoretical observation.
O
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On MacOS, however, the culture goes like "you pay for everything". Apps are crippled and if you need something good - you pay. In this environment you consider being paid for software natural state of things. Note, I have never in my life used MacOS. What I have just said is more like theoretical observation.
From my perspective (I use OS X, Linux, and Windows desktops daily) the freeware community for OS X is just as diverse as on other OS's. I just did a search for freeware titles on my favorite OS X application tracking site. It came up with 7800 links to free software applications for download on OS X. This does not include CLI applications, where there are plenty more. Some of that software is very high quality. In comparison, it came up with 7900 links to payware.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I'd expect MacWorld to focus on the Apple products, but this has misled CNET into thinking that Google has a special focus on the Mac, just because it can list a handful of pet open source pr
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
See the numbers just at its versiontracker page
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22549 [versiontracker.com]
Also here is its source along with various Alcor programs:
http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/ [google.com]
There is no chance you miss a 200.000 downloaded (just a single site!), used by newbie to advanced developer profile utility. Unless you have never used Mac regularly and sit there and write a story about Google and Mac code of course. Another thing to include in that story is the fiasco of Google Desktop search which seriously made everyone paranoid with its method of install, method of running and the idea of shipping that Windows wonder to an OS which invented dynamic/extended search in its core.
Re: (Score:2)
The 200.000 downloads are coming from mostly people heard Quicksilver from a friend and used VT to download it and people who are Versiontracker Pro service users which auto updates via VT pro application.
So where is Picasa for the Mac? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
GCal Sync (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to be pedantic, the protocol specification is caldav, and yes I wish this too. I actually looked into what it would take to do this in Java, though the biggest hurdle is trying to understand the basic WebDAV architecture, and the lack of time to be able to truly commit. If there is anyone out the who has started such a project, or has a good understanding of webDAV, I would certainly consider getting back into this.
gSync (Score:2)
There is gSync [macness.com], which works flawlessly for me and doesn't use a 3rd party server.
You might complain that it's not free or open source. That's true; however, it does work quietly in the background when you use iSync or sync an iPod in iTunes, and never nags you as far as I can tell (unless you sync from the app itself). So you could use it for free. It's certainly not open source though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using leopard, Address Book syncs with your gmail account for free.
See: this article on Lifehacker [lifehacker.com].
Google developers aren't allowed to use Linux? (Score:2)
Mac computers at Google (Score:2, Funny)
Only joking!
Incorrect summary (Score:5, Informative)
>employees opting to use the Mac over Windows.
Actually, Google developers have *Linux* boxes by default, so many of these people are opting for Mac over *Linux*.
Currently, there are way more development tools available for the mac than Linux. Things like textmate, araxis merge, DTrace, etc. Thus a lot of people, inside google and out, use mac workstations to develop software that gets deployed to linux servers.
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:5, Informative)
Also, nothing in the company is 'by default'. If it involves how you work, you get asked how you want to do it. If it's not something completely insane, it's usually approved, since forcing you to go work in a way that you're not used to causes loss of productivity until you get used to the new way.
Re: (Score:2)
Google engineers' equipment (Score:5, Informative)
>Actually, Google developers have *Linux* boxes by default,
True, on the desktop.
>so many of these people are opting for Mac over *Linux*.
Not true, mostly. Most developers have Linux desktops, since most of us work on server-side applications. (Many of us have more than one, actually. I have an extra one that runs my group's continuous builds and tests.) But engineers who are working on Windows or Mac apps have a desktop box running one of those. Or maybe more than one if they work on multiple platforms. All of us also get a laptop if we want one. We can choose between a Mac or PC laptop. Most of the folks with PCs run XP on them, but some run various flavors of Linux. (I have an XP laptop because that's what I still use at home, mostly due to Photoshop and Lightroom. I dumped the Mach for NT 4.0 back in the days when Macs had no protected memory or hardware multitasking and crashed all the time. Next time I upgrade my home machine I may switch both back to the Mac.)
The reason I said "mostly" is that some people I know run their main monitors off of their Mac laptops and do remote X sessions on their Linux boxes so that they get the best of both worlds: the Mac UI and all the development tools on Linux.
One thing I love about working at Google is that they give us all the tools we need to do our jobs. You get all the computers you need, and primary workstations come with a 30" monitor or two 24" ones (your choice) and a ton of RAM. If you need another software package (say, an IDE) or more RAM, you just file a "ticket" asking for it, and it shows up on your desk a few days later. Most items don't need approval. I just asked for an 8 Gb RAM upgrade for one of my workstations recently (for analyzing insanely large heap dumps) and got it with no questions asked.
-- Laura
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:5, Informative)
There are lots of exceptions, of course - Mac desktops, Linux laptops, etc. - plus of course everyone whose full-time job at Google is to write Windows or Mac client software.
I don't have any statistics, but my observation is that even more than 30% of laptops are Macs - probably close to 50%. Desktops are 90% Linux.
Anyway, when you consider that most Google developers use Linux as their development machine and they're trying to decide between a Mac or Windows laptop as a second machine, the article is accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google Desktop search is an example how to spare thousands of engineer hours needlessly just to duplicate spotlight and make those "maccies" extremely paranoid.
http://daringfireball.net/2007/04/google_desktop_installer [daringfireball.net]
John Gruber isn't a tinfoil hat and I don't know if Google fixed those horrible dangerous method of installing. Rule number 1 on OS X: You never, ever write to
Google should ask their Apple buddies on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Only, I wish those same people putting all that work into OS X applications would instead redirect their efforts to improving GNUStep, making Linux a place that can have the same set of appeals. Right now it's pretty ugly, but it has so much potential.. it seems to only lack developers. I'd love to see it go somewhere.
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people work to solve a problem, either their own, personal itch, or what their employer needs done. Those that care about the benefits of GNUStep have mostly moved to the Mac for the desktop. The rest don't know or care about those benefits. Many angrily defend Linux claiming it is better the way it is now than being more "like OS X" which they believe is obviously inferior (although many have no real experience to make this determination). Others understand the benefits of GNUStep for the desktop, but already use OS X for the desktop and really want Linux to be the perfect Server OS for them, and actively oppose any compromise that might add "bloat" without benefitting Linux as a Server. Finally, there are those that would like Linux to be an ideal desktop OS and understand how GNUStep can help, but pragmatically believe compatibility with other Linux distros is more important than the benefits of GNUStep and at the same time believe it is too hard to get all the major distros to buy in to a better way all at once.
I'd love to see GNUStep match and exceed OS X's implementation through integration with package managers and extending packages for that purpose. Sadly I don't think it will happen. Really Linux needs a hardware OEM to champion it on their hardware and work towards making it an ideal desktop, including feature parity with OS X (and interoperability where possible). Basically what would be needed is an Apple like company that had one executive who could make hard decisions and break compatibility with other Linux distros. They could undercut Apple on price by leveraging all the shared work from other Linux developers. Alas, it is just a pipe dream for now.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with this is, they would want to do it (as a business) to sell hardware, thus they would be making all those hard decisions and doing all that work on Linux to have software to differentiate and sell their hardware. However since others would be entitled to use their software their hard won advantage disappears quickly.
The advantage is less than for a closed source OS, but then again, the advantage allows them to undercut the price of closed source. Most of the work is already there for them and getting other work, free, from others is ongoing free labor. It is true others could emulate your business model and switch to Linux too, but for stuff you develop you have first mover advantage. You're also more familiar with the code and can thus more cheaply support it and fix bugs. Heck, other hardware vendors may end up pay
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of those people putting work into OS X applications and I plan to keep doing so until someone makes it as easy for me to do something else.
Here's why (Score:2, Insightful)
Superior interface, mature developers vs Whatever bad interface you want to use, we got 10 of them and childish political programmers who think what software license one uses is the civil rights battle of our time.
Oh and users. As in Macs have more non-programmer users than Linux does.
When you look at it that way its not much of a contest.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
YOU may prefer to use Linux+Xfce over OS X and thats your right. You aren't alone either. There are whole hundreds of thousands of people who use Linux everyday as a desktop operating system, and as their main operating system too. Not just as a rarely used dual boot option when they get bored of Windows.
The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can, pretty much, take Google and insert $SEXY_COMPANY_HERE and expect Google to be best buddies with them when it comes to what's relayed to the public. This helps form advertising partnerships, makes investors balls swell, etc.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really see the appeal to Google.
It has nothing to do with appeal to Google...
At Google, people get paid to work on whatever they want (some of the time), and those developers (not Google as an entity) choose to create open source Mac software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:4, Insightful)
And do you think Google are so penny-pinchingly cheap that the massive boost in developer productivity they get from using Macs isn't worth the small extra cost over a system running Windows or Linux? Give me a break. What are they spending, maybe $50 000 extra total for the Macs? Google earns that in probably around 5 seconds.
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Desktop OS that can't run Photoshop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks but no thanks. With Mac OS X I get the best of both worlds (terminal, UNIX tools, VIM, gcc) but also Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Nikon Capture, and all my Epson printers work with no driver installations in Leopard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget all the productivity saved on not playing games on the Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- wireless crapping out at random times
- suspend/hibernate woes
- poor battery life
I probably would use Mac too if it weren't for the absence of the nipple-trackpoint and the user interface t
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a reasonable policy to me. It's the same one we had at my last employer. Users choose what works best for them. Since several of those people now work at Google, I imagine they feel right at home.
Actually, according to Consumer Reports Thinkpads have a higher failure rate than MacBooks or MacBook pros, by a decent margin. At that last employer those were our two pre-approved vendors and our data showed the same thing. As for ease of service, who services their own machines? We put in RAM and the like, which is plenty easy on Apple systems. Anything else, we copied the data to a spare machine (if possible) and shipped the broken one back to the vendor. On site repairs may make sense for servers, but not for laptops. It just isn't worth the employee down time. A couple of spare laptops are a cheap way to keep people working.
I find using them anywhere as a primary desktop is cumbersome. It's come a long way, but there is still a lot of tinkering and hands on work that needs to be done to get them running with whatever infrastructure and keep them that way. I use one daily, but I don't find it to be as painless and enjoyable as OS X for most tasks (although for some tasks it is quite superior).
I'd note most all of the problems you list are probably the result of having a distro not tailored to your hardware. That will hopefully be less of a problem in future as laptop makers customize Linux for their machine and keep it supported.
Yeah, we all become accustomed to interfaces and the like. I've used ThinPads and they are fairly reliable (number 3 or 4 right now?) but I've never been fond of the nipple-pointer thingy. Over the last couple of years I've noticed that OS X has incorporated pretty much all the old UNIX style interface features I missed, but the big Linux distros are still lacking in reciprocation. Ubuntu still does not ship with an expose clone by default or with two-finger trackpad clicking and scrolling. From what I've seen this has facilitated a large exodus of laptop users away from Linux and to OS X for their primary OS. Where I worked last they went from about 5% to about 70% in the last 4 years, mostly converting Linux people (and a few BSD users). It worries me because a lot of those people are now developing applications and the like to solve problems on OS X and there are even fewer people doing so for Linux on the desktop.