Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miguel de Icaza Leaves Linux For Apple OS X

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by JS987 View Post
    OS X doesn't have packager manager with official and unofficial repositories.
    One could argue that the App store fills that need and is their "package manager". There are also items like fink and homebrew.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      One could argue that the App store fills that need and is their "package manager". There are also items like fink and homebrew.
      App store can't provide all applications. You can't install GPL software from official repository. fink, homebrew and MacPorts are unofficial and not integrated with App store.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_App_Store
      Disallowed types of applications revealed by Apple include
      Software that changes the native user interface elements or behaviors of Mac OS X.
      Software that does not comply with the Apple Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
      Software that is similar in look or function to current Apple products (e.g. Mac App Store, Finder, iTunes, iChat, etc.).
      Software similar to other software that is already released in the Mac App Store. Examples given: Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw, Photoshop Lightroom & Apple Aperture, Cinema 4D and 3D Max, etc.
      Software that contains or displays pornographic material.
      Software that is or installs shared components (kernel extensions, browser plugins, QuickTime components, etc.).
      Software that provides content or services that expire.
      Software that does not run on the currently shipping version of Mac OS.
      Beta, demo, trial, or test versions of software.
      Software that references trademarks unless the developer has explicit permission to use them
      Open source software licensed only under the GPL (because the App Store Terms of Service imposes additional restrictions incompatible with the GPL)
      Apps that use software libraries that are either optionally installed or deemed deprecated by Apple for Mac OS X users. Examples given:
      Apple's implementation of Java SE 6 (although the OpenJDK implementation of Java SE 7 is permitted if bundled into the app)
      PowerPC code requiring Rosetta

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by JS987 View Post
        App store can't provide all applications. You can't install GPL software from official repository. fink, homebrew and MacPorts are unofficial and not integrated with App store.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_App_Store
        And you cannot put closed applications on the mainline linux repositories. It isn't that different. Also you can offer GPL software as long as it is dual licensed.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by peppercats View Post
          Shows what?
          Every person I've talked to about windows 8(actual normal people, not power-users or linux users) have called it a design disaster. When I bought my laptop, every negative review simply pointed to windows 8 being crap and unusable.

          I guess it shows that microsoft vastly overpays their UI team.
          Um.. What I know is a man named Sinofsky made that happen. Metro, I mean. Despite Protest everywhere. And well, That Sir Balmer take the bait.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
            LOLWUT? From every modern benchmark I've ever seen Java gives C# butthurt in the speed department. I guess you don't like the massive amount of Java IDEs either. They are different, not inferior. To give you some credit though, I don't code in Java (C++ and lua all the way for me) but still, I think that criticism unnecessary and incorrect.
            Java? Faster than C#? Nice joke man. You'd need some very special cases where Java beats C#. I did my benchmarks and tests. Also Java GUIs just look ugly. And yes there are multiple Java IDEs and the best I found was NetBeans, which is kinda good but slow when loading bigger projects (they may have fixed that in the meantime). Also Java is owned by Oracle...and we're all seeing what's happening to MySQL. Java won't be around for long.

            it's quite cross platform(but not build-once run everywhere... neither is C#, Mono though
            well in that case, you didn't do a good job. I developed 4 in-house applications in C# that worked on Mono without even having Mono in mind for it. I'm also currently developing a rather big/complex program that'll be available for Linux (because I need it for myself, too), there may be driver related problems in the future but as of now I didn't encounter any problems.

            About C++: Well last time I checked you needed to fumble around with header files (I still don't understand what those are for), pointers and there was not one IDE that has C++ + GUI builder the way C# has it. Instead you needed to do manual binding and stuff you really shouldn't even think about. Also I read a few times that compilers tend to 'optimize' your code which results in unexpected behaviour. Aaand last one: There seems to be no debugger that is as easy as VisualStudio's debugger (build-in in an IDE and easy to use)

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              And you cannot put closed applications on the mainline linux repositories. It isn't that different. Also you can offer GPL software as long as it is dual licensed.
              Arch and possibly others have closed applications in official repositories
              https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nvidia
              https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=flashplugin
              I can't change license of software created by others. GPL applications shouldn't be dual licensed as GPL is best license for users.
              There are 10 other limitations except disallowing of GPL only license.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                If the 2-3 major distributors would sit down and agree on a standard application bundle format there would a lot less fragmentation in Linux. Packages and centralized repositories are alright for maintaining the system. However, applications should be easily distributed from anywhere and from anyone, just like MacOS or Windows. Ideally the user should be able to get applications from the application creators themselves, e.g. Firefox from Mozilla, Chrome from Google, MySQL from Oracle, etc. If I was a developer of a successful open source application, I'd like the user to get a cross distro binary directly from my site. It would be a win for both me and the user.
                Meanwhile, we have the Open Build Service.

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                People hate on .NET, but its pretty much Java done right.
                No, that's D or Vala.

                Originally posted by arokh View Post
                If you can't learn from the best, and instead insist on your own broken ways then you will certainly not go anywhere.
                That's what I have been saying, too. They do learn a bit, apparently, as there is now a way to search the Start menu, but there still are no tabs in Windows Explorer and such.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Vala.
                  Did you ever program with Vala? It's a nightmare. The GTK binding alone is enough to drive me away from it. It's horrible. (that may or may not be because GTK actually *is* horrible, but if I want to display a small List with a few strings in it, I don't want to code 50 lines of code, I want to define it add some elements to it and be done with it.)

                  And as I said previvously: Their documentation sucks.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                    GPL applications shouldn't be dual licensed as GPL is best license for users.
                    That is a matter of opinion and the typical "user" sees no benefit. The GPL is great for developers who wish to release their code to the public and force others to contribute back.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      That is a matter of opinion and the typical "user" sees no benefit. The GPL is great for developers who wish to release their code to the public and force others to contribute back.
                      A user who sees no benefit from GPL is an ignorant user. GPL is all about the freedom for the user, not developers.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X