241–250 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be it as it may, but xterm/X11 still kills Terminal.app in text rendering speed. Also, MacVim is, on my Mac at least, visibly slower in text rendering than the naked vim under xterm.
Text rendering speed? I type a letter Terminal, it appears. What are you doing that text rendering speed matters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this strikes me as in the same class of uncivil moves that the FSF complains about proprietary software vendors pulling Why? Did you buy a copy of GCC?
Making your software hard to interface with is making it less open. It's the same sort of move as making your word processor use an incompletely documented binary format.
We are using two different definitions of "open". Back in the 80's Unix was considered "open" because you could compile a program for various flavors and the various flavors could share data on the same network (contrary to other platforms of the time). GCC is open not because it runs on many platforms, but because you can freely inspect, change it and redistribute it. Those are two completely different meanings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It mostly means that they can use the libraries without having to open-source Xcode itself. LGPL would be fine for that.
Yeah, but why bother? It's not like Apple has any reason to go LGPL (and actually, now that I looked it up Clang seems to use the same license as LLVM — which makes sense — and that's the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License not the 3-clauses BSD, which again makes sense considering LLVM got started at UIUC, so it's not even Apple who decided on the license of the LLVM suite and related tools, they got int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPLv3 does not apply to code compiled by GCC 4.2.1+. It applies to code you try to fork from it.
Actually, if you developed and distributed a non-GPL compatible plug-in for GCC, the GCC license prevents you from linking to the gcc stdlib without distributing built code under the GPL. It's a peculiar exception - and Apple is almost certainly never going to be in violation of it. Still, the point is that Apple's lawyers are terrified that it could somehow taint iOS/OS X/iTunes if someone comes to believe that Appl…
I am not saying Apple wants to patent-troll downstream developers, but that's a risk that's worth noting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However it isn't just the Cocoa bindings that are important. AFAIK SoyLatte's Swing/AWT elements run through X11. Apple's Java allows for Java GUIs without starting X11.
Indeed, this will presumably affect users of Eclipse, Netbeans and similar. Not sure how many non-developer apps make use of those APIs, though, especially as they don't quite produce native look & feel. (still much better than X11, which is indeed terrible on OSX)
I don't use any Mac specific APIs except for checking/setting some properties to do things like put the menus in the right place. The rest is straight Swing. So no great loss as long as Oracle provides a good implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I doubt programmers make up a huge % of Mac sales either to be honest" You sure? It'd be interesting to see the results of an HN poll on this.
The install base of Mac is 50 million. http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/10/20/apple-cfo-tim-cook... There are about 9 million programmers in the world (heard this from Joel at BoS 2 weeks ago -- not sure if it's true, or if I am remembering correctly). If 50% of devs have a mac (way overestimate), we make up less than 10% of the users. Now ... how many of us need Java?
I didn't realize Apple did this (not a Mac user personally). Didn't Microsoft get sued for providing their own Java runtime years ago? What is the difference here? (just out of interest) Obviously Sun/Oracle have been fine with it, so is it different to what Microsoft did?
What I find so utterly surprising is that they are completely killing it on the os level.
html5 here I come.