Isn't gcc a GPL? How can Apple not distribute it?
They do distribute it, it's on the OS X install disk.
OS X Isn't for Developers
121–130 of 252 posts
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#122Argument kinda falls flat. For starters, Xcode 3 is still free, at least for now. No need for Xcode 4. Also, I'm certain that someone will package gcc for mac sooner or later now that there's an incentive to do so. There has not been much incentive to do so before now since it was included with Xcode.
I wasn't arguing that Xcode is expensive. I'm arguing that the barriers to entry are pretty offensive if you need the capabilities of only gcc. An hour-long process involving credit cards isn't very nifty.
If you just need gcc: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8
Also, how many Apple developers don't already have an iTunes account?
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws... Its rather obvious its about SOX. No, it's not at all. The only "evidence" for that is a bunch of uninformed developers speculating about things they know nothing about. OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence that this isn't the case: 1) Why didn't they charge before? They've…
Just a law student, but I can buy the SOX thing. Companies have very different approaches to compliance, get advice from different counsel, account for things in different ways, etc. I feel like there is a Occam's Razor argument in here. What purpose besides SOX could Apple have in not giving away XCode 4? Could be pure greed as others are saying, but when Apple wants to make money they're incredibly good at it. How…
They why $5? Why not 1c, or 99c, or make it $99 and include a year's membership?
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: can you really imagine Steve Jobs agreeing to charge for something he didn't want to charge for because of accounting practices?
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#124Isn't gcc a GPL? How can Apple not distribute it?
First, Apple does make the GCC source available: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/
Second, Apple doesn't ship GCC in the default install, why would they need to make it the source available?
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#125C'mon it's five bucks.
That's less than the cost of the average meal at a fast food restaurant - and Xcode only has to be bought once (and we don't have to buy it at all).
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then you'd need to ship binaries for every conceivable platform that your gem could be used on You don't. You ship binaries for the top 2-3 platforms and provide source for the rest. That's how open source projects have been doing things for ages . and you'd need to make some pretty fundamental changes to the whole Ruby gem distribution system Meh, it isn't insurmountable.
You ship binaries for the top 2-3 platforms and provide source for the rest. I wish it were that simple, but then you also have to worry about library versions (unless you really want to bundle all your dependencies too, bloating your little library from 10KiB to tens of megabytes, or more). Also see this reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2311455 Meh, it isn't insurmountable. Yeah, because forcing a huge inf…
You have to deal with dependencies already. In fact, today you have to compile the dependencies. Why isn't downloading their binaries a simpler way to do it?
Whenever I type "{brew,port} install X" I spend the next few minutes watching a compile and muttering "why? why? why?".
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#127I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…
Per your point #3: I spend a lot of time in both Windows 7/VS2010 AND OSX/XCode (along with a smidgen of time in Ubuntu as well) and crashes are just about a thing of the past in all three environments. That said, Xcode/OSX gives me the spinning beach ball of death at least as much as I get a crash to desktop in W7 and far, far more often than I get a BSOD in W7. The idea that windows crashes a lot is a myth hanging…
As for the polish comment, it's really a matter of what you're used to and strictly a matter of opinion, but I find Xcode a nightmare to navigate compared to VS2010. Sure, Xcode is shinier and looks better, but the UX is far superior in VS2010 (again, just my opinion). I'm very much looking forward to a single window interface in Xcode 4.3.
Oh dear - you haven't been using the multiple-window layout in Xcode 3, have you? The single window layout is the only way to be productive.
Update: wow - I got downvoted for saying that? Someone must really like the multiwindow layout. If that's you, and you don't want to pay the $5 for version 4, have a look in View->Layout in Xcode 3. Try the single window layout. You'll like it. Really.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a law student, but I can buy the SOX thing. Companies have very different approaches to compliance, get advice from different counsel, account for things in different ways, etc. I feel like there is a Occam's Razor argument in here. What purpose besides SOX could Apple have in not giving away XCode 4? Could be pure greed as others are saying, but when Apple wants to make money they're incredibly good at it. How…
They why $5? Why not 1c, or 99c, or make it $99 and include a year's membership? I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: can you really imagine Steve Jobs agreeing to charge for something he didn't want to charge for because of accounting practices ?
When the have the force of law, and when they've been burned in the past, absolutely.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a law student, but I can buy the SOX thing. Companies have very different approaches to compliance, get advice from different counsel, account for things in different ways, etc. I feel like there is a Occam's Razor argument in here. What purpose besides SOX could Apple have in not giving away XCode 4? Could be pure greed as others are saying, but when Apple wants to make money they're incredibly good at it. How…
They why $5? Why not 1c, or 99c, or make it $99 and include a year's membership? I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: can you really imagine Steve Jobs agreeing to charge for something he didn't want to charge for because of accounting practices ?
Given that the guy was personally in the hot seat a few years ago for an option backdating scandal, yes. I can imagine him agreeing to this.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#130I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…
Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws... Its rather obvious its about SOX. No, it's not at all. The only "evidence" for that is a bunch of uninformed developers speculating about things they know nothing about. OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence that this isn't the case: 1) Why didn't they charge before? They've…
You could always get the dev tools for free* because they always came with some other purchase. That seems like it would cover the "SOX" compliance to me.
Examples: you bought a copy of Mac OS X (the dev tools were in the box), you bought an ADC membership (dev tools are included with your membership). Now, XCode 4 from the App Store is the first time you could get them standalone. And they charge for it.