I am not a GCC toolchain expert, but what is the trouble with someone hosting a GCC for OS X binary?
Then they would have no one to blame their incompetence on, of course.
OS X Isn't for Developers
151–160 of 252 posts
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#152Earlier 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…
You know what?
I think you might be right and I might be wrong on this.
After reading how Apple pulled this previously (on the iPod Touch upgrade) I now think it's possible they may use SOX as justification for this more.
I still don't think it's good a justification, and I still think Apple could have worked around it if they wanted, but yeah - you are possibly more right that I am.
(I know admitting you are wrong on the internet is unheard of, but Strong opinions, weakly held & all that.. )
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#153I 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…
While I can't explain Apple's inconsistency, here's a little bit of "evidence" (admittedly second-hand) from someone who I would not consider to be "uninformed":
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/g0o01/xcode_4_i...
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#154Argument 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.
I'm baffled by the premise of this "casual" gem user who is worried about "barriers to entry" yet wants to use... gcc.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#155I agree with the title, but am not interested at the OSX / XCode stuff because I'm a very happy, satisfied Linux & Lenovo user. My old company tried to force me to use a Macbook Pro, saying "developer community uses it", and I refused, saying "I give no piece of .... to a software with stupid and pretty looking icons, windows etc." because that stuff requires us to use mouse/touchpad stuff, which are useless, time wa…
Friend of mine who loves VIM recently switched from Ubuntu on PC clone to OS X on MacBook Pro. He doesn't use a mouse for anything, ever.
Just because the icons are there doesn't mean you have to click them. Sounds like you just need someone to show you how Mac keyboard customisation works.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#156It’s possible that this will change before OS X Lion ships, but it’s still a troubling prospect today. Why is this a troubling prospect today? The Developer tools you need are on your install disk. You did buy the operating system right? Just install them. If you don't have the disc handy at least you have the option of downloading it for free. You're arguing that spending AN HOUR of your time is offensive. Think of…
No, he's arguing that asking somebody else to spend an hour of their time to install a gem is placing extra barriers to people experimenting with the software that came with their computer.
Which is where he loses me. If that person wants to deal with gcc, they're not casual, and spending an hour grabbing latest libs and tools is how they roll, Xcode or no. Any time I'm on CPAN I end up updating 50 other things and 3 hours later wonder what I was looking for in the first place.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#157Except that right now when someone wants to try your gem and doesn't have XCode installed... they can also still grab their install disc. Nothing precludes them from doing that instead of buying & downloading XCode 4.
Also... chances are really good that if they're trying out your gem, they've tried out other gems. They've probably already had to install XCode at some point in the past. If they're a developer used to using OS X, they probably installed XCode out of habit as soon as they got their new Mac booted up.
It is a little early to talk about the sky falling about this XCode thing until we see if a gcc toolchain is shipped as a free optional install on future hardware.
The day a Mac isn't shipped with gcc somewhere in the box (DVD, memory stick, HDD, SSD) is the day you might have a point.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, every time I see one of these articles with even a hint at criticism towards Apple, I cringe slightly before I click the comments link...because I know what's coming next. Not that you care, but I'm also tired of Apple hi-jinks, T's & C's, and just general unfriendliness toward devs and I'll stick with Win7/Ubuntu from now on.
Right, because Windows comes with gcc?
Last I checked, Visual Studio was WAY more expensive than $5.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find out some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space Yeah, but the essentials that most command line builds require wouldn't even take up 10% of that. Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need.
> Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need. No, they didn't. For example, Snow Leopard downloads printer drivers from Apple as you need them.
Extra languages are still there though. But I think this is good, mom uses her Mac Mini in Hebrew, my account uses English, dad uses our native Portuguese (I live in Brazil).
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#160once upon a time, it was either really hard , really expensive, or both, to get your hands on a c compiler for whatever platform you were on. nowadays, thanks to rms and all of the folks who have worked on gcc over the years, the very idea of charging for a compiler seems crazy. now, gcc is dead easy to install on almost every platform, and we take its availability for granted.
(as an aside, have you ever tried to download xcode for a version of osx which is not the current one? i have had to do this several times, and it is an absolute nightmare.)
i see that clang has a license that would allow apple's version to have proprietary bits. do they? under what license does apple distribute their binary?