When I first installed Growl I remember literally thinking "wow, this is really cool!"
... Being a tech geek means my nostalgia memories are 'weird' by normal standards.
Super happy now thinking about the time I first installed Growl
Growl in Retirement
141–150 of 245 posts
Re: Growl in Retirement
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, but Apple already had a similar feature in MacOS 8 and 9 that Growl was reproducing in OS X. It seems like Apple just hadn't gotten around to putting it in OS X yet because other things were more important. Then eventually they had time and added it.
I never used macOS until OS X and most definitely did not copy it. Nothing about Growl was a copy of that. Growl was inspired from being project manager on Adium and worked with the people making colloquy. The devs on colloquy were working on notifications and so we’re we and I thought it was smarter to make it a separate tool.
Hey Chris, for what it's worth, your software was quite a lifesaver for me in my earlier OS X days back in college. Your software had great impact on my workflow and I'll never forget it. :)
Re: Growl in Retirement
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
All great design innovations seem dead obvious in hindsight. But they're not.
Huh? Notifications that pop up in the corner aren't a "great design innovation". They are an obvious one. Just because there are some non-obvious great design innovations out there, doesn't mean every little interface component is one. Some things are just the logical solution to a problem.
Notifications could also be shown in the menu bar, with marquee scrolling. No need for them to pop up in a corner.
Re: Growl in Retirement
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been the domain of the carriers, not Apple.
> This has always been the domain of the carriers, not Apple. Maybe in the US. In Europe carriers never had any say about what functionality a mobile device offered. All they provided was a SIM-card for that device.
They did have a say, before iPhone and Android happened, devices have been branded, sim-locked, locked down etc by the carriers. I think they mostly stopped doing that in recent years.
Re: Growl in Retirement
#145I’m the author of this blog post. Feel free to ask me anything.
Can you tell some stories of that era? Would love to hear the ups and downs, good and bad.
Re: Growl in Retirement
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it ever Apple who charged for tethering? I always thought it was in the hands of the networks and their various plans. Today it seems like it's not even a feature anymore, just something you can do with your phone (or, at least for me it is: I'm on one of the cheapest cellphone plans in my country and tethering just works)
Yes, it is the networks that demand extra payment for tethering. That is still a thing in the US; you have to pay extra for a plan that includes tethering.
The networks demand it, but Apple provided them the ability to demand it.
Re: Growl in Retirement
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been the domain of the carriers, not Apple.
> This has always been the domain of the carriers, not Apple. Maybe in the US. In Europe carriers never had any say about what functionality a mobile device offered. All they provided was a SIM-card for that device.
Above what the sibling said regarding branding and pre-installed crap-ware, they still make a distinction between "on device" use and "modem use".
Source: read the fine print on an offer from my provider, Bouygues Telecom.
My regular plan has 40 GB, which I can use on the phone or tethered. This summer I was spending a lot of time at my parent's and their land internet connection was spotty. At the same time, Bouygues ran a campaign where I could get an extra 20 GB for next to nothing, so I was considering that. Read the fine print which basically said "the allowance doesn't apply to tethered use". I didn't care enough to challenge them on this so I passed.
Edit: Just checked the available options, this is still the case. Can't give a direct link for some reason, so here's a screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/rQgoz0m
Basically this is an option for "unlimited internet on the weekends". The originally hidden disclaimer says, among other things, "except for modem mode".
Re: Growl in Retirement
#148I’m the author of this blog post. Feel free to ask me anything.
Can you tell some stories of that era? Would love to hear the ups and downs, good and bad.
It was a lot of fun back then. There was the c4 stuff and drunkenbatman and then open source stuff. A lot of fun to be had. I don’t see it a lot anymore
Re: Growl in Retirement
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is the networks that demand extra payment for tethering. That is still a thing in the US; you have to pay extra for a plan that includes tethering.
Surprising from a European perspective. I have used tethering since before phones had a HTTP/HTML browser (~ 2001, remember WAP?). The question has always been do you have packet data or not, what is your bandwidth and volume. Nothing else is the operator's business.
Not really. They still separate on-device use from modem use. At least Bouygues Telecom in France does.
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25243710
Re: Growl in Retirement
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quicksilver was just updated in June. https://qsapp.com/changelog.php
It’s fair that the core app still compiles and has some maintenance, but there hasn’t been work done on the plugins and system integration in about a decade. What’s left makes a nice but slowly decaying launcher. The magical workflows of being able to navigate swiftly between app context menus, system services, and web services without a mouse or even leaving QS...those are but memories. QS circa 2008ish spoiled me f…
> QS circa 2008ish spoiled me for all launchers since.
Same. I (or somebody else) really should port Quicksilver to Linux; it's the day-to-day utility I've missed the most.