Live data from Hacker News

Growl in Retirement

336699.org

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: Growl in Retirement

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

Happy to hear it. We’re totally didn’t know what we were doing really, just making something we wanted.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#152

> Without Growl I do not know that we would have any sort of decent notification system in OS X They are right to say this, as the current Notifications system in OS X is ripped nearly pixel-for-pixel from Growl's implementation a decade ago. Like Spaces, Quicksilver, Cover Flow and others, Growl paved the way for a lot of the usability enhancements OS X gobbled up in recent years. Apple folks: take note. These are r…

How do you send a notification now without Growl? Each time I try to google for a tutorial, they all say “just use growl.” Ultimately I gave up and installed growl, and it works quite nicely. I’d just like to pop up a notification programmatically via a bash script. :)

terminal-notifier does this.

https://github.com/julienXX/terminal-notifier

Re: Growl in Retirement

#153
post #70

Earlier 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.

Not very similar. If you wanted a message, the OS put up a modal dialogue blocking everything else. The whole point of Growl was that it didn't interrupt you, and you could have its messages go away on their own.

There were these yellow messages that popped up in the upper right-hand corner in MacOS 9. Those were just non-blocking notifications.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#154
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should Apple have handled this? Maybe insisted on acquiring the Growl company? I don't think Apple should have just avoided building Notification Center, since that's a big net benefit for everyone. If an acquisition is rejected/infeasible/not applicable/etc, then I'm not clear on the right thing to do. Acquisition might have been possible with Growl, but for some other cases there's not even a company to acquire…

They could license the IP to forestall copyright/patent challenges and motivate creative devs, similar to security bug bounties.

I would guess that there is some legal problem with even referencing original app as an inspiration. Paying bounty for it would be even worse.

If Apple were able to copy some app and in return mention your name as a co-author of some sort/tip you - that would probably be a life changing experience for most developers out there.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#155
I still use HardwareGrowler all the time with Growl, and it is super useful for unobtrusive notifications about usb connects, IP address changes, battery levels, etc.

Here's to hoping for a future for HardwareGrowler still.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#156
post #14

> Without Growl I do not know that we would have any sort of decent notification system in OS X They are right to say this, as the current Notifications system in OS X is ripped nearly pixel-for-pixel from Growl's implementation a decade ago. Like Spaces, Quicksilver, Cover Flow and others, Growl paved the way for a lot of the usability enhancements OS X gobbled up in recent years. Apple folks: take note. These are r…

Do people get tweak-y with their systems as much any more? I used to get extremely into customizing Mac OS (as in, Classic Mac OS), and early versions of OS X and iOS during the jailbreak salad days. Now, not so much. I tend to run closer to stock, and not deal with the system constantly changing and deprecating my tweaks. Is that because I am old, or is it less common now? (Not a rhetorical question, I really don’t…

It’s us. I was the same, now when I have a fresh Mac (like at work) I like to grab my dot files, my ssh keys, and remove a few items from the dock and I’m good to go. I don’t even do the last that much since I mostly launch from Spotlight.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#157
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Growl predates iOS Edit: also, IIRC Growl was originally called "Notification Center", which is the name that Apple later used for their implementation of similar features Double edit: I should've RTFA which mentions my fun fact

IIRC, Growl was created because a similar feature of Mac OS didn’t make it into the first release of Mac OS X (sorry, can’t find pictures or documentation online) If so, I think its developers can’t be completely unhappy about the end result. Also, their code is (3-clause) BSD licensed. If the product lives on in spirit, does it really matter where the code came from?

You’re right, but Growl did much more than the notifications in classic MacOS. Also, Apple took their sweet time to get their notification system for OS X.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#158

Are people, in general, supposed to know Growl is? The link provided certainly provides no context nor got me curious enough to google it.

> Are people, in general, supposed to know Growl is?

No, but if you don’t then the post is just not relevant to you.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has always been the domain of the carriers, not Apple.

I’m not from the US, could you explain this perspective to me? You give me internet on device X. How is it up to you how I use it?

In my experience in Canada from several years ago, the business teams in wireless telcos don't see it as providing you internet on device x. The ip connection on a device is a gateway towards a service, and the telecoms want to be providers of services, and the differentiator from competitors is having better and different services.

In my opinion the biggest fear of those business development teams is to be treated as or thought of just as providing internet on a device. As being just the pipe is not considered a lucrative market, and open to lots of competition where the race is to the bottom on price. This is also where you get lots of the anti-competitive behaviors, like not investing the effort to make a competitors service optimal within a network, as the carriers would rather launch their own service instead of making someone elses service they don't generate revenue off of work great.

To be fair, in the older gen access technologies, all internet access isn't equal. The access network was optimized for the usage patterns of a mobile browser, in the way it scheduled and idled the radio (I'm glossing over a large number of details). So connecting a computer via tethering that behaves differently and is far more chatty on the network, is actually a much costlier device to support. The current gen techs like LTE do operate much differently, to support chatty devices and apps. With a better optimized network and devices loaded with chatty apps, this difference is probably disappearing.

So if you put yourself in the shoes of a business dev person at a wireless carrier. They'll look at this and say, well we can have a $40 plan for just internet access. Or we can have a $35 plan for just mobile browsing, since that's more efficient and allows us to be more competitive when using the phones browser, and a $15 add on for tethering for those who want it and cost the company more. There are entire teams dedicated to just figuring this stuff out.

And this leads to some of the stuff I would get thrown from time to time, like the $60k bills (no longer allowed in canada, a rule was created to prevent surprise bills, but used to be a thing) when someone bought unlimited mobile browser for $7, and thought that meant unlimited usage for their tethered computer and started torrenting all day which was pay per use.

An unlimited $7 plan only works in the context of the way a user can use a mobile browser, and that's why the carriers think they can dictate how you use the internet connection. They have departments to tailor make plans that only work if they're able to dictate how the internet is used.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this model, I'm just trying to explain where I believe this perspective comes from based on my experience. I've been out of the industry several years now, and my opinions are my own.

Re: Growl in Retirement

#160

> Without Growl I do not know that we would have any sort of decent notification system in OS X They are right to say this, as the current Notifications system in OS X is ripped nearly pixel-for-pixel from Growl's implementation a decade ago. Like Spaces, Quicksilver, Cover Flow and others, Growl paved the way for a lot of the usability enhancements OS X gobbled up in recent years. Apple folks: take note. These are r…

Was Spaces an app before it was a feature? Currently I'm using third party software to pretend I have Spaces instead of the awful thing that replaced it.
Post reply on HN