Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kod.app is open source

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Kod.app is open source

#51

Post by VMG »

bugsy wrote: post #42
zdw wrote: post #31

Anyone use this? Pros/cons vs Textmate/vim/emacs?

It's not comparable at all, though it could be after a few man years of work. Crashes on quit. In C mode, hitting return doesn't indent. No preferences. No toolbars or widget menus. It does attempt to color keywords but this doesn't really work, with "in" in "int" being blue and the "t" inexplicably being white, etc. It's a text editor with fewer features than TextEdit. No idea what the big deal is. It's description…

Sad. I saw the screenshot and imagined a modern vim of sorts.

Re: Kod.app is open source

#52

Post by sharednothing »

Stormbringer wrote: post #38
getsat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also a HUGE improvement in a lot of different areas! Speed, especially.

It is much buggier, frequent crashes of Safari, iTunes and Mail for instance

Not sure why you are getting down-voted. I have 2 MBPs. One is s ~3 year old running 10.5 and his baby sister running 10.6.

This is entirely subjective per my experience:

- the 10.5 'feels' more responsive.

- the beachball is a very frequent event in the 10.6, specially Safari, sometimes even when switching tabs which is quite annoying.

- I haven't rebooted the old MBP in months. Sitting pretty on my desk. The new one has frozen few times and occasionally I feel the need to put it out of its misery myself.

Re: Kod.app is open source

#53

Post by omouse »

brianm wrote: post #7

Sadly, it is a precious snowflake license (MIT + Custom term) with a very ambiguous custom term: "The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and sold without meaningful modification for a profit." Great to see it semi-open source, and well within the rights of the author, though :-)

It's for a non-open-source operating system anyway, who cares ;p

Re: Kod.app is open source

#54

Post by sharednothing »

I downloaded Kod.app to check it out. Great Nordic looks! But this is really not even ready for prime-time, is it?

Given the amount of work involved, I'd like to throw in the suggestion here that if you are thinking of building your own (programmer development environment -- these things are not simply "editors") on top an OSS foundation, to review and consider IDEA:

http://git.jetbrains.org/

(Not in any way associated with JetBrains).

Re: Kod.app is open source

#55

Post by fredoliveira »

ubernostrum wrote: post #45
steveklabnik wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why'd you skip 10.6? It was $30.

There's no such thing as a trivial OS upgrade, and so long as 10.5 is supported and runs the stuff I need to run, I don't have a compelling reason to go to the trouble of upgrading.

You'll have to excuse me, but you're wrong. I mean, sure, it is an OS upgrade. But there's no real "trouble" (it takes about 20 minutes and a few clicks) and there's definitely compelling reasons to upgrade (including running 10.6 specific software). One pressing reason to upgrade: 64bit. Another one: cocoa finder. Also, faster and smaller.

Seriously, I know people who have a reason not to upgrade. You don't seem to be one of those people. Those people are on worse operating systems than you are.

Re: Kod.app is open source

#56

Post by fredoliveira »

arihant wrote: post #37
savoy11 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I am pretty sure you have your successful open source story to share. Where you saved the queen, anything green, the oxygen, as we know it - and made millions along the way - while slaying bad guys around. PS. It is easy to spot a clown.

You need a story which has millions of dollars, women and open source? - Android.

Indeed, and you can even go earlier than that: MySQL.

Re: Kod.app is open source

#57

Post by alextgordon »

vog wrote: post #47
brianm wrote: post #7

Sadly, it is a precious snowflake license (MIT + Custom term) with a very ambiguous custom term: "The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and sold without meaningful modification for a profit." Great to see it semi-open source, and well within the rights of the author, though :-)

So by definition, this is not Open Source. Unfortunately, the author claims to have done so nevertheless: http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/... It is a very questionable practice to claim to have produced Free Software / Open Source, when in fact this isn't the case. That's misleading marketing, if not unfair competition. Such practices are especially unfair on the huge number of authors and…

How is this not open source? This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. To my mind, commercial use is completely orthogonal to whether a licence is open source or not.

Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" and that at no time that I've seen does the developer claim it's "Free Software" (which it certainly isn't, although it does dynamically link a GPL'd library...).

Re: Kod.app is open source

#58

Post by djacobs »

alnayyir wrote: post #44
djacobs wrote: post #19

Looks nice. One note: It says it requires MacPorts. You should probably say it requires the source-highlight package, regardless of how you get it. (I'm going to install via Homebrew, some might compile it manually.)

It's worth noting that you can just install the app binary. Compiling it is for people that want to hack the source themselves, it's not the main distribution method.

I meant the source-highlight dependency. Is that included with the binary?

Re: Kod.app is open source

#59

Post by vog »

alextgordon wrote: post #57
vog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by definition, this is not Open Source. Unfortunately, the author claims to have done so nevertheless: http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/... It is a very questionable practice to claim to have produced Free Software / Open Source, when in fact this isn't the case. That's misleading marketing, if not unfair competition. Such practices are especially unfair on the huge number of authors and…

How is this not open source? This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. To my mind, commercial use is completely orthogonal to whether a licence is open source or not. Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" and that at no time that I've seen does the developer claim it's "Free Software" (which it certainly isn't, although it does dynamically link a…

> This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use.

Adding that kind of restriction will make any license a non-OpenSource license. This is not orthogonal but an important aspect.

Maybe a failing analogy helps here. From a linguistic point of view, the above is like saying: "Belarus is a democracy, with an added restriction regarding elections."

> Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence"

This statement is plain wrong. OSI defined the term Open Source very precisely, so using it to describe non-compliant licenses is a clear misuse of that term. Even Microsoft doesn't do that, despite their power! Instead, they coined an own term to describe their less-restrictive activities: "Shared Source". (And yes, a small minority of Microsoft's Shared Source projects are also Open Source.)

So although there are different opinions about which term to prefer, "Open Source" has technically the same meaning as "Free Software". This has been clearly stated by the Open Source movement from the very beginning. In other words, the term Open Source has been designed to be a byword for Free Software. You can find that in the early articles of ESR:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html

Finally, note that this license won't ever be approved by neither OSI nor FSF, because it violates an essential freedom. Of course you can always say: "I don't care about that certain kind of freedom". That's okay. But then you should neither claim to do "Open Source" nor to do "Free Software". That's unfair on all real Open Source developers who grant that freedom.

Re: Kod.app is open source

#60

Post by tel »

vog wrote: post #59
alextgordon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not open source? This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. To my mind, commercial use is completely orthogonal to whether a licence is open source or not. Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" and that at no time that I've seen does the developer claim it's "Free Software" (which it certainly isn't, although it does dynamically link a…

> This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. Adding that kind of restriction will make any license a non-OpenSource license. This is not orthogonal but an important aspect. Maybe a failing analogy helps here. From a linguistic point of view, the above is like saying: "Belarus is a democracy, with an added restriction regarding elections." > Note that "open source" != "under…

Unless you're of the belief that language is defined by usage in which case "open source" tends to less rigorously mean "a large codebase that can at least be viewed and likely copied".

It's not as liberating as Open Souce, but without gradations in the standard you force people to choose between two radicalized tendencies.

Post reply on HN