11 Aug
2007
11 Aug
'07
2:55 p.m.
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse <mouse at Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
If OS X is
really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
I don't *know*, of course, since I have no inside information about
any
such vendors. But some plausible answers come to mind:
(1) Because "high-end" applications usually depend on a lot more than
just the "Unix" in OS X. They typically depend on Aqua as well
(that's
the fancy - and closed, and proprietary - GUI layer). Porting them
(too often, this really means rewriting them) for Linux is likely
to be
difficult, especially since "Linux" is not a single thing when it
comes
to higher-end graphics - there's far more variability in graphics
hardware under Linux than across the entire OSX-supporting Mac line.
(2) Because a substantial part of the cost, to the vendor, of a Linux
version is in not the creating of it, but the customer support for it.
(3) Because they have limited resources and have chosen to invest them
in the Windows and Mac versions, expecting higher ROI there. 
11 Aug
11 Aug
3:16 p.m.
On 11 Aug 2007 at 22:55, Roger Holmes wrote:
It would take me time I do not have (and human memory)
to keep up
with what is and is not in yet another operating system. Apple
spends a lot of money keeping developers like me up to date with
their developments, I presume nothing similar is done with Linux.
What spare time I have is more enjoyably spent of classic cars and
classic computers.
Is that another Apple/Microsoft difference? Microsoft developers
spend a lot of money (i.e. paying for MSDN privleges) keeping up to
date on Windows developments.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:45 p.m.
On Saturday 11 August 2007 17:55, Roger Holmes wrote:
Anyway, do things like QuickTime, OpenGL and Quesa
exist on Linux?
QT: xine, mplayer. Both are way more compatible with more formats than
Quicktime is. QT and Window Media Player don't come close to
supporting all the variants of just MPEG-4, that xine/mplayer do.
OpenGL: It's called the same thing on MacOS, Windows, Linux, and every
other UNIX. There's lots of high-performance graphics work that gets
done on Linux boxes with nVidia cards.
According to Quesa's website, "Quesa currently supports Mac OS 8/9, Mac
OS X, Linux, and Windows."
It would take me time I do not have (and human memory)
to keep up
with what is and is not in yet another operating system. Apple
spends a lot of money keeping developers like me up to date with
their developments, I presume nothing similar is done with Linux.
What spare time I have is more enjoyably spent of classic cars and
classic computers.
I don't understand what to make of this. Basic OS API features tend to
change slowly... and if you want to keep track of GUI or other random
library/toolkit updates, just pay general attention to the mailing
lists they have, download new versions as the come out, and see if your
code still compiles against them.
There's been some issues with newer versions of GCC breaking older code,
but in general, if that happens, its because your code was written
poorly and not to the language specifications.
Worst case, you can just install whatever version of the libraries your
app uses along with the app in some out of the way place, and ignore
changes to the system libraries, GUI, etc, pretty trivially.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
6343
days inactive
6343
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
roger.holmes＠microspot.co.uk