And Remember, people have ALWAYS made doomsday speculations over Apple. It's a simple matter of smart business such sudden changes which jar the customer-base aren't smart changes. As for why it took so long, remember, it was running on 68k and x86, and needed to be ported and optimized for PowerPC, and more importantly, a road map needed to be established, so it would have as little negative effect on the end user as possible. Yes,the iPod has been good for their profit margin, but that does not negate the fact that they were indeed stable when the move to X was made.
I'll reiterate: they were financially stable when they made the move, which is why they made it when they did.
OR, maybe you brought it up as a point of making money. it has no bearing on the move to X, but, OK, maybe you just mentioned it to mention it. He brought them out of the red, so to speak :-) I'm not certain as to why you mention the iPod. he essentially cut all the fat off and created a leaner operation. He cleared away a lot of inventory which was costing the company more money than they'd ever hope to recoup. I am aware of the acquiring of NeXT in 1997, a decision made by Gil Amelio, which brought Steve Jobs back, which is why they were actually financially VERY stable when they made the move to X. During that time, many wondered if Apple would make it and why it was taking so long to bring OpenStep to the Mac.Īctually, it appeared before 2001 in the form of Rhapsody in 1999 and the public OS X Beta, as well as OS X Server in 2000. OS X (and the iPod coincidentally) didn't appear until 2001. Meanwhile, if somebody wants to create a traditional GNU build system for Glasgow by mastering autoconf help yourself! Regarding Apple, they acquired Next in 1997. I want a better nix build technology, but that means I face learning something new. Autoconf and make are poor programming languages. Regarding Linux build systems, nobody in open source enjoys working on them.
I agree with this, and want to make it clear that my intention was not to criticize the developer as much as to encourage the starting of the Linux build as soon as at all possible.
CINEPAINT VIDEOS CODE
As long as the code stays portable, I see no problems when the lead developer uses Windows. Sooner or later someone will set up a Linux build system. I think it's okay to focus primarily on the application instead of the build system. Many, many people will be boundlessly thankful for a Linux version.
CINEPAINT VIDEOS SOFTWARE
Nobody should accept that, and this is a very weighty argument in favor of Open Source software and the indispensable user control of our own computers and the software we need. This "feature" means that the user is at the mercy of the permanent existence of an activation service and its availability in order to get access to and work with his/her own files. The big probleme is Adobe's forcing Product Activation on their customers. The problem with commercial products like Adobe Photoshop is not price as such. People who need a professional-grade photo editor on Linux, be they amateurs or professionals, want a functional, capable Open Source tool that can be installed and used without any ties to a software company. I will most strongly advise the developer(s) of Cinepaint to prioritize the Linux versions higher. It's like a slap to the face of what is Open Source.
CINEPAINT VIDEOS WINDOWS
Frankly, I'm disappointed with the constant delay in the release of Glasgow, having watched the release date constantly pushed back for months and months, only to see it developed for Windows XP, instead of the *Nix platofrms. It also didn't hurt that OS X was already OpenStep, an established, open-source and stable operating system. Quite the contrary, they were quite healthy when they made the transition, which was gradual, giving both end-users and software companies opportunity to transition along with Apple. Posted by Robin Rowe 11:46 AM 33 comments 33 Comments:Īpple most certainly did NOT come close to losing when moving to OS X.
0 kommentar(er)
