f



Mac OS X and Linux

I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps like MS
Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?
1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?
2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has compiled it
for their OS?
3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?

And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
desktop yet? Even commercially?

I await my licks!
-- 
Bats
~..~
(I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)

0
nomail4201 (89)
7/20/2004 6:17:23 PM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

26 Replies
505 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bats wrote:

> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps
like MS
> Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?

It means that Microsoft and Adobe have written versions of their
programs that can be run under OS/X. There may be a contractual
requirement for such support (i.e. Microsoft supporting their Office
suite under contract from Apple), or it may mean that the vendor feels
that there is sufficient commercial interest in their product in order
to support an OS/X port.

It /does not/ mean that these programs will run under another BSD Unix
derivative or under Linux. Most likely, these programs have been written
to interface with the OS/X propriatary UI, and not through standard
Unixish UIs like X.

> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
> under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?

No. It means that they've ported their apps to run under the OS/X paradigm.

> 2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
compiled it
> for their OS?

Not likely.

> 3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?

No.

> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
> desktop yet? Even commercially?

Probably because the vendors don't feel that there is a market that they
can (or wish to) sell to.


> I await my licks!


- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFA/WUFagVFX4UWr64RAkfMAJ42WT0bZ0DO9oL3yK/0g/OLfOGjYQCfZHh+
09rtdq0vE3zAQa8jS6lBQ/s=
=mBuG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Lew.Pitcher (533)
7/20/2004 6:31:35 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-07-20, Bats <nomail@no.way> wrote:
> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps like MS
> Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?
> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
> under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?

Yes.  They may have used Apple's tools to build their software, though,
and certainly used Apple's proprietary libraries.

> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
> desktop yet? Even commercially?

Ask Microsoft.  :)  As I wrote above, though, many of the libraries
they'd have used won't be available in linux anyway, so there'd still
be porting to do.  But the primary reason these apps aren't available
for linux is likely not technical (e.g., MS doesn't want to encourage
the linux market, maybe Adobe doesn't see a large market to purchase
their software to run in linux,...).  I should point out that, at least
in Adobe's case, they have released Acrobat Reader for linux, so
clearly they *can* port to linux; whether a vendor wants to or not is
something you'd have to ask them.

- --keith

- -- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA/WkMhVcNCxZ5ID8RAml1AKCQt3Av+bqBKRmYam4Ma+nXFgfPRQCglfBi
344HXAcmCegWjfrl+aKe88c=
=MCSC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
7/20/2004 6:48:47 PM
  Bats <nomail@no.way>,
  In a message on Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:17:23 +0200, wrote :

B> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
B> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps like MS
B> Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?
B> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
B> under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?

Basically, this is most likely the case.

B> 2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has compiled it
B> for their OS?
B> 3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?
B> 
B> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
B> desktop yet? Even commercially?

There are in fact 'rumors' of Adobe porting Acrobat to Linux and some
*vague* 'rumors' of MS porting some of their code to Linux.  It is
likely that Adobe will port *some* of their code to Linux, at least the
*server* code.  Adobe *main* market for Photoshop has been (and
continues to be) Mac people -- the Graphic Design world is heavily a
Mac world.  Adobe has no interest in any particular operating system,
but it is likely 'playing the numbers'.  If/When Linux gets enough
market share on the desktop, Adobe will likely come out with Linux
versions of their various applications.

Microsoft has a different set of fish to fry -- Microsoft is very much
into the notion that they are an *operating system* company.  The
problem is that most of their customer base could really care less what
operating system is running on their computer, so long as the
*applications* they feel they need to have available will work.  So,
Microsoft will not be likely to port any of the *applications* off
Microsoft Windows if they can help it. So long as programs like
MS-Word, PowerPoint, etc. 'rule' the office place, Microsoft Windows
will also rule the office place.  Microsoft wants to keep this going. 
Porting MS-Office, etc. to Linux *might* give some people the idea that
they can drop MS-Windows in favor of Linux and Microsoft does not
really want that. Yes, they have ported their code to MacOSX, but only
because Microsoft has an 'interest' in Apple and as a minimal gesture
to suggest that Microsoft is not a monopoly.  Microsoft is sure that the
'suits' are not going to drop the boring PC boxes in favor of flashy
Macs.  The 'suits' *might* drop MS-Windows in favor of Linux if it means
that the cost per PC box might drop by $100-$200, and this is a problem
for MS-Windows.


B> 
B> I await my licks!
B> -- 
B> Bats
B> ~..~
B> (I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)
B> 
B>                                                                                                                        

                                     \/
Robert Heller                        ||InterNet:   heller@cs.umass.edu
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller  ||            heller@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com              /\FidoNet:    1:321/153






0
heller (3031)
7/20/2004 6:51:26 PM
Bats wrote:
> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps like MS
> Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?
> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
> under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?

It is quite likely that MS and Adobe have ported their apps to OSX. 
Remember, those two companies had their apps running under earlier 
versions of MacOS, and Apple did what they could to help software 
vendors port from older MacOS versions to OSX.

> 2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has compiled it
> for their OS?

It would take more than just a simple recompile to get those apps to 
work on OSX.  There would be a fair bit of porting effort involved.  The 
cost to Apple to first license the application source, then port it, and 
then redistribute it would be staggering.  It is possible, although 
unlikely, IMHO.  Much more likely is that the companies ported their own 
earlier MacOS apps to the new OSX.  (There may well have been political 
pressure by Apple and certainly technical assistance from them, but I 
doubt Apple's role went much beyond that.)

> 3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?

Highly unlikely.  Remember that the Macs are running PowerPC processors 
while Windows (and hence WINE) are x86-only.  Potentially winelib could 
have been used.  But given the long history that Adobe (and even 
Microsoft) have with MacOS, I doubt they're doing anything of that sort.

> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
> desktop yet? Even commercially?

Again, it comes down to the earlier Microsoft and Adobe products on 
previous versions of MacOS.  The porting effort was not Windows->OSX but 
rather older MacOS->OSX which is a *lot* simpler, especially when you 
consider the support (and perhaps pressure) Apple offers software 
developers.  Linux doesn't have a company like Apple to persuade 
software vendors to do the ports.  Plus, those would have to be 
full-blown ports of the Windows versions, not just enhancements of 
existing apps (like the Mac ports).  I think Corel demonstrated why the 
WINE approach to application porting won't work---a native re-write is 
required and that's a *lot* of development effort.
0
jpstewart (2598)
7/20/2004 6:52:44 PM
Bats had this to say:

I am a graphic designer and I used to be very involved in multimedia
production in Johannesburg (South Africa). I found that a lot of the other
people I worked with used PC's for their production. These were mainly
people that Ad-Agencies would outsource to. 
The cost of hardware is much lower than Apple hardware and in South Africa
no one buys software - it's all pirated, even the Mac stuff. (Unless you're
a huge million-rand Agency that is.)

I know for sure that there would be a massive uptake of Linux - in the
design-world - if it could run apps from Adobe and Macromedia. Stuff from
Corel, Discreet and so forth would not go amiss either. No-one would miss
Office or any MS software at all.

That's why I asked about Mac OS/X - it seems that the code is there, but the
companies are not thinking clearly. They are missing a huge opportunity.

-- 
Bats
~..~
(I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)

0
nomail4201 (89)
7/20/2004 7:09:49 PM
John-Paul Stewart had this to say:

> 
> Again, it comes down to the earlier Microsoft and Adobe products on
> previous versions of MacOS.  The porting effort was not Windows->OSX but
> rather older MacOS->OSX which is a *lot* simpler, especially when you
> consider the support (and perhaps pressure) Apple offers software
> developers.  Linux doesn't have a company like Apple to persuade
> software vendors to do the ports.  Plus, those would have to be
> full-blown ports of the Windows versions, not just enhancements of
> existing apps (like the Mac ports).  I think Corel demonstrated why the
> WINE approach to application porting won't work---a native re-write is
> required and that's a *lot* of development effort.

I was thinking (perhaps wrongly) that if app X is already running on OS/X
and that means it's hooked-into a Unix-like kernel - then surely all the
developers would have to do is to re-code the GUI stuff. (Maybe not
exclusively GUI, but a damn sight less work than going from a pure
Windows/Apple API setting.)
Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then start selling
to the Linux market. 
How much would it really cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark
off-chance?

-- 
Bats
~..~
(I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)

0
nomail4201 (89)
7/20/2004 7:34:17 PM
On 2004-07-20, Bats <nomail@no.way> wrote:

> I was thinking (perhaps wrongly) that if app X is already
> running on OS/X and that means it's hooked-into a Unix-like
> kernel

More likely it's hooked into the MacOS toolkit, and Apple
ported the MacOS toolkit from their old, proprietary kernel to
the new BSD kernel.

> - then surely all the developers would have to do is to
> re-code the GUI stuff.

That's huge.  Your average office/design app has orders of
magnitude more code dealing with the GUI than with the basic OS
services like filesystem I/O and networking.

> (Maybe not exclusively GUI, but a damn sight less work than
> going from a pure Windows/Apple API setting.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the jump from the MacOS toolbox API
to Linux/GTK is at least as big as the jump from Win32 to Linux.

> Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then
> start selling to the Linux market.  How much would it really
> cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark off-chance?

You've never shipped anything, eh? :)

It would cost a lot.  The actual porting is the tip of the
iceberg. Testing staff have to be hired and/or trained. Manuals
and other documentation have to be written. Support staff have
to be hired and/or trained.  

Then the expensive part starts...

Linux products require *constant* updating to keep up with the
whims of distribution maintainers -- none of whom seem to care
much about backwards compatibilty.

Assuming you have to release updates to a Windows or MacOS app
once every year or so, you would have to release Linux updates
at least once a month to keep up with constantly changing
kernels and distributions [mainly the latter unless you're
writing device drivers as part of the deal].  Even then, if you
try to support more than one or two distributions you'll drown
in support expenses.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  It's NO USE... I've
                                  at               gone to "CLUB MED"!!
                               visi.com            
0
grante (5416)
7/20/2004 7:55:01 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bats wrote:

> John-Paul Stewart had this to say:
>
>
>>Again, it comes down to the earlier Microsoft and Adobe products on
>>previous versions of MacOS.  The porting effort was not Windows->OSX but
>>rather older MacOS->OSX which is a *lot* simpler, especially when you
>>consider the support (and perhaps pressure) Apple offers software
>>developers.  Linux doesn't have a company like Apple to persuade
>>software vendors to do the ports.  Plus, those would have to be
>>full-blown ports of the Windows versions, not just enhancements of
>>existing apps (like the Mac ports).  I think Corel demonstrated why the
>>WINE approach to application porting won't work---a native re-write is
>>required and that's a *lot* of development effort.
>
>
> I was thinking (perhaps wrongly) that if app X is already running on OS/X
> and that means it's hooked-into a Unix-like kernel - then surely all the
> developers would have to do is to re-code the GUI stuff. (Maybe not
> exclusively GUI, but a damn sight less work than going from a pure
> Windows/Apple API setting.)

Apparently, the OS/X GUI isn't very compatable with X. This might be a
large piece of work.

Also, with GUI apps, the GUI is the driving force behind the app, and a
change in how the GUI works changes significant logic in the app.

Perhaps someone can (or has) come up with a "Cocoa" or "Carbon" library
to interface native OS/X apps with X, like the WineLib library does for
MSWindows apps.

> Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then start
selling
> to the Linux market.

So, how much are you willing to pay for a Linux port of Microsoft Office
 (ported from OS/X)? Are you willing to pay more for it than you do for
OpenOffice?

This is probably the biggest factor in getting commercial apps ported;
what will your potential audience pay, and can you make a profit on
that? Likely, Microsoft or Adobe or whomever do not feel that there is
enough profit to be made to justify the expense of porting, no matter
how easy it is.

> How much would it really cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark
> off-chance?

Probably not alot. But they probably wouldn't make enough profit to make
it worthwhile.


- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFA/XjVagVFX4UWr64RAoGtAKCgJ9nKFkulYQrufyB+ElJ9appXSACeLwOb
b0m8pIy/1d2Tac+BCnQkaTM=
=TivP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Lew.Pitcher (533)
7/20/2004 7:56:08 PM
  Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>,
  In a message on 20 Jul 2004 19:55:01 GMT, wrote :

GE> On 2004-07-20, Bats <nomail@no.way> wrote:
GE> 
GE> > I was thinking (perhaps wrongly) that if app X is already
GE> > running on OS/X and that means it's hooked-into a Unix-like
GE> > kernel
GE> 
GE> More likely it's hooked into the MacOS toolkit, and Apple
GE> ported the MacOS toolkit from their old, proprietary kernel to
GE> the new BSD kernel.
GE> 
GE> > - then surely all the developers would have to do is to
GE> > re-code the GUI stuff.
GE> 
GE> That's huge.  Your average office/design app has orders of
GE> magnitude more code dealing with the GUI than with the basic OS
GE> services like filesystem I/O and networking.
GE> 
GE> > (Maybe not exclusively GUI, but a damn sight less work than
GE> > going from a pure Windows/Apple API setting.)
GE> 
GE> I wouldn't be surprised if the jump from the MacOS toolbox API
GE> to Linux/GTK is at least as big as the jump from Win32 to Linux.
GE> 
GE> > Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then
GE> > start selling to the Linux market.  How much would it really
GE> > cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark off-chance?
GE> 
GE> You've never shipped anything, eh? :)
GE> 
GE> It would cost a lot.  The actual porting is the tip of the
GE> iceberg. Testing staff have to be hired and/or trained. Manuals
GE> and other documentation have to be written. Support staff have
GE> to be hired and/or trained.  
GE> 
GE> Then the expensive part starts...
GE> 
GE> Linux products require *constant* updating to keep up with the
GE> whims of distribution maintainers -- none of whom seem to care
GE> much about backwards compatibilty.
GE> 
GE> Assuming you have to release updates to a Windows or MacOS app
GE> once every year or so, you would have to release Linux updates
GE> at least once a month to keep up with constantly changing
GE> kernels and distributions [mainly the latter unless you're
GE> writing device drivers as part of the deal].  Even then, if you
GE> try to support more than one or two distributions you'll drown
GE> in support expenses.

The usual 'cure' is to statically link everything.  It turns out to be
not so bad (at the cost of disk usage and application size).  Several
commerical vendors seem to manage: RSI (IDL/ENVI), Matlab, and a some
others.  The *only* way to keep up with kernels (drivers) is to just
ship source code -- NVidia does this -- the installer just re-compiles
the driver if it can't find a pre-built driver for the current kernel. 
Of course NVidia is making its money selling the video *cards*
(hardware) -- NVidia's software (driver) is just 'widget frosting' to use
Eric Raymond's terminology, so shipping the driver source is not a big
deal, since the driver is worthless without the video card.

Actually, applications built under RH 6.2 generally run just fine under
RH9 or WBL 3.0 or even FC1 (I won't comment about FC2).  I do this all
of the time. Once you get past the basic libc5/glibc 'hump' there is
generally not too much problem.  One can always ship 'legacy' shared
libraries.

GE> 
GE> -- 
GE> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  It's NO USE... I've
GE>                                   at               gone to "CLUB MED"!!
GE>                                visi.com            
GE>                             

                                     \/
Robert Heller                        ||InterNet:   heller@cs.umass.edu
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller  ||            heller@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com              /\FidoNet:    1:321/153






                          
0
heller (3031)
7/20/2004 8:17:15 PM
Bats wrote:
> John-Paul Stewart had this to say:
> 
> 
>>Again, it comes down to the earlier Microsoft and Adobe products on
>>previous versions of MacOS.  The porting effort was not Windows->OSX but
>>rather older MacOS->OSX which is a *lot* simpler, especially when you
>>consider the support (and perhaps pressure) Apple offers software
>>developers.  Linux doesn't have a company like Apple to persuade
>>software vendors to do the ports.  Plus, those would have to be
>>full-blown ports of the Windows versions, not just enhancements of
>>existing apps (like the Mac ports).  I think Corel demonstrated why the
>>WINE approach to application porting won't work---a native re-write is
>>required and that's a *lot* of development effort.
> 
> 
> I was thinking (perhaps wrongly) that if app X is already running on OS/X
> and that means it's hooked-into a Unix-like kernel - then surely all the
> developers would have to do is to re-code the GUI stuff. 

As another poster mentioned, changing the GUI is a signficant amount of 
work.

> (Maybe not exclusively GUI, but a damn sight less work than going from a pure
> Windows/Apple API setting.)

I disagree.  The GUI part might well be 90% of the porting effort.

> Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then start selling
> to the Linux market. 

If it wasn't designed from the ground up using one of those 
cross-platform GUI toolkits, the development effort required to use one 
now could be staggering.

> How much would it really cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark
> off-chance?

Realistically, the company would almost certainly be looking at a 
multi-million dollar investment for the porting/testing/marketing effort 
for something the size of PhotoShop---not counting the on-going support 
costs that another poster has mentioned.
0
jpstewart (2598)
7/20/2004 8:19:38 PM
On 2004-07-20, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:

> GE> Assuming you have to release updates to a Windows or MacOS app
> GE> once every year or so, you would have to release Linux updates
> GE> at least once a month to keep up with constantly changing
> GE> kernels and distributions [mainly the latter unless you're
> GE> writing device drivers as part of the deal].  Even then, if you
> GE> try to support more than one or two distributions you'll drown
> GE> in support expenses.
>
> The usual 'cure' is to statically link everything.  It turns
> out to be not so bad (at the cost of disk usage and
> application size).

That seems to be the only practical solution.  CPU, memory and
disk are so cheap these days it's not the handicap it used to
be.

> Several commerical vendors seem to manage: RSI (IDL/ENVI),
> Matlab, and a some others.

Netscape and Adobe as well.  It also seems that shipping your
own installer is the only realistic option (instead of shipping
..rpm, .deb, .whatever-the-other-distros-use).

Another option would be to release source code so that distro
installers can build/ship binaries, then just charge for
activation.

> The *only* way to keep up with kernels (drivers) is to just
> ship source code -- NVidia does this -- the installer just
> re-compiles the driver if it can't find a pre-built driver for
> the current kernel.

Nvidia's driver installer is a very cool piece of work.  I wish
we had something that worked that well back when I used to work
on Linux drivers.

> Of course NVidia is making its money selling the video *cards*
> (hardware) -- NVidia's software (driver) is just 'widget
> frosting' to use Eric Raymond's terminology, so shipping the
> driver source is not a big deal, since the driver is worthless
> without the video card.

True.

> Actually, applications built under RH 6.2 generally run just
> fine under RH9 or WBL 3.0 or even FC1 (I won't comment about
> FC2).  I do this all of the time. Once you get past the basic
> libc5/glibc 'hump' there is generally not too much problem.
> One can always ship 'legacy' shared libraries.

Shipping your own shared libraries (as opposed to statically
linked executables) makes quite a bit of sense if your product
consists of more than one executable.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Join the PLUMBER'S
                                  at               UNION!!
                               visi.com            
0
grante (5416)
7/20/2004 8:28:49 PM
In article <cdjqks$n5$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
	Bats <nomail@no.way> writes:
> 
> I am a graphic designer and I used to be very involved in multimedia
> production in Johannesburg (South Africa).
....
> The cost of hardware is much lower than Apple hardware and in South Africa
> no one buys software - it's all pirated, even the Mac stuff. (Unless you're
> a huge million-rand Agency that is.)
> 
> I know for sure that there would be a massive uptake of Linux - in the
> design-world - if it could run apps from Adobe and Macromedia.

This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem for new or less popular OSs.
(In this context, "less popular" means anything but Windows or Mac OS, or
possibly even anything but Windows.) Nobody will use the OS until there
are applications for it, and no applications will be written for it until
the OS is popular among users. Hence, the OS never takes off in
popularity and never gets many applications written for it. Linux has
fared better in this respect than many OSs because it's been able to use
many open source Unix applications. This has made a lot of stuff
available, but it's not the stuff most non-Unix people are familiar with,
and much of it's not as easy to use as the stuff for Windows or Mac OS.
This situation is improving, but not yet to the point where a lot of "big
name" commercial graphic design or publishing software is yet available.

> That's why I asked about Mac OS/X - it seems that the code is there, but the
> companies are not thinking clearly. They are missing a huge opportunity.

The companies (Adobe, mainly, in your example) don't see it that way.
They don't care if they sell software for Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac OS,
so they aren't really missing out on an opportunity. This is especially
true if they think there's a lot of piracy, as you said above is rampant
in this field in South Africa. Unless the companies can be convinced that
they'll somehow sell more software if they release a Linux port, they
won't do so. If you've got marketing research suggesting that this is
true, then by all means, present it to Adobe. It's not exactly
intuitively obvious that this would be so, though. Based on what you've
said so far, the most logical inference to me would be that if Adobe were
to release Linux versions of the software you want, it'd be pirated, at
least in South Africa. Users would benefit by being able to run it on
cheaper hardware, but Adobe would get little or nothing out of it. (I'm
not actually arguing that this would be the case, though -- I don't know
enough about the marketplace. I'm just saying that this is the conclusion
I'd draw, putting on my best "skeptical businessman" impersonation, based
on the very limited case you've presented.)

-- 
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
0
rodsmith (281)
7/20/2004 8:44:12 PM
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:28:49 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2004-07-20, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> The usual 'cure' is to statically link everything.  It turns
>> out to be not so bad (at the cost of disk usage and
>> application size).
> 
> That seems to be the only practical solution.  CPU, memory and
> disk are so cheap these days it's not the handicap it used to
> be.

The Sun Solaris guys have been back and forth on this issue as well. Their
consensus is that static links are worse that dynamic. Initially, they
seem better, but if ANYTHING changes (file format, network protocols,
etc.) then the application will break, and probably "big time". You get
better robustness by using dynamic linking. Then at least some changes to
libraries are automatically accomodated. You also get the obvious
benefits of saving on disk space and memory/swap space, etc.

However, I think one problem with Linux, tho, is that everyone is diddling
the APIs and interfaces. They are not stable. They are usually not
backwards compatible. Architecture? There's no easy/simple solution here.

-- 
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.


0
juhan (492)
7/20/2004 9:02:07 PM
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> Bats wrote:
>> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
>> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps
>> like MS Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this
>> mean?
> 
> It means that Microsoft and Adobe have written versions of their
> programs that can be run under OS/X. There may be a contractual
> requirement for such support (i.e. Microsoft supporting their Office
> suite under contract from Apple), or it may mean that the vendor feels
> that there is sufficient commercial interest in their product in order
> to support an OS/X port.

I don't know that it means anything special. Those companies came to
decisions and/or agreements that this was a good thing to do, and they
did it, or collaborated (together? with Apple?) to do it. We don't know
(might never know) who paid whom, or what conditions.

> It /does not/ mean that these programs will run under another BSD Unix
> derivative or under Linux. Most likely, these programs have been written
> to interface with the OS/X propriatary UI, and not through standard
> Unixish UIs like X.

I would think that "in principle" it would be easier to port a version
that runs under OSX to BSD or Linux than to port a native Windoze version.

>> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to
>> run under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?
> 
> No. It means that they've ported their apps to run under the OS/X
> paradigm.

Yes, not much more, except that the "porting team" have some experience.

>> 2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
> compiled it
>> for their OS?
> 
> Not likely.

This depends. It could go either way. Microsoft has collaborated in the
past with other companies to supply source code under non-disclosure for
specific purposes. They would likely decide how/where to do it, and who
would maintain it, etc. My own suspicion is that the support is more of an
O/S related thing, and the support team have to be able to issue patches
and recompiled programs, etc. It might even be likely that a team of M$
and Apple programmers did the work at Apple (in their development labs),
and it may be a collaborative team that is supporting it. M$ would likely
want someone around to "keep their eyes on the crown jewels". Leaks?

>> 3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?
> 
> No.

Probably not. Performance would be better if there was no emulation
involved. I think there was a version of WordPerfect Office that ran on
WINE, either before/after another version that ran as native Linux
applications? So, obviously this sort of thing can be done either way. No
emulation is obviously better.

>> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
>> desktop yet? Even commercially?
> 
> Probably because the vendors don't feel that there is a market that they
> can (or wish to) sell to.

This may in fact be the preference of both companies? I think M$ pretty
clearly would not want to "support" Linux in any way, shape, or form. They
are still using M$ Office to help support their virtual Windoze monopoly.
Apple as well might be thinking that they would prefer to be the only
alternative to M$ that offers M$ Office suite? It's not impossible.

FWIW, I would gladly have paid full price for M$ Office to run on OS/2 or
Solaris or Linux, years ago. Not now. I'm mad as hell, and I won't take
any more! I'm tired of strongarm tactics and holding my data in
proprietary formats for ransom. The switch is painful, but I'm determined.

p.s. There was another post that suggested that these were not new ports,
but updates of old ports that used to run on a previous MacOS. I'm not
sure. Depends on the amount of change. I suspect that if there has been a
lot of application "creep" AND one is going to a different O/S, it might
be better to do a fresh, new port, using the same team(s) that have done
it before, and that know how the applications work. Even that team will
have to update/learn about the new stuff. Might need additional staff.

-- 
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

0
juhan (492)
7/20/2004 9:18:38 PM
Juhan Leemet wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> 
>>Bats wrote:
>>
>>>2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
>>> compiled it for their OS?
>>
>>Not likely.
> 
> 
> This depends. It could go either way. Microsoft has collaborated in the
> past with other companies to supply source code under non-disclosure for
> specific purposes. 

I know of one person who worked somewhere in the US Government (NASA, 
IIRC, but I'm not sure) where they had a source license for Windows NT. 
  It cost them well over $100,000 USD just to see the source.  They were 
entitled to modify it for their own purposes but not redistribute 
anything (neither source nor resulting binary) outside of their own 
working group.  Based on that, I think it is *highly* unlikely that 
Apple would be able to license the source for distribution of the 
resulting binary, at least not if they want to make a profit.

[snip]
> p.s. There was another post that suggested that these were not new ports,
> but updates of old ports that used to run on a previous MacOS. I'm not
> sure. Depends on the amount of change. I suspect that if there has been a
> lot of application "creep" AND one is going to a different O/S, it might
> be better to do a fresh, new port, using the same team(s) that have done
> it before, and that know how the applications work. 

Even if they don't upgrade the old version and do a "fresh, new port", 
it is highly likely that the new version was designed with porting in 
mind based on the lessons the developers learned previously.  I can't 
imagine Adobe writing PhotoShop 1.0 for Windows (without regard to 
porting), porting that to Mac, then writing PhotoShop 2.0 for Windows 
(again without regard to porting), then porting that to Mac (just as an 
example).  The second version will almost certainly have had portability 
designed in from the start.  It could be actual code from the older 
ported version -or- it could just be in the high-level design, but in 
either case some of the porting work is already done for the new version.

Also keep in mind that Apple went to great lengths to smooth the porting 
process from earlier versions of MacOS to OSX.  It's not an *entirely* 
new OS as far as the application is concerned.
0
jpstewart (2598)
7/20/2004 11:13:44 PM
Bats said:

> I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
> If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps like MS
> Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this mean?
> 1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to run
> under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?

under BSD plus the MacOS specific layers that Apple have put on top of it.
Mainly the GUI i think, but other stuff as well.

> 2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has compiled it
> for their OS?

no.

> 3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?

probably not.

> 
> And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
> desktop yet? Even commercially?

because linux uses Xwindows for the GUI, but MacOS/X uses a proprietory
Mac GUI API. The only way these apps could run under linux/BSD is if this
API (plus any other proprietory Mac libraries) were ported to linux/BSD.

This might actually happen - i read that the GNUStep API, which runs under
Xwindows, is similar enough to the MacOS/X one that some apps could be
ported fairly easily.

-- 
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with [html] or [attachment] in the subject line. 

0
news410 (153)
7/20/2004 11:18:52 PM
Rod Smith had this to say:
Yeah, I guess it would be pirated under Linux too.

I have found that there is a certain amount of pride to be had by being
"clean" by using Linux and legitimate software, perhaps that would play a
role - but I am probably being naive. 

The real solution would be for American companies to realise that the price
they ask for software may seem reasonable to a fellow American, but you can
feed an entire family for months on that amount in South Africa! 
More rational prices, combined with Linux would make a dent. 


-- 
Bats
~..~
(I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)

0
nomail4201 (89)
7/21/2004 3:58:50 AM
Grant Edwards had this to say:

>> - then surely all the developers would have to do is to
>> re-code the GUI stuff.
> 
> That's huge.  Your average office/design app has orders of
> magnitude more code dealing with the GUI than with the basic OS
> services like filesystem I/O and networking.
> 
I do get that - gui's are huge and hairy. I wasn't sure if there was some
degree of compatibility between the Mac gui and some other Linux one.

> I wouldn't be surprised if the jump from the MacOS toolbox API
> to Linux/GTK is at least as big as the jump from Win32 to Linux.

So, I gather that Mac OS/X is like a cake with BSD at the bottom and then
followed by a layer of Apple API and then GUI API. This way they can run
any old Apple product and it will think it's talking to it's old system.
Maybe a little porting must be done, but the work is easy.
Pity Linux cannot get some kind of OS on top of the OS like this and become
standardized and "good to go" (or is that heresy?)

>> Hook it into Gtk or WxWindows or QT (or all of them) and then
>> start selling to the Linux market.  How much would it really
>> cost them to do it, just as a shot-in-the-dark off-chance?
> 
> You've never shipped anything, eh? :)

In my primitive way I have. I have written a few VB apps and have had to
bundle all kinds of active-X objects along with dll's and help files and
runtime libraries into the "install.exe" 
This always bugged-me. I had a choice of distributing a 500K exe or an 8Mb
exe. No Windows user would have the savvy to go and find all the
dependencies or to try and understand what they all are. 

Does this mean that most Windows apps are "statically" linked?
Or, does it mean that there is a lot of duplication and files that you may
already have are simply being overwritten (updated too) by the stuff you
downloaded (in the "install.exe")?

 
> It would cost a lot.  The actual porting is the tip of the
> iceberg. Testing staff have to be hired and/or trained. Manuals
> and other documentation have to be written. Support staff have
> to be hired and/or trained.

I would be happy to have a bare-bones product. Keep the manuals and the
glossy boxes and the stickers and the t-shirts. Cut the price so that
non-Americans can afford to play (at least on the poor end of the field)
and we may actually start paying for the software!
 
> Then the expensive part starts...
> Linux products require *constant* updating to keep up with the
> whims of distribution maintainers -- none of whom seem to care
> much about backwards compatibilty.
> Assuming you have to release updates to a Windows or MacOS app
> once every year or so, you would have to release Linux updates
> at least once a month to keep up with constantly changing
> kernels and distributions [mainly the latter unless you're
> writing device drivers as part of the deal].  Even then, if you
> try to support more than one or two distributions you'll drown
> in support expenses.

I have not found myself pushed to keep running the software that came with
Fedora 1. I have also kept old apps from RedHat9 with no problems. On
Windows (when I was not re-formatting and re-installing - which happened
every 3-6 months!) I found things much the same. A new version of app X
would come out. I get hold of it. I remove the old one; install the new;
carry on. I do the same on Linux. 
I like it when an app can be unpacked into a single folder and that's its
home. Uninstall is "delete". I suffer a little with the whole /usr/bin,
usr/mystery/path/doc, etc business, but it's not something I care about too
much.

-- 
Bats
~..~
(I can only post on weekends and rare times during the week.)

0
nomail4201 (89)
7/21/2004 4:16:44 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-07-21, Bats <nomail@no.way> wrote:

> I do get that - gui's are huge and hairy. I wasn't sure if there was some
> degree of compatibility between the Mac gui and some other Linux one.

Between Quartz and any linux GUI API, there's almost no compatibility.

> So, I gather that Mac OS/X is like a cake with BSD at the bottom and then
> followed by a layer of Apple API and then GUI API. This way they can run
> any old Apple product and it will think it's talking to it's old system.

The BSD layer is fairly small compared to the Apple layers, especially
for GUI applications.  For the most part, new applications are using the
new APIs, so they could not talk to OS 9 or older.  Apple officially
discourages new versions from using the old OS 9 compatibility APIs.

> Maybe a little porting must be done, but the work is easy.

It is not easy.

> Pity Linux cannot get some kind of OS on top of the OS like this and become
> standardized and "good to go" (or is that heresy?)

OS X has not helped FreeBSD become ''standardized''.  Native OS X
apps do not run in FreeBSD, because the libraries are not available.
So an OS X-like OS on top of linux would not help it a huge amount.
Besides, who'd do it?  Neither Microsoft nor Apple would do it, and
any other vendor to do it would be glomming on the success of linux,
not vice versa.

> In my primitive way I have. I have written a few VB apps and have had to
> bundle all kinds of active-X objects along with dll's and help files and
> runtime libraries into the "install.exe" 

Try porting your VB to linux.  :)  You'll get a feel for how difficult
it is to port a GUI application when the same libraries are not available.

- --keith

- -- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA/fh7hVcNCxZ5ID8RAkI1AJ0ddWdEooyEU+CGWXBRMz9ztO7HNgCgkYgj
BaS8Z1aHa+ykBcOjGgQdDO8=
=JMz2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
7/21/2004 5:00:46 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Juhan Leemet wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>>Bats wrote:
>>
>>>I want to ask (what may be) a stupid question:
>>>If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps
>>>like MS Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this
>>>mean?
>>
>>It means that Microsoft and Adobe have written versions of their
>>programs that can be run under OS/X. There may be a contractual
>>requirement for such support (i.e. Microsoft supporting their Office
>>suite under contract from Apple), or it may mean that the vendor feels
>>that there is sufficient commercial interest in their product in order
>>to support an OS/X port.
>
>
> I don't know that it means anything special. Those companies came to
> decisions and/or agreements that this was a good thing to do, and they
> did it, or collaborated (together? with Apple?) to do it. We don't know
> (might never know) who paid whom, or what conditions.

I was thinking specifically of Microsoft Office. IIRC, Microsoft is (or
at least, /was/) contractually obligated to provide an Office for Apple
operating systems.


>>It /does not/ mean that these programs will run under another BSD Unix
>>derivative or under Linux. Most likely, these programs have been written
>>to interface with the OS/X propriatary UI, and not through standard
>>Unixish UIs like X.
>
>
> I would think that "in principle" it would be easier to port a version
> that runs under OSX to BSD or Linux than to port a native Windoze version.

The primary problem is the UI code. That's the significant part of any
graphical application, and the Cocoa (or Carbon or whatever codename
Apple gave it) UI is significantly different from the standard X toolkit
UI that it would be a non-trivial thing to port a working OS/X app to
generic Unix-with-X.

>>>1. Does it mean those apps have been ported by MS and Adobe (etc) to
>>>run under a BSD/Unixy paradigm?
>>
>>No. It means that they've ported their apps to run under the OS/X
>>paradigm.
>
>
> Yes, not much more, except that the "porting team" have some experience.
>
>
>>>2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
>>
>>compiled it
>>
>>>for their OS?
>>
>>Not likely.
>
>
> This depends. It could go either way. Microsoft has collaborated in the
> past with other companies to supply source code under non-disclosure for
> specific purposes. They would likely decide how/where to do it, and who
> would maintain it, etc. My own suspicion is that the support is more of an
> O/S related thing, and the support team have to be able to issue patches
> and recompiled programs, etc. It might even be likely that a team of M$
> and Apple programmers did the work at Apple (in their development labs),
> and it may be a collaborative team that is supporting it. M$ would likely
> want someone around to "keep their eyes on the crown jewels". Leaks?

I sincerely doubt that Apple is the custodian of the Microsoft Office
for OS/X code or the Adobe Photoshop for OS/X code. More likely,
Microsoft and Adobe have their source code safely locked away, and the
only interaction they have with Apple is one of discussion of public
(and perhaps private) API interaction with the OS

>>>3. Does it mean they are running under some kind of WINE or somesuch?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Probably not. Performance would be better if there was no emulation
> involved. I think there was a version of WordPerfect Office that ran on
> WINE, either before/after another version that ran as native Linux
> applications? So, obviously this sort of thing can be done either way. No
> emulation is obviously better.
>
>
>>>And finally, If these are ports, why have they not arrived on the Linux
>>>desktop yet? Even commercially?
>>
>>Probably because the vendors don't feel that there is a market that they
>>can (or wish to) sell to.
>
>
> This may in fact be the preference of both companies? I think M$ pretty
> clearly would not want to "support" Linux in any way, shape, or form. They
> are still using M$ Office to help support their virtual Windoze monopoly.
> Apple as well might be thinking that they would prefer to be the only
> alternative to M$ that offers M$ Office suite? It's not impossible.

Yes, there /is/ the political issue at Microsoft to consider. But, bye
and large, if Microsoft saw a way to make a profit on a Unixish (BSD or
Linux) port of their software, I have no doubt that they would go for it.

> FWIW, I would gladly have paid full price for M$ Office to run on OS/2 or
> Solaris or Linux, years ago. Not now. I'm mad as hell, and I won't take
> any more! I'm tired of strongarm tactics and holding my data in
> proprietary formats for ransom. The switch is painful, but I'm determined.
>
> p.s. There was another post that suggested that these were not new ports,

Could just have been ports to Cocoa (the OS/9 - OS/10 interface layer,
IIRC). OS/9 was the last of the Apple "standalone" operating systems,
while OS/X took them to a BSD base.

> but updates of old ports that used to run on a previous MacOS. I'm not
> sure. Depends on the amount of change. I suspect that if there has been a
> lot of application "creep" AND one is going to a different O/S, it might
> be better to do a fresh, new port, using the same team(s) that have done
> it before, and that know how the applications work. Even that team will
> have to update/learn about the new stuff. Might need additional staff.
>


- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFA/mpNagVFX4UWr64RAsXdAKCFmyjU/tFa/EkOIAGAa8cehYb4OQCeNYVj
qDu7X7ZLJOKh+egcSBm0UN0=
=tYev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Lew.Pitcher (533)
7/21/2004 1:06:23 PM
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:16:44 +0200, Bats wrote:
> Grant Edwards had this to say:
>> You've never shipped anything, eh? :)
> 
> In my primitive way I have. I have written a few VB apps and have had to
> bundle all kinds of active-X objects along with dll's and help files and
> runtime libraries into the "install.exe" 
> This always bugged-me. I had a choice of distributing a 500K exe or an 8Mb
> exe. No Windows user would have the savvy to go and find all the
> dependencies or to try and understand what they all are. 
> 
> Does this mean that most Windows apps are "statically" linked?

No, this is "DLL Hell". DLLs are dynamically linked libraries.

> Or, does it mean that there is a lot of duplication and files that you may
> already have are simply being overwritten (updated too) by the stuff you
> downloaded (in the "install.exe")?

Hopefully just duplication, but it would also be inconsistency and/or
incompatibility. You can break other applications in weird and wonderful
ways by upgrading a DLL in an inappropriate way (backwards? changed API?).
I have some experience advising a client (telco) on Windows application
maintenance, testing, and distribution (to go along with a mainframe app).

-- 
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

0
juhan (492)
7/21/2004 2:01:33 PM
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:13:44 -0400, John-Paul Stewart wrote:
> Juhan Leemet wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>Bats wrote:
>>>
>>>>2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
>>>> compiled it for their OS?
>>>
>>>Not likely.
>> 
>> This depends. It could go either way. Microsoft has collaborated in the
>> past with other companies to supply source code under non-disclosure for
>> specific purposes. 
> 
> I know of one person who worked somewhere in the US Government (NASA, 
> IIRC, but I'm not sure) where they had a source license for Windows NT. 
>   It cost them well over $100,000 USD just to see the source.  They were 

I think the license fee for Unix sources from AT&T used to be that same
figure $100K. It probably has something to do with "wanting to see how
serious you are". I can't believe that they sold many of them, i.e. to be
a profitable line of business. I think it mostly indicated that this was
considered "valuable intellectual property" and you were expected to treat
it as such (security, confidentiality, etc.). It may have had legal
significance as well: if they charge $100K for a "user license" they could
have legal recourse to sue for many times that amount if you violated
license terms? or thruogh negligence let a copy walk out the back door.

> entitled to modify it for their own purposes but not redistribute 
> anything (neither source nor resulting binary) outside of their own 
> working group.  Based on that, I think it is *highly* unlikely that 
> Apple would be able to license the source for distribution of the 
> resulting binary, at least not if they want to make a profit.

Again, it is entirely a matter of legal agreements and licenses.

Usually agreements would forbid distribution of source. However, the
binary distribution is simply a matter of convenience and business deal.

I'm pretty sure that M$ would not want to get involved in selling Apple
ported XOS software to Apple customers! That could make them liable for
any problems related to the porting and/or OSX related issues. It would
make more sense that they license those M$ applications to Apple and
effectively make Apple an "agent" of theirs for the purposes of collecting
the end user license fees. Whether that is done as a flat fee (based on
size of market and/or expected sales) or on an auditable "per license
sold" basis is entirely up to marketing and legal departments of Apple and
Microsoft. It could go either way. That's how execs earn their keep: deals!

-- 
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

0
juhan (492)
7/21/2004 2:19:07 PM
On 2004-07-21, Bats <nomail@no.way> wrote:

>>> - then surely all the developers would have to do is to
>>> re-code the GUI stuff.
>> 
>> That's huge.  Your average office/design app has orders of
>> magnitude more code dealing with the GUI than with the basic OS
>> services like filesystem I/O and networking.
>> 
> I do get that - gui's are huge and hairy. I wasn't sure if there was some
> degree of compatibility between the Mac gui and some other Linux one.

I don't remember many details about the old MacOS GUI API, but
I'd be surprised if there was any more simililarity between the
MacOS and GTK (or Qt or xforms or ...) and there is between
Windows and the same set.

> So, I gather that Mac OS/X is like a cake with BSD at the bottom and then
> followed by a layer of Apple API and then GUI API.

I'm just guessing, but that's what I would expect to see.

> This way they can run any old Apple product and it will think
> it's talking to it's old system. Maybe a little porting must
> be done, but the work is easy. Pity Linux cannot get some kind
> of OS on top of the OS like this and become standardized and
> "good to go" (or is that heresy?)

Linux is standardized and "good to go".  What do you think
Posix and X11 are if not standards?

> Does this mean that most Windows apps are "statically" linked?

No.  It means that

 1) Windows isn't updated as often as Linux.

 2) Windows only has one distributor (Linux has dozens).

 3) Windows apps come with dynamic libraries (.dll files), and
    there are all sorts of problems caused by one application
    requiring a different version of a .dll than another.  Does
    the phrase "dll hell" ring a bell?

> Or, does it mean that there is a lot of duplication and files that you may
> already have are simply being overwritten (updated too) by the stuff you
> downloaded (in the "install.exe")?

Exactly.  And sometimes when a .dll gets overwritten it breaks
another app that requires the older version.

> I like it when an app can be unpacked into a single folder and
> that's its home. Uninstall is "delete". I suffer a little with
> the whole /usr/bin, usr/mystery/path/doc, etc business, but
> it's not something I care about too much.

There are a variety of package managers that attempt to solve
that problem (rpm, dpkg, ebuild, etc.).  In order to take
advantage of those, a Linux application vendor would have to
provide the produce in a variety of installer formats.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Two LITTLE black
                                  at               dots and one BIG black
                               visi.com            dot...nice 'n' FLUFFY!!
0
grante (5416)
7/21/2004 2:30:52 PM
Bats wrote:

[ SNIP ]

> 
> 
> So, I gather that Mac OS/X is like a cake with BSD at the bottom and then
> followed by a layer of Apple API and then GUI API. This way they can run
> any old Apple product and it will think it's talking to it's old system.
> Maybe a little porting must be done, but the work is easy.
> Pity Linux cannot get some kind of OS on top of the OS like this and become
> standardized and "good to go" (or is that heresy?)
> 
> 

Actually, as I understand it, Apple provided an emulator for the
old OS (OS9) which runs as an application under OS/X.  They
called it "Classic."  It's not perfect, and, being an emulator
it is obviously slower to run an app under it than to boot
up with OS9 and run the app in native mode.  I use it mostly
for games and such, but there are quite a few folks who have
dual-boot systems just because they have a perfectly good
app which runs under OS9 and don't want to shell out more
$$$ to the vendor just to get the same app which runs
under OS-X.

[SNIP]


-- 
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
  - A. Bloch
0
7/21/2004 9:07:27 PM
In <jWALc.297865$Gx4.129091@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Nick Landsberg:

[Snip...]

> app which runs under OS9 and don't want to shell out more
> $$$ to the vendor just to get the same app which runs
> under OS-X.

My brother does (did?) it for "Astound" (a presentation manager) in which
he invested considerable effort on a lecture series at a school. ISTR the
vendor declined to even consider porting it to OS-X (AFAIK). Running with
something like the "Classic" mode mentioned was the only game in town for
him at the time, saving him a lot of grief.

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
0
wookie (216)
7/21/2004 9:29:08 PM
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:06:23 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Juhan Leemet wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:31:35 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>Bats wrote:
>>>
>>>>If Mac OS/X is based on some kind of BSD/Unix OS and it can run apps
>>>>like MS Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop (and others), what does this
>>>>mean?
>>>
>>>It means that Microsoft and Adobe have written versions of their
>>>programs that can be run under OS/X. There may be a contractual...
>>
>> I don't know that it means anything special. Those companies came to
>> decisions and/or agreements...
> 
> I was thinking specifically of Microsoft Office. IIRC, Microsoft is (or
> at least, /was/) contractually obligated to provide an Office for Apple
> operating systems.

I wasn't arguing with your statement. Maybe I replied in the wrong place.
To the OP, I was commenting that it need not mean "anything special", and
that it was simply a contractual agreement, or "a deal". You and I both
agree that these are contractual agreements. Any persons or corporations
(paper persons) can contractually agree to anything (legal).

>>>>2. Does it mean that Apple has the source for those apps and has
>>>compiled it for their OS?
>>>
>>>Not likely.
>>
>> This depends. It could go either way...
> 
> I sincerely doubt that Apple is the custodian of the Microsoft Office
> for OS/X code or the Adobe Photoshop for OS/X code. More likely...

So then it is conjecture on both our parts?

BTW, I have personally held source code from Microsoft (for one of their
commercial products) in my hands (machine readable and editable and/or
printable, and in my care). That was quite a while ago for a project that
was being considered, but was abandoned (and that other business no longer
exists). I no longer have it because the legal agreements were between
that business (not myself) and Microsoft. Those sources were properly
destroyed by the kind of "due diligence" expected for valuable
intellectual properties. I take my responsibilities seriously.

Therefore, I say (again) it could go either way. It's just "a deal".

BTW, if one has "the stones" and the cash, one could pitch a deal to Mr.
Bill to buy M$ off his hands. He doesn't have to sell, but he might. That
decision would be up to him, as a free agent exercising his options,
unless he has other contractual obligations (hence not a "free agent").

p.s. IANAL, but I've been in business for a long time.

-- 
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

0
juhan (492)
7/21/2004 10:21:22 PM
Reply: