On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 23:30 +0000, john cliff wrote:
2008/11/24 Ted Gould <ted@...11...> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:18 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> No, machines that customers did not shell out extra money to get the > latest and greatest OS. Hmm, you're going to have a hard time generating sympathy there. I'm fine with people buying proprietary software, but realize you're on the treadmill that your vendor puts you on.
I should have said "sympathy from me."
no actually hes not. theres an awful lot of people out there who dont a choice but to be 'on a treadmill'
People in a free state have a choice. They may not be willing to make the trade offs to do so; and I would encourage anyone to choose food and shelter first. But, I imagine that most of those people are not running OS X on a Mac. And, the "at work" argument doesn't work here because we're talking about developers not users, so unless their getting paid to work on Inkscape I'd encourage them to not use work resources anyway.
and theres also a large portion who wouldnt even realise they've chosen a treadmill.
An opportunity for education.
Add to that the fact that the treadmill your discussing still offers a better customer interface for most things
Off topic.
than the alternatives, even if you are running the 4 yr old version and I have no problem with us trying to maintain support for it.
No, to be precise, we are asking developers on a particular platform to use a less obsolete version of a compiler that is supplied by their vendor. They already, in order to build Inkscape, have to download a huge selection of libraries that aren't supplied by their vendor and link those into an application package in ways that their vendor does not encourage.
Just to be clear. There is no issue building binaries for users of OS X all the way back to 10.3. We are only talking about developers.
I'm not happy about making the OpenMP stuff compile out, but I'd live with it. I'm entirely unwilling to have the Inkscape dependency policy be held hostage by Apple.
--Ted