Either way, when you are in a business of selling relatively cheap models with very low storage option and charge a fat extra for more modern options, you have incentives to fill the space on your device a bit faster.
I wrote a small app to display a bitrate graph of video files, and posted the code on GitHub with the GPL2 license. A few weeks later someone uploaded it to the Mac App Store and sold it for 7$, the only difference was the name.
This is extremely common. As far as I know any open source app that is remotely interesting will be downloaded, renamed and republished. And this is why a lot of such apps are no longer open source. One example is Sinder Sorhus, which has thousands of open source npm packages but zero open source iOS apps, even the free ones are closed source.
+1. You can put together a DMCA claim in... maybe five minutes? It's extremely straightforward and doesn't require you to do anything beyond identify the infringing work, identify what work of yours it infringes upon, and affirm that it's not authorized.
I got it removed from the App Store. The first time, then after some months the same developer republished it with a few changes under a different name… I don't have the time to track it down again, I just published my app on the App Store for free so at least people won't give in and avoid the scam.
Well you should be able to sue them for the profits they made selling your app. If it's "only $10,000" and not worth it then OK, but what if they're making 10x or more that amount?
The best part is when they swap FFmpeg or other libraries, make things compile somehow, don't test the results, and then ship completely broken software.
SwiftUI doesn't help, but each panel is a separate process. The previous version of System Preferences hid the delay by showing an animation, the new one doesn't.
I still think they could easily load quicker though. Even switching between the different menu items in Settings takes long, when going back to ones that you already used earlier. They don't seem to be doing a lot of caching. At least they could keep those processes running for a while.
Unless it's actually SwiftUI taking time to render that UI, which would be bizarre.
As a macOS user I am so used to everything happening in the blink of an eye, so this is something that stands out. It's really not a big problem, 300-400ms.
Ok, let me rewind a little. Are preference panes actually running apps? I imagined them more conceptually similar to an HTML form that System Settings displayed and processed and then wrote the results back to a plist or whatever. And in that model, there wouldn’t be a clear advantage to having separate processes.
It's surely not perfect, and so much is quite horrible, but at least try to keep the facts in check.
AppKit and auto layout are still working fine, they aren't going anywhere any time soon, there is no need to rewrite all the UI code.
Core Data threading? Well, it has got its pitfalls, but those are known, and anyway, nothing is forcing you to use it.
Xcode is so slim these days, it a ~3 GB download, it doesn't take an hour to unxip, and it can be dowloaded from the developer website.
Swift? It might be needed for a bunch of new frameworks, Objective-C isn't going anywhere anytime soon either.
I wouldn't call Xcode slim. It currently sits at 13GB+ as installed on my drive, and that does not include the simulators which are, what, 10GB each or something? Xcode is by far the largest application I have installed on my "daily driver" Mac.
It's still compressed on disk, so it takes only 5,4 GB of space, not 13 GB+. Sure, the simulator and the iOS or the other SDKs will take more space, but those aren't needed to develop macOS apps.
Let's also keep in mind that the Linux desktop commits most of these offenses, but worse.
Core Data threading? Does Linux even attempt something like Core Data? How well is that going?
Swift? I remember when Linux diehards invented Vala. The Swift of Linux, but with none of the adoption.
As for UI code, Linux is finally starting to get a little more stable there. GTK 2 to 3 was a disaster; Qt wasn't fun between major upgrades; if you weren't using a framework, you needed to have fun learning the quirks of Xorg; nobody who builds for Linux gets to lecture Mac about UI stability.
Or, for that matter, app stability in general. Will a specific build of Blender outside of a Flatpak still work on the Linux desktop after 2 release cycles? No? Then don't lecture me about good practices. Don't lecture me about how my website or app was sloppily engineered because it has dependencies.
You seem to be conflating 2 different things. Apple’s OS proficiency and the associated technologies they support on their OS and Apple’s dev tools proficiency.
People use Apple’s dev tools because they are the only/best way to deliver apps on Apple’s OSes.
If we changed the situation, so that Apple Dev Tools could be used to create applications for non Apple OSes, or non Apple Dev tools were first class citizens for creating Apple apps, I bet the vast majority of people would use the non Apple dev tools to create both Apple and non Apple apps.
What’s keeping Apple Dev Tools in the game is their privileged position in the Apple OS ecosystem.
And the UI situation still has issues. If you want flexibility in language choice, GTK is the only modern-ish framework option there is. The rest are tied to 1-2 languages, bad at accessibility, look archaic, etc.
People complaining about whataboutism are more obstinately committed to avoiding decent conversation than the people who commit it. This ain’t a formal debate.
Formal in what sense? There's certainly no set form for discussion outside of threading. But there's certainly no assumption of persuasion or sense of shared goals or values.
Even Wikipedia says Whataboutism can be completely deserved in some cases.
It is absolutely deserved here - Apple built a 100 foot tower, and it's grown hairy over the last few decades. Linux built 7 30 foot towers without stairs in the same timeframe; but yelling about the overgrowth on the 100 foot tower is still somehow defensible.
If they can't build their own towers correctly, they have no right to act like the main tower was built worse than their own.
(Edit, posting too fast: For the complaint that Apple has money, Linux does too. 90%+ of work on Linux comes from corporate sponsorship, and has since 2004 when it was first counted. They are fully capable of doing better.)
Corporate sponsors on Linux provide a fraction of the money Apple does and even what they do are geared towards their own needs.
But more relevant is the fact that their donations are focused on running Linux as servers and there Linux is miles ahead of anything Apple provides, to the point that Apple has abandoned its server OS.
“Linux” isn’t a person or a company. Different people contribute to it with different goals.
> 90%+ of work on Linux comes from corporate sponsorship
And approximately 0% of these corporate contributors care about the “Linux desktop” experience. Unlike Apple their goal is not to build a consumer-targeted OS.
Linux on the desktop is very, very niche, and even among the people who do use it, a lot of them will spend almost all their time in just a few windows (e.g. terminal, browser, emacs), not a rich array of desktop applications.
If you haven't used linux desktop for a while, even a year ago, try again. Use a bleeding edge distro like the latest Ubuntu or Fedora ideally running Wayland and you will be surprised how smooth and feature-full it has become, with gobs of high quality apps available with no finicky compile instructions or crazy installation steps needed to follow.
Whatever rough edges you may encounter will keep being sanded down at a speed I haven't witnessed since when linux was the hot new thing in the 90s. Linux desktop felt stale and abandoned trough-out the 2010s but nowadays its pretty marvelous how fast it's becoming a real alternative to windows and mac. I truly believe that if it had the proper developer adoption and first class hardware support from OEM vendors it would already be a true alternative.
It's possible to run 32-bit Windows binaries with Rosetta 2 and WINE, but I don't know if there is any good DirectX 9 to Metal wrapper yet. Probably DXMT will implement it in the future: https://github.com/3Shain/dxmt
I have heard of Rosetta not implementing the entire instruction set, and games being one of the most affected kinds of software, most of them crashing due to illegal instructions.
That's a weird answer, Keynote can shares presentations, and multiple people can work on the same presentation in real-time, either on the macOS/iOS or the web version.
The feature has been available for years: https://support.apple.com/en-us/guide/keynote/tan4e89e275c/m...
The collaboration features were introduced in 2013 on the web version, and in 2016 on the native versions. And maybe check which features are actually not available before dismissing it.
The documentation always refers to the current versions of the software, and the latest version of iWork always requires being on latest or near-latest OS. Collaboration also requires all clients to be on the latest version of the software.
Well the issue is that stories from “friends of friends” tend to get super unreliable very fast. Unless someone is coming on the record as having been employed themselves, stories from friends are almost always a lot of BS.
But the initial security issue was in libwebp, which is made by Google, and surely Google had already fuzzed it and run all the available static analyzers in the world.
Static analyzers are nice to have, but they can't warn of every issue out there.
The initial security design failure was inventing lossless WebP, which is a completely different format from lossy WebP, which means the library has double the code for double the attack surface.
I am skeptical inventing any kind of WebP was a good idea, but I know the inventor and he got mad at me last time I said that, so I won't.
Maybe because going "I think WebP was a bad idea" when its implementation has the same bugs in it that every other image parser has is not a very useful comment to make.
I think there’s a stronger form of the argument: image formats are expensive to create and secure, and that should have factored into WebP adoption given its marginal benefits.
The lesson I hope was learned is that nobody should be writing new parsers in an unsafe language. WebP is old enough that it was defensible at the time but everyone should have a “no new C/C++” policy for internet-facing code.
The same could be said for half the formats Apple ships: HEIF/HEVC, for example. Or even LZFSE: who asked for an algorithm that compresses worse, slower?
It could but HEVC is actually an open standard, whereas WebP is a proprietary codec they bought and then released with no community feedback. (That's why the next VPx codec was better.)
Also HEIF actually has useful features, it supports HDR!
AVIF is certainly better though. I only feel positively about AVIF and JPEGXL.
