On Monday 26 August 2002 05:55 pm, Steve Mallett wrote: > Sure, this is a bit off-topic.. > > With all the hub-bub surrounding OS X these days I note and ask: > > There are largely few open source mac apps. > > What has or hasn't happened here?
Every platform has its own custom with regards to writing and distributing software. I believe that these differences are largely due to the compiler. First, since day one virtually every UNIX and unix-like system installed a compiler by default. Windows and Mac never did this. Thus, source code was ubiquitous on UNIX, but an arcane mystery to Windows and Mac users. UNIX users were distributing software in a quasi open source way long before RMS nailed his manifesto to the cathedral door. To a Windows or pre-OSX Mac user, this was unheard of. All my Windows friends today that think I'm stupid for not distributing my stuff as shareware. All my UNIX friends never give it a second thought. The exception that proves the rule: DOS. DOS was traditionally installed with a BASIC interpreter. Back in the eighties, it was common to see BASIC programs distributed in a quasi open source way. In fact, the first time I ever saw the GPL license was attached to a game written in BASIC. Under Windows you have to pay to get a compiler. Until recently, the same thing applied for Macintosh. So you either used shareware to try and recoup the cost, or your realized that 99.99% of your users didn't have compilers, and never bothered distributing it with your freeware binary anyway. This might change under OSX, since it now has gcc as its standard compiler. But two things still stand in the way. First, the culture has already been established, and cultures are hard to change. Second, the compiler still isn't installed by default, and it isn't even (IIRC) on the install CD. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
