On 11/04/2008, Guillaume Laurent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We agree it makes a lot of sense to get RG running on OS X.
Well no, I don't really care either way about OS/X. I would rather work to improve the experience for users on Linux. But I'm prepared to help with the groundwork for making it run on OS/X as well if others want it. > I don't think the choice between Cocoa and a Qt4 port is as clear cut as you > think it is. >From my personal perspective it could not be any more clear cut. A Qt4 port has some value; a Cocoa version is worthless to me. Less than worthless, in fact: it would cost me something, in time and harm to my project, for a result with no use. > But keeping RG tied to Qt4 kills any chance it would have to get > popular on OS X, because no OS X dev will be interested in > contributing to an app which uses tools which are years behind what > they're used to. That's not an argument that I can care about, because it's talking about people I don't know, who may not exist (OS/X developers who might make substantial contributions to this program), whose goals I probably would not share. And in any case, you're not exactly presenting much supporting evidence. And even if it were true, it wouldn't be enough to justify this. > Regarding possible future evolution, between a platform which has 5% > of the PC market and is sustained by a large company, and a toolkit > which has an unknown fraction of 0.8% of the PC market, and has just > been bought by a company which primary interest is mobile devices and > not the desktop, I'd rather bet on the first one. Even though the first one leaves you totally locked in to a proprietary platform and the second one (which also has a fraction of the OS/X and Windows markets that you didn't bother to mention, and which is itself open source) does not? > - approximately 0% of RG's functionality : getting RG to sound notes > in a properly scheduled way took us quite a bit of time, about a year > if I recall correctly. That's because we did a bad job of engineering it, not because of the platform. If we did it again on Linux it would, or should, take much less time as well. If you want to claim that our code sucks so much that a rewrite is justified anyway, then you may have a case. I still wouldn't be interested, but it would be a stronger case than your current one. Anyway, I don't think I've anything further to say on this. I would much prefer that this doesn't get mixed up with the Rosegarden project; it would be potentially very confusing. On a personal level, I think it's a sad thing to lose you; I've enjoyed working with you, it's been a long time, and good colleagues are hugely important on a project like this. I just wish you'd see sense and realise that the answer to your problem has been right in front of your nose all along. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
