> > Plus, too, with OS X it's ridiculously easy to port many Unix apps to the
> > Mac. Even if you don't support Aqua, there's been X11 support since Jaguar
> > (and it now comes standard with Panther), and I think Qt does have support
> > for Aqua/Cocoa controls anyway.
>
> Now, that again is an argument against porting to Mac - was this
> your intend? I mean, a Unix X11 port is not a Mac port... and if
> I want to run a Unix, then I get myself a nixe x86 based Laptop
> and put Linux on ther ... no need for high priced Mac hardware.
Why is it an argument against it? I just wanted to point out that OS X makes
it easy to walk over most X11 apps to our world, and Apples *are* the most
common desktop Unix out there (to those who claim otherwise due to the
misinformed 2003 IDG study, go here for some commentary on its flaws:
http://jeffcroft.com/blog/archives/000288.php ). My point is that if you
make a Linux version, the ease of porting and even making a "good looking"
Mac application is so sizable that there's no excuse *not* to make an OS X
version (and you would be ignoring a similar magnitude of users if you
don't).
Besides, if I want to run Unix, I *do* go buy high priced Mac hardware.
It's done me well so far. All of the Unix servers I own are Macs (either
overglorified, in the case of my ANS 500, or retrofitted, in the case of
everything else). *poke* *poke* *poke* ;)
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser_at_floodgap.com
-- Test-tube babies shouldn't throw stones. -----------------------------------
Received on Mon Aug 23 2004 - 18:14:22 BST