4 ms·

I love emacs and use it every day. And I'm glad that it's free software. But if Apple offered to keep my Mac's emacs install up to date for $4.99 I would pay in

I love emacs and use it every day. And I'm glad that it's free software. But if Apple offered to keep my Mac's emacs install up to date for $4.99 I would pay in a heartbeat. I have to periodically check whether my version is out of date. When it is, I have to find the download URL, click on it, remember to come back when the package has downloaded, and run the installer. I have to do this on all of my machines. Sure, this isn't all that much work. But $4.99 isn't that much money, either.

rbanffy 16y ago
Paying is not the point. If paying for the software were easy for everyone who has a Mac everywhere, I would feel a little bit uncomfortable, but that would be all. My point is that this move may effectively shut off parts of the world that have no access to the Mac App Store. Don't get me wrong: I like Apple and used Apple computers since my early days as an Apple II developer. My main computers run Linux, but I like to keep a Mac around. What worries me is that this move actually hurts Apple a lot more than we may realize at first.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Just as a side note that nicely illustrates how politics may interfere with this, when I got my first Apple II (a II+) it was actually a clone (http://orbita.starmedia.com/~cobit2/propagandas/exato_ago85.jpg http://orbita.starmedia.com/~cobit2/propagandas/exato_ago85....). At that time, importing computers to Brazil was prohibited. If I wanted to travel abroad, law mandated strict limits on how much money I could carry and buying an Apple II directly would be impossible. There were alternatives, smugglers that could bring almost anything you wanted, but then it would be a crime...
nitrogen 16y ago
Just curious, I'm assuming that switching to Linux to get automatic updates for all packages would cost you more than $5 in pain in other areas. Is that assumption correct?
- mechanical_fish 16y ago
  Of course. I pay hundreds of dollars to run Mac OS instead of desktop Linux; it's a bargain.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I use both Linux and Mac and I can assure you the Mac side is not completely painless. I prefer Linux for work, but, then, I don't develop for Macs. It's, of course, next to impossible to develop Mac software without a Mac and, since we are talking about Xcode, access to a modern Mac is a necessary condition.
- misterm 16y ago
  I switched from windows to linux as my main OS a little while back. Currently, I run only linux, but I have previously run a dual boot setup with windows 7. That was just a speedbump. Now, if I want to update anything I type the following in the command line: sudo apt-get udpdate sudo apt-get upgrade ... And that is all. Unless you meant some other kind of pain and suffering?
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    I was referring to the pleasure (in the utilitarian sense) of apt-get being offset by the pain of not having MacOS-specific software and features. I am a Linux user myself, but recognize that not everyone's computing needs are met by it (just as my needs are not met by Windows or MacOS).

rbanffy 16y ago

Paying is not the point. If paying for the software were easy for everyone who has a Mac everywhere, I would feel a little bit uncomfortable, but that would be all. My point is that this move may effectively shut off parts of the world that have no access to the Mac App Store. Don't get me wrong: I like Apple and used Apple computers since my early days as an Apple II developer. My main computers run Linux, but I like to keep a Mac around. What worries me is that this move actually hurts Apple a lot more than we may realize at first.

rbanffy 16y ago
Just as a side note that nicely illustrates how politics may interfere with this, when I got my first Apple II (a II+) it was actually a clone (http://orbita.starmedia.com/~cobit2/propagandas/exato_ago85.jpg http://orbita.starmedia.com/~cobit2/propagandas/exato_ago85....). At that time, importing computers to Brazil was prohibited. If I wanted to travel abroad, law mandated strict limits on how much money I could carry and buying an Apple II directly would be impossible. There were alternatives, smugglers that could bring almost anything you wanted, but then it would be a crime...

nitrogen 16y ago

Just curious, I'm assuming that switching to Linux to get automatic updates for all packages would cost you more than $5 in pain in other areas. Is that assumption correct?

mechanical_fish 16y ago
Of course. I pay hundreds of dollars to run Mac OS instead of desktop Linux; it's a bargain.
rbanffy 16y ago
I use both Linux and Mac and I can assure you the Mac side is not completely painless. I prefer Linux for work, but, then, I don't develop for Macs. It's, of course, next to impossible to develop Mac software without a Mac and, since we are talking about Xcode, access to a modern Mac is a necessary condition.
misterm 16y ago
I switched from windows to linux as my main OS a little while back. Currently, I run only linux, but I have previously run a dual boot setup with windows 7. That was just a speedbump. Now, if I want to update anything I type the following in the command line: sudo apt-get udpdate sudo apt-get upgrade ... And that is all. Unless you meant some other kind of pain and suffering?
- nitrogen 16y ago
  I was referring to the pleasure (in the utilitarian sense) of apt-get being offset by the pain of not having MacOS-specific software and features. I am a Linux user myself, but recognize that not everyone's computing needs are met by it (just as my needs are not met by Windows or MacOS).