Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Dec 2009 22:16 UTC
Mac OS X Late last night (CET), we reported on the story that the VLC project needed more developers for the Mac version of this popular video player, or else the Mac variant may disappear. Just about every website out there reported on this issue, but it turns out it all got a bit exaggerated (on the internet? Surely you jest...). We spoke to VLC developer Pierre d'Herbemont to clarify the issue, and they've also put up a wiki page about the so-called demise of the Mac version of VLC. He also detailed what, exactly, they meant by "Apple is blocking us".
Thread beginning with comment 400305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not Mac Enough
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not Mac Enough"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Enjoy all the stress from your clunky, mismatched, mess of a UI.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Not Mac Enough
by lucas_maximus on Sat 19th Dec 2009 00:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Not Mac Enough"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Funnily enough I don't have any stress using clunky interfaces and mismatched GUIs. I get on and just get on and use something to get a job done.

As for applications something should not be rewritten if it does a job adequately. Recoding wastes time (which is better spent elsewhere) and puts a project in jeopardy.

Recoding stuff from scrach only makes sense when the current implementation is unworkable.

Customers simply don't care as long as something does the job for them and is delivered on time.

You can talk about nicely written code etc etc, but delivering something which works on time is what gets the bills paid. Sometimes you gotta bodge and hack to get stuff to work when time limits are tight.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Not Mac Enough
by MysterMask on Sat 19th Dec 2009 11:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Not Mac Enough"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12


You can talk about nicely written code etc etc, but delivering something which works on time is what gets the bills paid. Sometimes you gotta bodge and hack to get stuff to work when time limits are tight.


I beg to differ. Sometimes, you have to work like that. But don't forget that this kind of behavior is the main cause that ITC has such a bad reputation delivering products that are not ready for the users. After all, producing only "good enough" products is also a main factor that we learned to live with bad and clunky user interfaces. Sometimes, you just need somebody like e. g. Apple that does is more or less "right" and not just "good enough".

I'm glad that there are developers that think further than just looking at code and features. At the end, products live or die having user acceptance. And you don't get user acceptance just with features because users will see those features through the user interface. Having a bad UI for a cool feature is wasting development resources: the feature should have been skipped right from the beginning ..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Not Mac Enough
by Ed W. Cogburn on Sat 19th Dec 2009 20:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Not Mac Enough"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Enjoy all the stress



Dude, what *stress*?

Its not like these different GUI-based apps are really, fundamentally that different from one another. They've all got windows, buttons, checkboxes, menus, etc.

My idea of stress is trying to parse one of g++'s template instantiation errors (usually about 2 screens long). That's stress. Using a (slightly different) GUI is not.

Seriously, stress?

Reply Parent Score: 1