[Digikam-users] building it for non-free operating systems

[Vlado Plaga]

Am Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:13:51 +0200
schrieb stefan at binaervarianz.de:

> > That is very different from digiKam on Mac OS 10.5, which is quite
> > usable.
> 
> I can't test this, as I'm still using Tiger here. But actually it  
> surprises me, as QT never mentioned any problems between 10.4 and 10.5  
> system.

I don't know what is causing the problems: it might not be QT itself.

> I tried the fink install already, which gives me a 0.9.3 if I remember  
> correctly. So this was probably the stable tree.

Probably. There is 0.10.0 in the unstable tree.

[...]

> I understand your point there. But actually you are using software  
> such as digikam as a leverage to push/pull linux, which I think is a  
> bit unfair to digikam. Of course it is your call as a developer to  
> decide for which operating system you develop your software. And if  
> your goal with digikam is to promote linux, than do as you like. But I  
> thought the goal of digikam is to be a great piece of software for  
> photographers and photo enthusiasts.

I'm not a digiKam developer, I just started promoting it. You are right
to write that this should not become a long discussion about the pros
and cons of operating systems. Let me just say that for me as a
keyboard affine user who now uses Linux for about 10 years, and liked
the concept of multiple workspaces from the start (which Apple
introduced only in Mac OS 10.5 as "Spaces"), Mac OS was always only a
fallback-solution because of the better hardware support (for my 17"
iMac, which was the most reasonable and beautiful computer I could
think of in 2004). But the Mac OS 10.2 that came with it was crap, and
not supported for very long. I never had Mac OS 10.3 or 10.4.

Anyway, the best way to make great software like digiKam available to
photographers around the world is by making free operating systems
better, for millions of people world-wide can afford reasonable
computer and photography hardware (starting at let's say $100 each,
if bought second-hand), but not spending the same amount of money on
software (every three years, if using Apple). Free systems (not just
GNU/Linux, but also BSD etc.) will improve faster (and get better
hardware support) when more people use them.

> At least you should lose those 'for linux, mac and windows' headlines  
> on the website then.
> 
> I just deleted the paragraph I wrote about why I like the Mac, 'cause  
> it's not constructive here for digikam. The pros and cons of operating  
> systems don't need to be discussed on this mailing list.
> 
> Lets sum it up then: I would like to use digikam on my Mac. If you  
> would like to have at least one user of digikam more, then please put  
> some of your effort in the testing on Mac. I'm willing to deliver my  
> share of work by giving feedback and bug reports. It's your call. If  
> you say you are just supporting the most recent versions like 10.5,  
> than that's fair and I have to do my part first.
> 
> Whatever you do: Just for fun I'm now looking through your code and  
> try to assemble something like 'digikam-light' for Mac. The chances to  
> succeed are remote, but I'm aiming at stripping down the KDE  
> dependencys as much as possible while loosing the editing and plugin  
> functions to get a OS X native application.
> But I'm not a full time software developer, so I'm quite slow with that.

I'm not really a developer at all, but digiKam core developer Andi
Clemens already answered to your message on the list he might look into
compiling digiKam on Mac OS again. So to me supporting these effords by
testing and giving feedback seems like a better idea than creating your
own "fork".

As I said digiKam 0.10.0 is already running all right on Mac OS 10.5,
and Mac OS 10.4 support is going to be dropped by pretty much everyone
very soon after the introduction of 10.6 this September anyway, I
suppose, if everything goes on like before, in the Apple world. Or is
there still anyone supporting 10.3 now? Not Apple (with iTunes, Safari
etc), not Mozilla (with Firefox), not OpenOffice.org, not MacPorts or
Fink...

> Thanks again for the work done so far on digikam,
> 
> Stefan

I'm also thankful to all the digiKam developers, who created one of the
best KDE 4 applications I've seen so far! Keep up the good work!

Vlado