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

[stefan at binaervarianz.de]

Hi Vlado,

> 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.


> By the way: I just noticed Fink already has a digiKam package - but it
> is still in unstable (source only), so you might have the same problems
> you had with MacPorts.

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

>> As the whole build with all the dependencies took about two days, I
>> gave it a try on a windows machine while waiting.
>
> Apparently you also still have an old PPC machine. ;-)

I do, but the testing was done with a Core2Duo MBP. Two days doesn't  
mean 48h, but my freetime in two days. The big kde packages still take  
more than an hour each.


>
> If I had an intel mac, I'd be only using Linux by now, but there is no
> 3d drivers, no Adobe Flash, and no stand-by mode for my iMac when using
> Linux, so I like having a dual-boot system with my core applications
> available on both systems.
>
> I really don't use M$ Windows, except for testing my web sites in that
> damn Internet Explorer.

I'm quite versatile here. I'm using Linux at work, Mac at home and  
Windows for games. The Mac being my main machine also has windows and  
linux as VMs for the quick run and a windows as dual boot for games on  
the go. The other windows machine sometimes gets used for  
computational intensive tasks like encoding or rendering, because it's  
the most powerfull one. I now and then test desktop linuxes, but none  
have delivered just the usability Mac OS does (to me), despite  coming  
a long way since its humble beginnings.


> On the one hand, we cannot expect developers to pay money just to test
> their programs in non-free systems (I paid about EUR 160 for this Mac
> OS, and that is without the hardware!). I also kind of like having
> great software for me that is not available to people who are not
> willing to use free operating systems (elite / punishment thinking).
>
> On the other hand free software projects like Firefox or VLC, which are
> nowadays used millions of ordinary Windows users, do much more for the
> popularity of free software than the best Linux-only program could ever
> do. So I think ports to non-free systems should be made, if possible,
> until the majority of users finally works on free systems (which would
> imply hardware support for free systems by all companies that want to
> sell their computer hardware to as many customers as possible).

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.

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.

Thanks again for the work done so far on digikam,

Stefan