
Show HN: Backgroundifier, a Mac app that converts art into desktop backgrounds - archagon
http://backgroundifier.archagon.net
======
archagon
Blog post: [http://beta-
blog.archagon.net/2015/09/29/backgroundifier/](http://beta-
blog.archagon.net/2015/09/29/backgroundifier/)

Backgroundifier is a Mac OSX droplet-style app that converts image files of
any size into pretty desktop backgrounds. Any image will work, but fine art
and illustration looks the best. (You can see examples of the output on the
app homepage.) There's a command line mode in addition to the GUI: if you go
into the Backgroundifier.app bundle, you can either call into the
Backgroundifier executable directly from Terminal (with the caveat that you
can only save to and read from your ~/Pictures directory — sandboxing,
sorry!), or alternatively extract the un-sandboxed command line utility from
the Resources directory. On my laptop, I've even set up an Automator script
that watches my primary pictures directory, automatically converts any new
additions via shell script, and outputs the results to the directory I use for
my desktop backgrounds. (I can share it if you like!)

The app costs a buck, but most of it is open source. (I decided to exclude the
UI nib file from the repo, at least for the time being.) It's written in Swift
2. You can find the repo here: [https://github.com/archagon/backgroundifier-
public](https://github.com/archagon/backgroundifier-public). Unfortunately,
it's just a little bit out of date, but all the image conversion stuff should
work fine.

I collect a lot of online art and illustration that goes into a big
"inspiration" folder. Sadly, I can never find the time to sit down and look
through all the images I've collected, which kind of beats the point. My
desktop background always seemed like a great place to exhibit these images —
OSX lets you randomly cycle through images in a directory every x minutes, and
the "desktop peek" shortcut/gesture is perfect for the occasional appreciative
glance — but my images were all in different aspect ratios, and neither
scaling nor centering ended up looking good.

A little while ago on HN I ran into tomkinstinch's app Artful
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723120)),
which turns your desktop background into a constant stream of fine art. I
loved how Artful solved the aspect ratio problem, but the fit wasn't quite
right for me. For one, I wanted to convert my own custom images instead of
pulling art from an online source. I also preferred to keep my Mac functioning
as simply and as close to the defaults as possible. I didn't love the idea of
having to keep an app open in order to change my desktop background,
especially when the OS already had background cycling built-in. The idea of a
more Unix-y approach to the problem really appealed to me; I wanted a simple
app that would take input and produce output, which would allow me to do
things like automatically convert folders and pull from custom RSS feeds if I
so wished.

The time seemed right to distract myself with a side project, so I asked
tomkinstinch for permission to use his idea and made it happen shortly
thereafter!

~~~
e23df324f
> most of it is open source.

None of it is open source. From your repo:

> not licensed for reuse

Simply making the source available does not make it open source. Open source
has a specific definition; to continue to use it in the manner that your
project does is disingenuous.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)

[http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-
source](http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source)

This is a wonderful project though. Thanks for sharing!

~~~
archagon
Sorry, I meant that that particular nib file (an AppKit UI asset) was not
licensed for reuse; the rest of the code is, or will be. The nib is not
included in the repo; I mention it in the description to explain why the
project is missing a file, and also to ensure that people don't clone my app
outright and sell it. (Not that anybody would want to do this with a small
project like this, but I hope to follow this pattern with my later, bigger
commercial projects.) I'm going to add a real LICENSE file in the next commit,
probably new BSD, and I've edited the description to clarify this. That would
still be under the purview of "open source", right?

