> It’s always people first, code is a far distant second.
I'm afraid that's kinda political. In order to get the migration successful, hmm.. I assume developers did not have much of a choice, either accept it or leave. You can try to brainwash them by impose your subjective point of view in a friendly way, but in the end it's all about power, that's the untold story.
If you've learned to appreciate the elegance, expressive power, readability and overall speed of development of Coffeescript, tell me, are you going to drop that for some virtual type safety that doesn't even exist at runtime? There's no way you'll write a medium to large codebase in TS without the use of 'any' or 'undefined', otherwise you'll get completely stuck. Don't believe the hype.
When you are not writing critical code where lives or huge amounts of money depend on, then I'd say stick to Coffeescript. And when you find a type related bug in your code, fix it and write a test so the bug cannot occur again. Otherwise, first check out Elm, Dart and Livescript. TS is really the last on my list, I've had my share of pain there.
> Reading my old code, I was surprised by how clean it looks. How easy it is to digest. There is a certain sense of calm when your brain doesn't have to process all the visual clutter of a C-style syntax. I miss that.
Indeed, Coffeescript is one of the finest languages I wrote in. Consider that 95% of the time we are reading code, what is the win of TS with a linter? The TS codebases I've worked on really hurt my eyes and brain, and that for some stupid website where type safety hardly makes any difference at all. And all those average web developers I've worked with bragging about type safety while the code they are producing is full of wrong constructs, bad naming, dependent on heavy tooling, etc..
I can imagine corporations totally like the idea of users not being able to save their own precious data to a file. In the end they want to own and control your data as much as possible for profit and power. And they sell that idea by telling you it's more convenient. As if it were not possible to create great file management tools or maybe even your own files as a database that you can manage easily.
Same with the 'cloud'. What's the difference between running your own FTP server and a cloud server? Technically not that much IMAO, only the latter means the data is controlled by some corporation running that server. And why is there hardly any progress in the area of building a private turn-key 'cloud' server so you don't need gmail, dropbox, github, etc..? I'm sure it can be made, easy to setup, robust, with backup, you name it, just like a Mac pc that's made for non technical people. We know how to build it, but we don't do it, we build for corporations instead.
The further we go down this road the less control we will have, and the ramifications of that don't look pretty to me to say the least.
With the advent of database-managed, self-hosted personal clouds (i.e Nextcloud/Droppy,) the difference is even smaller. It's developing into a self-hosted "just works" personal cloud ecosystem.
The scheme behind the lack of downwards compatibility was always a pain with OSX. It's great for the app developers because they can offer you a paid upgrade to a new compatible version. But UX wise it's so bad it makes you consider moving to another OS.
I once had ProTools on a MacPro and found it out the hard way. I thought I could just upgrade to the next OSX version like with almost any other OS. But after the upgrade many apps including ProTools didn't work anymore and could only get up an running again after paying thousands of euro's to upgrade not only ProTools, also all it's plugins and a lot of other unrelated apps as well. That was my last MacPro, and I never bought and never will buy any OSX app again.
Killing 32 bit support is going to cost me about $600 per year, because I still have a pre-CC copy of Photoshop, In Design, and so on. I am absolutely furious at Apple for this.
This comment is a perfect illustration of the bizarre irrationality people have when discussing Apple.
You’re stuck on a 6+ year old piece of software because Adobe moved to a higher priced cloud-based model...maybe you should be mad at Adobe...6 years ago...not Apple?
Adobe's cloud pricing model is abhorrent to me, and Apple forcing the hand of everyone that didn't want to jump on board with it is also shitty.
But I've had a long time to come to grips with my hatred for Adobe. Apple has only recently started making choices that carry serious negative consequences for me.
I feel the same way about their dropping of OpenGL, for what it's worth.
If you could run an old Adobe offering for 6 years, why do you feel forced by Apple right now to upgrade your OS (and hence SW)? Couldn’t you easily stick to Mojave for two more years - or run Mojave and your old SW in a VM? I don‘t see how Apple is forcing you in October 2019 to do anything that costs money. 2021 perhaps, but that’s a long way until then.
Why though? He literally chose to stick with the old software, protesting with his money. Seriously though, what's the problem with expecting 32bit software to keep working?
Market cap doesn’t say anything about fundamentals. That’s what profits are for. If you haven’t noticed, Microsoft is de-emphasizing Windows as a profit center.
So I guess Apple should also have maintained support for 68K Macs indefinitely? Microsoft should have maintained support for 16 bit apps on 64 bit Windows? Should MS have also maintained support for running real mode 286 apps forever?
This is a bit different. Catalina is a casual upgrade. There is no warning during the install process. They'll see that something worked yesterday, same OS, same computer, and now it doesn't.
I can still use 32bit software under Windows, Linux and BSD. Seems everyone else has managed to keep this running, even when they have _much_ fewer resources than Apple.
Or, he chose to go with the software he had bought instead of moving to Adobe's new model of software as a service, where you pay a subscription fee plus an up front cost to use their software. It isn't so easy as "choosing not to upgrade to 64 bit" when the production company makes untenable demands. At this point, it's almost better struggling through with GIMP and Inkscape (almost) than dealing with the corporate hellscape that Adobe has become.
That's kind of the point, isn't it? Instead of directing one's ire at Apple or any other OS vendor for dropping 32-bit support, why not get upset at Adobe for creating a SaaS hellscape in the first place?
Or stop buying Apple products, which is my end-goal after all of this. Their stuff costs too much money to have them undermining my workflow at their whim.
Apple used to about things that "just work", now they're about things that "don't work anymore".
Emulators support nearly everything. I can even run a TI994a program on a PC, Mac, or Linux. If you can't run emulators on Mac that is sad news to me. Maybe bad example, it was technically 16 bit, but it was well over 30 years old. Here is a pet emulator: https://www.masswerk.at/pet/
Just the other day my brother told me he met a really talented graphics designer that still primarily uses some 25 year old sign design software. Never heard of it before, and don't remember the name.
We balk at having to pay monthly for software we bought over 10 years ago and even today we'd not miss any new features offered. Great artists (I'm not one of them) can produce great visuals. Limitation can be better for creativity than no restrictions for some anyway.
You should expect it to work, naturally. But if you make an environment change (eg upgrade) well, the softwares expectations have changed so your expectations should change too.
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to be mad about, since wanting to use an older version of software is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. 6 years isn't even that long of a time either.
In that situation I'd be mad at both. But primarily Apple.
Apple broke my working software. Emphasis on the working part. Upgrading even with one time payment software would still mean hundreds of dollars forked out because Apple broke it. If it wasn't broken I wouldn't upgrade.
The SwiftUI development tools (live preview) are only available in Catalina, and iTunes has had a minor rewrite I believe. Otherwise, I think it’s the same.
This idea that "6+" years old is particularly old really irks me, because it's not. Most other things in my life that I rely on last longer than that. I also occasionally need to run software that's older than that.
6 years isn't nearly long enough to even consider dropping support on the OS level. Try twice that.
Apple is not looking at 6 year old applications and saying “It’s been long enough, time to drop support for this app”. They are looking at the 30+ year old architecture that is 32-bit x86.
Look, everyone knows how Apple rolls when it comes to operating systems--they kill old APIs, frameworks, and even entire classes of apps on a pretty regular basis.
No mainstream operating system that ran on 68000 processors in the 80's, PowerPC in the 90's and Intel since 2006 is even around today.
Y’all must have forgot how NeXTStep, which later became Mac OS X and now macOS ran on 68000, Sparc and MIPS back in the day.
The same way Apple was running Mac OS X on Intel hardware long before the first Intel Macs were released, there's got to be Arm-based MacBooks or Mac minis running macOS right now.
So it makes sense for Apple to get rid of as much technical debt as they can before making that jump.
And because of Catalyst, which enables iPad apps to be ported to macOS, there will be more apps for the Mac.
> Look, everyone knows how Apple rolls when it comes to operating systems--they kill old APIs, frameworks, and even entire classes of apps on a pretty regular basis.
Every platform has to balance the developer experience with the user experience. Microsoft, with their incredible backwards compatibility support, has one approach, whereas Apple has a very different one.
That’s a rather simplistic view of things. The long and the short of it is this; it’s not Apple’s responsibility to to ensure Adobe’s software runs on their platform, it’s Adobe’s and Adobe no longer support CS6.
What is a computer if not a place for software to run on? Is it not part of the producer's responsibility to make sure software runs fine on their platform? The bond goes both ways.
It’s more the 20-year old Carbon API set (parts of which are 30+ years old like QuickDraw) than x86 itself. Apple doesn’t get to drop x86 support from Intel’s silicon (like they did with 32-bit ARM on iOS).
adobe has essentially added nothing in cc that makes it worthwhile to switch over from cs6, and certainly not for rental software. if anything performance has gotten considerably worse with the addition of creative cloud bloatware
I know many, many working artists and illustrators that plan to do exactly that. Artists generally revile Adobe for their move to subscription pricing.
Apple did not break your working software. It still runs on older versions of the OS.
Let's face it you are cheap, you weren't willing to keep up with the Adobe products you purchased and now you want to blame someone, instead of blaming yourself, you've decided it's someone else's fault.
I have pre-CC version of the Adobe products, and I run the an older version of OSX on my Mac Pro. I'm not willing to pay the price for Adobe, but I'm also willing to take responsibility for my cheapness.
Or, hear me out here, some people can’t afford to buy new Adobe software because it’s ridiculously expensive. They’re not wealthy enough to call themselves cheap.
Or you can treat both as part of the same engine of unrestrained, destructive capitalism that destroys people's livelihoods when they no longer align with business interests.
Apple can spend some of that massive cash reserve it has actually acting like a grown-up platform holder with responsibilities to its users.
that's a weird criterion. market cap has little to nothing to do with it. I don't think it's reasonable to be mad at anyone in this particular situation - we all knew that 32-bit was going away - but there are certainly other reasons to be disappointed by both Apple and Adobe separately.
Try out Affinity Photo. If $600 a year is too high an expense for what you produce with Photoshop, then it's likely Affinity Photo will more than exceed what you need. It's a flat $50.
Snow Leopard was tongue in cheek as it comes up among OSX fans as the best OS made.
To your point, there are plenty newer MacOS versions that might still suit ones taste, still run 32 bit apps, and still get patched.
There are plenty alternatives to surfing Safari. Heck, you can even get modern Firefox compiled for Power Macintosh G3, G4, or G5 (not for Lion 10.7 or newer, which dropped Power Mac support): https://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
iCab (at icab.de) is another labor of love, though release notes look like 2018.
Note, TenFourFox isn't quite "modern Firefox", it's a fork of an old version with backported fixes and improvements. And on Snow Leopard (which only supports Intel), you'd want to use Arctic Fox instead: https://github.com/wicknix/Arctic-Fox.
> To your point, there are plenty newer MacOS versions that might still suit ones taste, still run 32 bit apps, and still get patched.
Where "plenty" equals "two", sure. Apple releases security patches for the last three Mac releases. So, High Sierra has one year left, and Mojave has two years.
My next Hackintosh will be Mavericks. I'm going to use ESXi so hardware compatibility is less of an issue.
I'd love to do Snow Leopard instead but tracking down old software that's compatible has proven difficult. I'm convinced it's out there—iffy backwards compatibility means there shouldn't necessarily be fewer compatible apps, just different ones—it's just tracking them down in 2019 that's a problem. Mavericks is my compromise.
Mojave support ends in September 2021. You can still run your 32 bit Adobe apps with free security updates until then. That will have given you at least 10 years of use from your Adobe Suite purchase.
(After that time the apps will still run like they always did, but you may choose to keep that machine offline for security reasons).
I tend to think that's a pretty reasonable value for your money.
Is Adobe updating the pre-cc‘s?
I mean security wise. Acrobat‘s vulnerability’s come to mind.
Edit:
I’m pretty sure my 10.13(!) received a security update last month. There will be security updates for 10.14 at least till next years macOS flavor.
yes, it's been clear that that's where adobe was heading (adobe is where most of your ire should be directed, imho).
pixelmator and affinity designer jumped into the market at the right time (a few years ago) to capture adobe refugees like me for my (mostly modest) visual design needs.
in any case, you can stay on mojave to run creative suite for now, and perhaps via a VM in the future. catalina doesn't seem to have any killer features (other than maybe sidecar) that make it a must-have upgrade (and apparently enough bugs to make it a should-wait upgrade).
I recently got Affinity Designer and Publisher, each for $39 during a promotion this summer; the regular price is $49. If you look at the specs for Designer, it makes Adobe look kind of bad in comparison: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/designer/full-feature-list/
Also, the non-Adobe Mac graphics software market is pretty robust, with Acorn, Pixelmator, Polarr Photo Editor, CorelDraw, etc.
I've been an Acorn user for years; has all of the important features of Photoshop in a much more accessible interface for a fraction of the price. Just checked—it's on sale for $14.99: https://flyingmeat.com/acorn/
”you are granted a limited, non- transferable, non-exclusive license:
[…]
iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”
What is the value that photoshop is adding to your business? Is it conducive to you earning enough to maintain a subscription? If not, why do you use photoshop? If yes, why shouldn’t adobe maximize their profits with a subscription based business model? It’s the market baby.
Not defending adobe here, just giving a different perspective.
Moreover, why should Apple stick with legacy tech to appease users like you?
> If yes, why shouldn’t adobe maximize their profits with a subscription based business model? It’s the market baby.
It's inefficient. You should get a good if its marginal cost is below its value to you. If Photoshop is worth 550 to you, the marginal cost of a copy is neglible and Adobe charges 600 €, you don't buy it and the market just threw away 550 €.
That is partially justified in that the business somehow has to finance the actual development and other fixed costs, and we don't have a much better mechanism for that yet. But preventing someone from using software because they can't afford someone's profits is just pure waste.
What about all the artists who aren’t a business? What about all the hobbyists? And finally... what about all the people that aren’t rich enough to spend $$$ a YEAR on photoshop?
Do they not deserve to keep using software they have already paid for, at great expense to them? Are they not worth “appeasing” because they’re not ~fortunate~ lucky enough in life, as you were?
Adobe has taken away this option. All power to them, but if you paid for a license, you have a right to keep using that software. Apple is the one here breaking software people have paid for.
We are arguing that support for older versions of software is important, be it operating systems or client software. Support here means "keeping things running as they are", translating primarily to security patches with no frills attached.
Everyone is happy that Debian Unstable offers brand-new software in a rolling release, but their up-to-date LTS offering is also highly sought after.
I understand, thanks. I pointed out in another comment that Mojave support ends in 2021 which will have been 10 years since Adobe CS6's release. The grandparent seems to be arguing that they are entitled to support beyond that.
I get that Windows (for example) backward compatibility is even longer. That's great but involves trade-offs I don't think operating systems should be expected to make.
Because it's mandatory, and you are forced to be around lots of people you don't really want to be with. You are forced to learn things you are not interested in at all, while being punished for not performing well. And all that, while your body goes through a major transformation sexually. There can only be very few people enjoying that. For most it is a horrible way to end their childhood.
And we (parents, governments) think it is beneficial, until the kids come from middle school and cannot find a job that easily, often ending up doing completely stupid work like cashier or whatever else for the rest of their lives.
"until the kids come from middle school and cannot find a job that easily, often ending up doing completely stupid work like cashier or whatever else for the rest of their lives."
Your comment took a strange turn there at the end. I don't know even a single person that went from middle school to the job market. And if someone does, the job market probably won't be very good, that's common sense.
Nah, definitely not illegal in the US, like 30%-40%+ of my high school dropped out at the day they turned 16 (or maybe 15... forgot exactly which one they let you drop out at).
Also... I graduated before I was 18.
EDIT: I was in high school two decades ago, so it might have changed since then.
Its never been federal officially although theres substantial funding bribery over the years (like drinking age enforcement), age has changed wildly over the years, vast increase over the last two or three generations, and wide variance in religious vs non-religious reasons, parental consent vs no parental consent required, etc.
Excuse me for the misunderstanding, I live in Europe where middle and high school are one. It is not compulsory anymore after reaching 18yrs old or after getting a diploma.
Still then, having a high school diploma doesn't make any difference at all in the job market, it's a worthless paper most people never need. Almost everything learned in middle and high school is worth 0$, while in real life pretty much only the dollars count. When people come to my company looking for a job I only hire them when they have the skill and are nice persons to be around, I'm not interested in whatever diploma or certificates.
> When people come to my company looking for a job I only hire them when they have the skill and are nice persons to be around, I'm not interested in whatever diploma or certificates.
I don't own or run a company, so my comments need to be taken with that in mind.
The point of taking into account certs and other similar notions in the matter of who to hire, provided those items were not done in a compulsory manner, is to help determine if a person has what it takes to stick to something long-term.
I can understand not caring about a high school diploma, to an extent. I would certainly want to know if the person can communicate well, both verbally and in writing (I wouldn't trust to get either of those indicators from a resume, either). I would want to know if they had a good command of the commonly spoken language. I would also want to know if they could do basic arithmetic, and higher math if the job required it. I would want to know if they understood hierarchies and sorting, as well as searching (manually - you know, skills you learn from research in a physical library of physical books). Do they know how to properly file things (physically or virtually) - or do they just dump everything in a single spot (which might be ok for a single person, but in a company could cause chaos)?
These (and others) are all skills which could be indicated by knowing they graduated high school, and what their GPA was during that time.
However, again that is all compulsory. It doesn't tell you if they really stick with tasks - though usually someone with a low GPA (but still graduated) may tend to have poor skills at staying on-task (especially if that task bores them, or they feel they are doing poorly at it).
That is where having those other certs - ones they have taken and (usually) paid for - provided they are legit of course. Someone who had paid for a course, taken it in full, and completed it with a certificate to show such (or a diploma or similar from a University, College, or other post-secondary training/learning) - shows that they stayed and finished the job, through thick or thin, whatever the adversity.
I would want to know this as a business owner hiring a person, personally. It would mean that I wouldn't likely be hiring someone who is just going to learn some things then bail on me 6 months later. Or someone who, when I give them a challenging task, won't just flail around aimlessly and then quit because they couldn't get it done. I wouldn't be looking for a "know-it-all" - in fact, I'd rather have someone who asked questions when challenged, as it would show curiosity and interest in learning. But I would want someone who will keep going, even when things get tough, awkward, or the light seems dim at the end of the tunnel.
Now - not everyone can afford to get such certificates, and they shouldn't be used as a proxy (you can gain similar ideas by seeing how long they stayed in past positions of similar nature - hopefully that's reflected on their resume/cv and what you learn from them in the interview). But those who can show such paperwork would have a leg-up in that area of hiring decisions.
Someone who didn't have that paperwork? Well - they would have to prove in some other manner that they will stick to something when the going gets tough. If they have that capability, they should be able to do that in some manner, I would hope.
Again - those are just my thoughts. Since I don't own a business, nor have I ever, nor run one - well, maybe they bear merit. After all, if I were so smart, I should have my own business by now at 46, right?
I don't think that's really what we are discussing here.
Right now we have everyone except fringe dropouts going to middle school. That is, there are 2 options: middle school education or no education.
What's more interesting is if we could take people that would be successful in middle school and see if they could achieve increased success by participating in a different model.
If you want to present yourself as an alternative for FB's libra, this is way too cheap. Even the worst alt coins have a better website and more info.
> Our core team and community
I mean, how can anyone take this serious? The core team could easily be just 1 person in the list. And the 'community', are that some far relatives who said "yeah good idea!"?
The website is made within an hour or so, writing the text has taken longer for sure. This is a scam. Just some smart guys trying to launch and cash in on an alt coin that is a made up solution for FB's libra coin.
Maybe not. It could also be idealistic college kids who are underestimating the difficulty in launching a successful currency and don't understand that FB's reach and partnership with established processors is the primary reason anyone takes Libra seriously.
When you start with the premise that 99% of crypto is either an outright scam or what will eventually turn into a scam it is fairly safe to call this project a scam too.
I've quit Adobe when they moved to the cloud, what a horrible scheme. Now I'm using Inkscape already for years for all my digital graphics work. It's not on par with Illustrator, but still an amazing open source project we should cherish.
The lack of money gives people with lower income a problem that the brain cannot solve. Not everyone can 'just get a job' that easily. I've experienced periods in my life where I kept thinking in circles to find a way to get some money for our basic needs. The only solution was to simply keep trying and waiting for some luck or fate. Of course that fucks your brain! I knew a professor in Berlin who was living in the streets, homeless. Try to imagine his mind. After all his work, passion and skill this simple but ridiculous money problem is in-solvable. And no one will help him, he is lost for life. Most rich people have no clue about this problem. They think everybody can work and create a future, while at the same time this professor in the streets has no chances. Who has a thinking problem here?
It's not great after the time limited benefits run out. You can survive on the 400 eur/mo if you're in good mental health & can consistently do good financial planning ahead, but that's often not the case.
I'm afraid that's kinda political. In order to get the migration successful, hmm.. I assume developers did not have much of a choice, either accept it or leave. You can try to brainwash them by impose your subjective point of view in a friendly way, but in the end it's all about power, that's the untold story.