[PD] Building externals on OSX

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 22 23:12:28 CEST 2013

On 10/22/2013 02:52 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:07 PM, pd-list-request at iem.at 
> <mailto:pd-list-request at iem.at> wrote:
>> *From:*Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com <mailto:jancsika at yahoo.com>>
>> *Subject:**Re: [PD] Building externals on OSX*
>> *Date:*October 22, 2013 1:14:41 PM EDT
>> *To:*pd-list at iem.at <mailto:pd-list at iem.at>
>> On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
>>> Errr. That's not so easy. You need the 10.5 SDK which you can only 
>>> get with a *really* old version of Xcode which you probably can't 
>>> install on anything newer than OSX 10.6. It's possible to put older 
>>> SDK's themselves into the "right place" but, for something as old as 
>>> the 10.5 SDK, it may not even work anymore. The only reliabel way to 
>>> use an old machine with 10.5 or 10.6 and an old version of Xcode, 
>>> probably Xcode 3.something.
>>> IMHO, at this point, it's best to drop support for PPC for new 
>>> versions of pd. The *vast vast vast* majority of OSX users have 
>>> moved on at this point.
>> Just to make sure I understand: if someone has an old PPC Mac, they 
>> cannot
>> run stuff compiled for i386 or x86_64.  There is no 
>> compatibility-mode or anything
>> they can use to run the software.  Is this correct?
> Yes. It's a different instruction set and Rosetta, the PCC 
> compatibility layer, won't run an OSX 10.7+.

Well, if it's an enormous amount of trouble to continue supporting it 
then I can see dropping it.

>> Also, do you have any references for the claim that the vast majority 
>> of OSX
>> users have moved away from PPC? 
> http://update.omnigroup.com/ (Hardware / CPU type): Intel 97.8% PPC 2.2%
> https://www.adium.im/sparkle/ (CPU type): Intel 97.83% PPC 2.71%

Thanks.  Those are low numbers, but I'd imagine the number of PPC users is
still fairly high:

>> I find Jobs' claim that Apple doesn't ship
>> junk to generally be true, and combined with their development model the
>> unfortunate result would seem to be that poor people still using 
>> their once
>> sleek and sexy devices are ignored along with their now ugly, 
>> unprofitable
>> devices.
> Well, those "sleek and sexy" PPC devices were last made & sold in 
> 2005, so it's not a surprise the vast majority of people using OSX 
> have Intel machines mainly because software developers (& the OS) have 
> moved on to 32 bit and now 64 bit intel years ago.

Debian supports PPC, no?  Anyone know how it does on the old machines?  
I suppose since Pd is in the repos one could say it still supports PPC. :)

> Your political bias notwithstanding (I say use what works for you),

Well, I'd call it a political stance.  And where it seemed quirky and deeply
personal when I first adopted it, it now seems simply to be a restatement
of the scientific method for computer security, at a time when there have
been revelations that show our computers really need to be as secure as
possible against attacks.

I'd also point out that yours is a political stance.  While I understand
it, I must disagree with it because in terms of security it is much more
difficult to use the scientific method to check whether the specs actually
fit the implementation.  In some cases on proprietary OSes neither are
known so you're forced to reverse engineer the software, and for
complex systems that's too time consuming and expensive to do.

> I have a 4 year old Apple laptop that still does everything I need 
> with the latest version of OSX and I plan to upgrade to OSX Mavericks 
> when it comes out. That's pretty good, as I had a job when I bought it 
> and I am currently an unemployed artist working on his thesis right 
> now, so it's good this "sleek and sexy device" is not yet an "ugly, 
> unprofitable" one. As with anything, not everyone buys the newest one 
> every iteration and I can say, without any hardware issues whatsoever 
> so far, I got what I paid for.
> In any case, I've long thought of helping with the OSX compatibility 
> for Pd (updating GEM to Cocoa/64 bit for instance) but I honestly 
> don't have the time or support right now. Maybe next spring I can do a 
> "reverse kickstarter"?

It's probably a much better idea to just do a "Kickstarter". :)


> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika
> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com>
> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20131022/e1abea33/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list