Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM, James Cornell <sparcdr at sparcdr.com> wrote:
>
>> Calum Benson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 12:18 -0700, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Except:
>> >>
>> >> a) Thunderbird is more widely available on other platforms (windows/OS
>> >> X) and so I would say it's got a far greater following.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ("More widely installed", perhaps, but Evolution works fine on both
>> > Windows and OS X as well.)
>> >
>> > Cheeri,
>> > Calum.
>> >
>> >
>> I hardly call a bad port using X11/GTK+ on OSX a worthwhile client. I
>> know of NO users that like how GIMP works on OSX, so why would kludge
>> non-consistent, memory gulping poopy be better? Evolution is alien,
>> non-native, not integrated, memory hungry, buggy, and inconsistent on
>> OSX, and I'm sure it's only slightly less of stinky cheese bait on the
>> Windows side, which at least has a native GTK+ port. Most the
>> engineers, if not all specialize in X11 integration, it's not good
>> enough to just port it and expect people to eat it up like it's
>> candy-coated dogfood, it's still dogfood complete with alien probe and
>> meteor to UNIX non-users.
>>
>
> I've heard the same said about all of the Mozilla foundation's apps on
> Mac OS X as well.
>
> So, it goes both ways ;)
>
>
>
Yeah, but at least they are making an active attempt to make it more
integrated/native with Firefox 3.0. At least they use an Apple
supported framework too, albeit Carbon.
Carbon apps typically smell of high CPU usage, Cocoa of high memory
usage, and GTK of kludge and stinkbait.
James
