[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Universal binary support for Mac OS X

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:05:47AM +0100, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> On 05/02/2006, at 16.02, Rich Felker wrote:
> 
> >BTW, do mac developers really consider their users so stupid that they
> >can't figure out which binary to download, and that they need to waste
> >twice the download time and disk space to make sure they have the
> >right binary? If so I find this really insulting to users, and sad..
> 
> This has nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with  
> usability.
> 
> When designing software that targets specific users, it's generally a  
> good assumption that anything the user wants to do is "right", or at  
> least the user should want to do "the right thing". Anything which  
> makes the user suddenly become aware of technicalities or  
> requirements of the system, is unacceptable. This is called  
> usability, and is target of a lot of scientific research, just like  
> the math and DSP algorithms used in FFmpeg.
> 
> Imagine the following use case scenario:
> 
> A user downloads a copy of an application, e.g. VLC, to his work  
> computer, e.g. an x86-based Mac. The user then transfers this  
> application to his home computer, e.g. a PowerPC-based Mac, which  
> isn't connected to the Internet.
> 
> With universal binaries the user just downloads the updated VLC,  
> without them, the user would have to choose which copy to download,  
> and would have to have different copies of the application to run on  
> different systems. Your assumption that the system to which a file is  
> downloaded is the same as the system to which is intended is not  
> always fulfilled.
> 
> Another scenario:
> 
> A user downloads VLC and installs it in the home directory in the  
> campus computers. Being a properly setup computer network, this home  
> directory is shared among all Macs on the network; both the fancy new  
> Intel-based ones and the older PowerPC-based ones.
> 
> Without universal binaries, the user would have to have separate  
> binaries for the Intel Macs and PowerPC Macs, and would be forced to  
> verify the architecture of the current computer before doing anything.
> 
> Both these scenarios require the user to obtain knowledge and do  
> things the developer could have dealt with.
> 
> Simply doubling the space used for binaries isn't all the big a  
> problem: OTOH it allows you to have only one copy of non-binary  
> application-related data ? which often takes up far more space than  
> the binaries do. It's just like having a massive GUI library  
> installed; it takes up a shitload of HD space, but it's acceptable  
> considering the benefit to the user.
> 
> In general, I would suggest that you try not to make too many  
> assumptions about the needs and knowledge of Mac users. You cannot  
> extrapolate your own experiences to people who are far less skilled  
> in computer usage than you are, and have absolutely no interest in  
> attempting to reach a skill level comparable to yours.
> 
> Indeed, if the needs of Mac users were the same as yours, the would  
> probably be running the same OS as you. They aren't, so they  
> obviously do not share your priorities. And that is in no way  
> insulting to neither them nor you.
> 
> Pretty much any Mac application using FFmpeg will want to have a  
> universal copy of FFmpeg. VLC being a prime example. Handbrake being  
> another.
> 
> IMHO you're remarks are needlessly inflammatory. There's no reason to  
> suggest that I or others consider users "stupid". It's just that the  
> average Mac user and the average Linux user are very, very different.

Well spoken.

I had not considered that many Mac programs don't need installation, but
can just be copied from machine to machine.

Anyway, let's see the patches and drop the senseless flaming please.

Diego