Without counting Debian, I still think there's really no need at this point to support a PPC build for OSX. When I wrote "drop PPC support" in earlier emails, I was referring only to OSX. The code as it is now should compile just fine on Debian PPC since the only architecture differences as far as I know would be compiling for little endian versus big endian on Intel. I don't think there are any architecture specific assembly / function calls in Pd.
So in the end, dropping OSX PPC support helps in simplifying the build scripts at least. Again, I think there's really no need to host newer Pd OSX PPC binaries, just leave the last one there since anyone using it will be on a much older version of OSX anyway.
Also, do you have any references for the claim that the vast majority of OSX
users have moved away from PPC?
Thanks. Those are low numbers, but I'd imagine the number of PPC users isstill fairly high:http://www.statisticbrain.com/apple-computer-company-statistics/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 deeplypersonal when I first adopted it, it now seems simply to be a restatementof the scientific method for computer security, at a time when there havebeen revelations that show our computers really need to be as secure aspossible against attacks.I'd also point out that yours is a political stance. While I understandit, I must disagree with it because in terms of security it is much moredifficult to use the scientific method to check whether the specs actuallyfit the implementation. In some cases on proprietary OSes neither areknown so you're forced to reverse engineer the software, and forcomplex systems that's too time consuming and expensive to do.
--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika