NOTE: I was writing the below before the last few exchanges above (but I agree, lock it! Oh... and Selden, I think, in my short time here, you're doing a great job!
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:Isn't Mac OS X basically a pretty front end for a custom version of Linux now?
Yes, I guess so. And it is SUCH a pretty front end, 99.9% of the people who use have NO idea what goes on beneath the surface. The Mac OS GUI may be BASED on Linux... but, for all intents and purposes, to the people who use it... well, Linux who? Which is really a moot point anyway. In any case...
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:Anyway, you want to tinker with Celestia, that's great. But that's the key - you WANT to do it. I don't. I have other things to do with my time than spend it learning how to compile programs.
No, you are mistaken. I do NOT "want" to compile Celestia. Not in the slightest way, shape, or form. What I want - EXACTLY like you, it seems, is to:
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:get something that compares to the latest versions of the program
...and kudos to you for going on this board and asking for it. However, a cyber hand-slap to you for responding to this:
hank wrote:The new Celestia code isn't ready yet for a general, non-development release intended for the masses... the recent prerelease versions now available for Linux and Mac users are strictly experimental, development builds... I would much prefer to see Chris devote the time he has to implementing Celestia enhancements that will benefit all users, rather than wasting his time and talent building prereleases for Windows users.
...with, essentially, this:
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:Either you want this program to be used and accessible by a lot of people (who use the OS that is a lot more popular than Linux or Mac OS is) , or you want it to be stuck in the much smaller realm of those people who know how to program.
...like it's Hank's job (or ANY of the developers' jobs) to make sure every single nightly build of Celestia is available for end-users. I mean, Hank wrote, "The new Celestia code isn't ready yet for a general, non-development release intended for the masses". What could be clearer than that?
Yet you still wrote:
EDG wrote:What I don't understand is why these more advanced prereleases that apparently have been worked on for the past year are available for Linux and Mac sides but not for Windows.
He explained it, others have explained it - but you keep seeming to miss the point. So I'll try one last time.
A) The incremental builds are not ready for masses (yes, there were SOME prelease builds and those WERE ready for the masses... not all of them are, however)
B) It is a waste of time and resources (in short supply in the open source world) to MAKE EVERY BUILD ready for the masses. Six prereleases were released.
C) Aside from the waste of resources, it is confusing enough when trouble-shooting and reporting bugs to discern between 1.32 and 1.4pre6 - can you just imagine how impossible it would be if there were builds EVERY TIME new code was uploaded to CVS?
D) The Linux and Mac unofficial pre-releases are available because individual END USERS just like you (actually, I'm NOT just like you... I've read your posts - you know a helluva more about this crap than me) took the time to make their own builds, in their own time
completely outside the regular development world of Celestia.
You might want to re-read that italicized bit again.
EDG wrote:Surely someone can bring the Windows version up to speed?! Unless I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about how the development process works?
Yep... if you want it, that someone is YOU. That's how the development process works.
And, I gotta be honest, if you are such an end user, who has no time or inclincation to learn how to build your own Celestia, then one might also infer you probably have no business using such unofficial software because...
beta software IS NOT for regular old, plug and play, end-users.It is for more advanced users. The official pre-releases that the developers have kindly (KINDLY) made available to us are buggy enough. The unofficial versions that I have been compiling... are potentially even worse.
And, since, as you pointed out, my guess is the developers DO...
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:want this program to be used and accessible by a lot of people
...then the last thing they'd want to do is release versions NOT READY FOR THE MASSES and risk giving Celestia a buggy, bad name.
Final Point: You and I - as completely non-professional
are in no position whatsoever to judge what IS ready and is NOT ready. That is completely up to the developers, right? Or.... no? You know better than they do? And if you do, we're back to square one... which then is why aren't you just compiling your own version again?
Bottom line, you are asking for something understable but that is above and beyond what developers ought to be providing. Yet you see others getting (of their OWN steam) and, for some reason, are now trying to justify why the developers ought to provide YOU with the same candy. But....
...is that really fair? Or is it... dare I say... lazy?
(just kidding, but I couldn't resist - perhaps I should have written an unjustified sense of entitlement...)
. Some of us are just irritated about your base attitude in this respect. It's the fact that you tend to make a philosphy about your desinterest in compiling, propagating slogans about "Windows end user culture" and the like.
