site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com On Dec 3, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Stéphane Sudre wrote: -pmb _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.a... - if there's a bug in Installer.app on Mac OS X 10.2.8 (and I think there is one because even if there's a problem with the archive, the application shall not be crashing) when dealing with i386 architecture, how are you going to be able to distribute Universal Libraries with support for 10.2.8 on the PPC side? - if there's a bug in Installer.app preventing installing Universal Binaries on 10.2.8, you can't be compatible with 10.2.8 because people may not be able to install your package on 10.2.8. - if there's a bug in Installer.app on 10.2.8, is Apple able to release an update fixing the issue? But 10.2.x is End of Life. ... isn't it? So I would think Apple won't address this. Standard support has been n-1 which means 10.4 and 10.3 should support Universal Binaries and installers that deal with those. For 10.2.x users would have to upgrade their OS. Sound horrible? Well Microsoft does it too, but Microsoft gives you 5 years on an OS where Apple gives you 1 year so Windows 2000 is only going end of life next year when Longhorn / Vista releases. I have complained about the short lifetimes of the OS numerous times, but nobody at Apple cares. For Apple it's a $$ thing because they could have easily kept 10.3 until 10.3.whatever and added Spotlight and such but they didn't because making 10.4 meant that users would have to pay $$. How many years has OS X been around? And we've had 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and next year 10.5? This is simply insanity that `10.3 will be end of life next year. It's one reason why I will always pick Windows over a Mac for an Enterprise level application. Hardware lasts 3 years on our depreciation cycle. Should I have to upgrade the server OS even once in that span? With Apple I can get forced to do it twice if my timing is just right.. yey. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade anything. If you buy a Mac with 10.2.0, you get free updates to 10.2.8, and fixes for critical security issues. Your machine will work at least as well as the day you bought it, for as many years as the hardware can manage. If some new software comes out that requires 10.4, you can choose not to use that new software, or you can choose to buy 10.4. Why do you expect to get things of value for free? Presumably you "have" to upgrade to 10.4 because some other software requires it. Did you pay for that other software? Or, for this forum, perhaps you're the author of that new software that requires 10.4. Does your software require 10.4 because of Apple's investment in new technology? Should users get 10.4 (or it's features) for free, but still have to pay for your product? Personally, I would always choose the platform that makes the most advanced technology available to me and my customers as quickly as possible. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com