Re: bigger, sexier, more phly debian...
email@example.com (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 17.04.96 in <m0u9fZ6-00027eC@lot49.med.miami.edu>:
> In message <672$d1RjcsB@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen writes:
> >firstname.lastname@example.org (David L. Johnson) wrote on 16.04.96 in
> >> <317448BB.386D78EB@lehigh.edu>: Apple's approach was similar, and I
> >> understand that in order to write for the Mac you have to conform to
> >> their interface standards. But, I would not consider that a role model
> >> to emulate.
> >"You had to", in this context, means that you would be scolded, nothing
> I believe it was more than that---Apple would not extend certain sorts
> of support to programs that did not conform, would not allow creators
> of non-conforming apps to participate in certain deals.
Maybe, but I never heard of any particular such things, so I wonder. And
it certainly never stopped a certain, well-known software house from
ignoring every rule they wanted to, with predictably abysmal results.
> This was back in th edays when Apple did developer support worth a
> damn, of course.
Well, their developer support seems _far_ above average today. I certainly
currently know of nobody else that can match, for example, their excellent
documentation. That's something I wouldn't mind seeing, for example, on
Linux. Yes, I do understand that most people don't like writing
documentation - me too.