Kind of a dark pattern to hide the license price (last line in the AppStore page -> in-app purchases). Should be really prominently shown on the "buy now" page.
Also the features page is garbage. Wall of text with fairly generic stuff while it's still unclear: Can it run Windows? Can it run Linux? Arm64, x64 or both? MacOS?
Your main competition is VMWare Fusion and Parallels. See what features they advertise, make sure you are better and cheaper. Currently it looks like a university project rather than a real product.
It is a webpage that was quickly put together. We are a small company and our focus has been on the product. You can run Linux and macOS currently. That is listed on the features page as well as the app store product listing.
There is no dark pattern, it is actually a problem with the way Apple allows developers to sell software on the Mac App Store. We don't have proper control over the process and thus end up with this convoluted purchasing system that is more geared towards subscriptions - which are the real dark pattern nowadays. We sell without any subscriptions - at a very fair price that is extremely competitive with other products. The old upgrade pricing model was a lot more fair to both developers and users and we are sticking to it. This is the only way to offer a free trial on the App Store without requiring a separate installation, which would be inconvenient for everyone.
Far from a university project - but your opinion is yours to keep. It is a shame you are so negative, as it really is a labour of love and a quality Mac app. In fact we have a lot of firsts here, no one has really done a lot of these things (snapshots, suspend & resume, proper dynamic resolution with retina support) with the new Apple framework yet.
Insteon isn't closed - it had an open and documented protocol and was supported by various software. It did not require "the cloud" either. The problem with Insteon is it was low quality hardware, not a very reliable protocol and there was a lack of good software.
The Russian state media are reporting lie after lie - see some of the real footage from the war that you can easily find anywhere online and compare to what they are reporting. You don't need to be an intelligence expert to see that the Russian media is spreading outright lies and propaganda. Stopping this propaganda is the right thing to do.
>> The Russian state media are reporting lie after lie - see some of the real footage from the war that you can easily find anywhere online and compare to what they are reporting. You don't need to be an intelligence expert to see that the Russian media is spreading outright lies and propaganda. Stopping this propaganda is the right thing to do.
> If they are such obvious lies then people will figure it out on their own - why do we need to censor them?
Enough people will be fooled, which is why they spread the lies. They're not stupid.
You're also kind of twisting the GP's meaning. He's not saying the lies are obvious on their face, but they're discoverable by a layman from critically comparing sources. However a lot of layman (most?) don't compare sources.
How do you know which is true? Are you just assuming Western sources are true and any contradiction is evidence of a lie?
This is reasonable to ask because Western sources have (also) been lying a lot, e.g. presenting photos taken last year as the Ukrainian president fighting on the front line today. So we have two lying groups and no obvious ways to figure out what's true. Occasionally you get lucky and e.g. reverse image search saves the day, but mostly, there's no way to detect lies.
> How do you know which is true? Are you just assuming Western sources are true and any contradiction is evidence of a lie?
RT and its friends have a pretty well documented history of deliberately and strategically spreading lies and disinformation (e.g. when MH17 was shot down, they sprung into action spreading all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories to obscure the Russian involvement). Western sources may get things wrong from time to time, but they're at least trying to get things right.
> If your app is made up of more packages and dependencies than you can audit then you're doing it wrong.
My current employer has a policy where every dependency needs to be part of the software BOM (except it's FAR more comprehensive than what passes as an SBOM in the industry, it's an excel sheet that goes into the double-letter columns, including, among many other things, a rationale for why you're using $thing) and signed off by legal (a process taking some time). It's kinda irritating to do, but it also opened my eyes how completely unauditable e.g. npm-based projects are. Not that I had a high opinion of npm before. The other day we had a thread here with a similar topic and someone said "No one knows how to do builds without the internet", someone else chimed in saying that Flutter (or some other framework) actually can't do offline builds; pip is actually somewhat similar, as PEP517 causes it to try and run for PyPI even when installing packages purely from a local source; this can be easily disabled though.
Those things are utter insanity to me. You have no control. You have no idea what code you're running now, let alone tomorrow. Your builds will never reproduce, and your CI is going to fail whenever some random cloud webshit goes down.
Same for VSCode btw. ... it's not even shared source.
I totally agree. I am bewildered by the large number of developers working in such blind, insecure environments. Entire tech sectors that grind to a halt when github does down. It is insanity.
We all talk about unit test coverage, end-to-end testing, hiring the right people (leetcode hell treadmill) all while we slide absolute crap in through the backdoor. It's Kafkaesque.
