Is there anyone interested in Mac COCOA Port. I know that Mac's tend to have more graphical users, but not so technical. While I do like X11 Universal Appeal, it seems to lack that polish you want from a modern graphics app. While I know that going COCOA only, will limit use to 10.5 up and only, I feel that with 10.6 and the need for this to use 64bit tech, would be a good at least from a Mac user prospective. While I am more of a hardware/ legacy systems guy, (my history is supporting legacy systems that rival myself in age, but are still very powerful). I have been researching this for about a week now.

Apple's Developer Framework, XCODE, and the support site seem to have a good deal of documentation on this.



I am working on catching up on my programming after a 5 years of not really doing any at all in the C field, and transitioning to C Object.

I recently started to use inkscape for some projects. I find it very promising.


Please note, I am not trying to start an argument, nor offend anyone. Please keep the discussion on track, as I suspect this subject might be polarizing.

You are aware that GTK+ has a Quartz backend?

http://live.gnome.org/GTK+/OSX/
http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net/

I was not away are that project. Has anyone attempted this, and if so, any issues? Is there plans to incorporate this into the released packages for mac? I will work and see if I can get this to compile here over the next few days. If you anyone has some pointers please let me know.

pdlewis wrote:If you anyone has some pointers please let me know.

Did you do any research yet on Inkscape, what toolkit(s) it uses, about porting GTK+ applications to other platforms, ...? Inkscape's website + Wiki and the mailing list 'inkscape-devel' have been the two most important places where I had started to look for information and learn (besides GTK+ itself - but that's beyond my own skills).

Inkscape Wiki:
Compiling Inkscape on Mac OS X
Compiling Inkscape with native GTK using MacPorts [experimental]
Bug Reports about experimental Inkscape builds with GTK+/Quartz (some prefer to call it 'Inkscape Aqua' - but it's not really Aqua, it's a build based on the Quartz backend of GTK+)

Note I: The application bundle does not yet build on Mac OS X 10.6.x Snow Leopard (inkscape itself as command line application does) - the official packages for Leopard+ and the devel snapshots are currently built on 10.5.8.

Inkscape mailing lists:
Overview
inkscape-devel listinfo
inkscape-devel archives (gmane.org)

Note II: Personally I have no issues using applications like Inkscape and GIMP with X11/Xquartz on Mac OS X (10.5.8 still) - but I am aware that many Mac users do not like (to put it politely ;-) ). Forking a Cocoa app from Inkscape and completely rewriting the GUI while keeping up-to-date with the core inkscape development seems unrealistic to me, getting Inkscape builds with GTK+/Quartz fully functional and helping to improve the Quartz backend of GTK+ more important and rewarding in the end.

I am aware of some of the basics as this is primarily a linux based application. I find that the documentation for inkscape is still lacking, and seems to jump across several different themes of sites.

As I put the use of mac ports on the same level as X11 for a mac, as your run of the mill graphics person, or run of the mill user will not understand this, and it also makes it hard to adhere to Apple's interface guidelines.

I have definitely noticed the issues. I have my own issues with the X11 - OS X swapping. The reason I ask this all in the first place, as it seems that the frameworks for cocoa seem to have significantly more features, and can be 64 bits. I have done a good deal of work, using the current resources. I do not like the idea of having to use mac ports.

On the other hand, the the GTK-OS X project looks like it would do the best based on your earlier comment, and that provided me better search terms to got me going in the right directions.

Now me just thinking out loud, would it be possible to using just the command line version as the base, add on the COCOA GUI on top? From what I read the command line only provides basic functions, not the ability to do more advanced items, are those just not documented in the man pages, or is the ability not there?

From what I see in the forum, you (~suv) seem to be one of the more knowledgeable persons in this area. Are there any other persons who have experience in this area with Inkscape on the Mac.
As you mentioned above,

some prefer to call it 'Inkscape Aqua' - but it's not really Aqua

which is here I see resistance from others mac users on using this.

Thank you for your input though. I will study more of the code the dev guidlines more to get a better idea.

Thanks for the talk back, you have helped focus my ideas a lot better (better and smarter than talking to the wall, I am recovering from back surgery).

pdlewis wrote:As I put the use of mac ports on the same level as X11 for a mac, as your run of the mill graphics person, or run of the mill user will not understand this, and it also makes it hard to adhere to Apple's interface guidelines.

No, I think you misunderstand the relevance of MacPorts: Inkscape does not build on an out-of-the-box Mac OS X (with Xcode installed): a lot of the needed libraries have to be installed separately (as is necessary for building inkscape on most linux distributions too btw). With MacPorts you can install the dependencies (ports) with the +no_x11 +quartz variants to build and run Inkscape without X11/Xquartz (or - if you just install the default variants from MacPorts - build and run Inkscape with the X11 backend).
Building and bundling Inkscape on Mac OS X is certainly not intended for the normal user of the application. That's why Inkscape is provided as application bundle from sf.net. Alternatively a user could do a 'sudo port install inkscape' once she has MacPorts installed, sit back and let MacPorts take care of all the dependencies. The resulting application has the full feature set (but will not be bundled into Inkscape.app). The Wiki page about Compiling on Mac OS X describes a different route: using MacPorts for the dependencies but building Inkscape itself outside of MacPorts (made easy by the set of shell scripts in 'packaging/macosx').

pdlewis wrote:The reason I ask this all in the first place, as it seems that the frameworks for cocoa seem to have significantly more features, and can be 64 bits.

GTK+ is not limited to 32bit. Nor is Inkscape. The reason Inkscape.app is not yet available as 64bit Snow Leopard app is because the build scripts and the application launcher (based on Platypus) have not yet been updated - currently packaging is still done on OS X 10.5.8. It's more a lack of resources and time, but certainly not a limitation that could only be overcome by completely rewriting the application as Cocoa app.

pdlewis wrote:On the other hand, the the GTK-OS X project looks like it would do the best based on your earlier comment, and that provided me better search terms to got me going in the right directions.

Using the packaging and integration libraries from gtk-osx.sourceforge.net AFAIU would require to completely re-design and rewrite the current build and packaging process for the osx port of Inkscape, which is - again - mainly limited due to lack of resources, time and developers. The other question is how easily jhbuild could be integrated/work with the 'Autotools' build system currently in use to build Inkscape on linux/unix-based systems and with whatever build system Inkscape might deploy in the future (a topic recently discussed again on inkscape-devel). Installing GTK+ (and Cairo, Pango, etc.) with Quartz backend via MacPorts integrates well with the current setup (but - as being still experimental - not yet with the application bundling script or the 'Resources' tree for the app bundle and the launcher scripts therein).

pdlewis wrote:Now me just thinking out loud, would it be possible to using just the command line version as the base, add on the COCOA GUI on top?

No. The command line version is the same GUI application that you see when using Inkscape.app. What it lacks is 'bundling' - i.e. it is launched from the terminal, has no integration into the Dock and the Finder, cannot be relocated (drag'n dropped into any folder and launched from there) nor copied to another system. As I said before: from what I know and understand it is an unrealistic goal to rewrite the GUI in Cocoa and still keep up-to-date with the core development of Inkscape.

pdlewis wrote:From what I read the command line only provides basic functions, not the ability to do more advanced items, are those just not documented in the man pages, or is the ability not there?

The command line version just means the application is launched from the terminal - it is not a separate binary, but opens the full-featured GUI of Inkscape. I don't know where you could have gotten the impression that it only has "basic functions".

pdlewis wrote:As you mentioned above,

some prefer to call it 'Inkscape Aqua' - but it's not really Aqua

which is here I see resistance from others mac users on using this.

It's uninformed resistance IMHO and honestly - at least for me personally - demotivating. I do try to provide support for Mac users as much as I can - to get Inkscape running on their Macs and to navigate around the two known X11/Xquartz related issues (clipboard, keyboard shortcuts).

As for my own experience with building Inkscape from the sources on OS X 10.5.8: I do not provide any official packages but I build and update from the development branch (lp:inkscape) daily and work with those builds (packaged as Inkscape.app and - the same as the official ones - using the X11 backend), for bug triage, support requests and for personal use. I never built the GTK+/Quartz variant myself - but I have asked Wolf (he was the one who built "Inkscape Aqua" on Tiger, as described in the Wiki) to read and hopefully comment on this forum topic too.

Hi pdlewis - welcome to the crew!
Hi rest of the world… (-;

I'm the man mentioned - I did quite a lot play-around with building "inkscape-aquaish-style". I'm not a programmer, nor do I know anything about coding - I'm just quite stubborn and couldn't stop trying again…

As nearly all I know comes from fellow ~suv, I fully agree with him.

My impression (not really heavily influenced by knowledge) is there are two options:

(#1)
trying to completely rewrite inkscape code in Cocoa - giving a perfect Mac OS X integration in the end -
but loads the project with a overwhelming burden in the beginning, - or

(#2)
try to adapt incscape code to the GTK-OS X port - which will give a Mac OS X integration with a number of annoyances (which can partially be ironed out over the time), -
but has a quite small effort to begin with.

If inkscape had 100 Mac OS X developers available, soultion 1 would be nice - but would result in a completely independent project.
As the number of Mac OS X developers is very limited, I think the only choice is #2.

My experience with inkscape Mac OS X aquaish port on Tiger PPC is that it is quite useable, in fact I do most of my productive work (as a public transport consultant) using it. Experience on Leo is not as good, as far I remember.

Nervertheless to me it looks like a very limited number of easy-to-handle bugs in that solution #2. An experienced programmer should be able to iron them out in a couple of hours (well, this is no prognosis on the actual number of hours… (-;)

So, pdlewis - if you wish to get involved, I suggest you first have a look on my bug list first:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/~drechsel

Obviously the "aqua" related ones are the interesting ones.

Then have a look at

http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net/

and focus on "ige-mac-integration".

If you think you can do something about that, and really do, a lot of people - including me - will be very happy, and for sure we'll give any support we can - includes building and testing until CPU is under fire.

To continue, I'd be grateful to continue the discussion on the mailing list:

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Greetings,

Wolf

BTHW: I upgrated from Tiger to Leo these days - so I tried my Tiger aqua build on Leo now - works!

And I found, that I CAN open a second data file - if I had an empty file open and in front before. Nice!

Hi everybody,

as I upgraded my system to Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard", I tried a new build of inkscape for native Mac OS X - called "aqua". Building didnt cause a lot of trouble, daring fellows can get it here:

http://verkehrsplanung.com/Inkscape-r9689-10.5+-PPC.dmg

Attn.: It ist PPC only - dont waste your time if you have an Intel machine.

I couldnt do a lot of testing - but it looks as if it works quite nicely, but most of the well-known aqua bugs are maintained.

I'll continue praying every bedtime for a mac developer to care for inkscape aqua … (-;
I think that it is an extremely rewarding challenge.

Greetings,

Wolf

I'd like to weigh in on this.

As a Mac user and artist with 20 years' experience, what I value in software tools is:

Capability

Stability

Speed


I expect a modern software application to have a helpful, easy-to-use interface. This is not a matter of eye candy, or looking cool.

In my years of computer use, I get the idea that having a weak interface is a badge of honor for some who consider themselves "true" computer hardcores. But having sweated out my share of deadlines, I can tell you that a lousy interface is a real, practical impediment. Not an aesthetic one.

Pro Apps often feature a subdued, gray interface where the tools and dialogues all make sense in placement and behavior. You see very little, if any, interface whiz-bang. Exceptions include the animated cables on the back of Reason's racks, and Pixelmator's various animated interface features.

Mac users, to my knowledge, don't require things to be all purty, but the Mac Interface set the bar 25 years ago, and we do expect developers to hit or at least aim for these high values.

Since I am not a programmer, I don't know whether "branch" or "split" is better for achieving the ideal I've described.

I should add that I find Inkscape's interface to be good to decent. some of the issues for me, are matters of scale and adjustability. Some things, like dialog boxes or palettes are simply too big, as are the controls on those palettes. It's almost like it's designed for people wearing coke bottle glasses, or toddlers.

Inkscape really delivers the goods in tools and stability. Mac users see a speed hit in apps requiring X-11, so I personally would like to see a native Inkscape for this reason.

i

InkCat wrote:I'd like to weigh in on this.

As a Mac user and artist with 20 years' experience, what I value in software tools is:

Capability

Stability

Speed


I expect a modern software application to have a helpful, easy-to-use interface. This is not a matter of eye candy, or looking cool.

In my years of computer use, I get the idea that having a weak interface is a badge of honor for some who consider themselves "true" computer hardcores. But having sweated out my share of deadlines, I can tell you that a lousy interface is a real, practical impediment. Not an aesthetic one.

Pro Apps often feature a subdued, gray interface where the tools and dialogues all make sense in placement and behavior. You see very little, if any, interface whiz-bang. Exceptions include the animated cables on the back of Reason's racks, and Pixelmator's various animated interface features.

Mac users, to my knowledge, don't require things to be all purty, but the Mac Interface set the bar 25 years ago, and we do expect developers to hit or at least aim for these high values.

Since I am not a programmer, I don't know whether "branch" or "split" is better for achieving the ideal I've described.

I should add that I find Inkscape's interface to be good to decent. some of the issues for me, are matters of scale and adjustability. Some things, like dialog boxes or palettes are simply too big, as are the controls on those palettes. It's almost like it's designed for people wearing coke bottle glasses, or toddlers.

Inkscape really delivers the goods in tools and stability. Mac users see a speed hit in apps requiring X-11, so I personally would like to see a native Inkscape for this reason.

i

I couldn't agree more here, I'm a graphics designer myself and recently started with inkspace (which reminds me corel draw a lot to be honest and that helped me to get used to it).
The interface as is does not hold me back (well customized shortcut keys can help), but when it comes to use it on mac (for now only on my macbook, but I plan to switch platforms on desktop soon) I had a lot of drawbacks.
Mostly is that the X11 interface need some "magic tricks" to make the opt key to work and I didn't made it, just messed up everything (even if I'm a long term windows and linux user, I just can't get used to ctrl, maybe it is where it is placed in macbook and I keep pressing the "fn" button).
I could really love some native port, I'm not sure where this goes in voting here, but I would like to see the menus, where native apps have em, next to the apple. I value space in my screen to much.

Anyway I just give my 2 cents here, I can not help with programming at all. I hope someone can do it.

Inkscape has to make the move to OSX sometime X11 interface just doesn't cut it on OSX. Books are being written on Inkscape but still no true Mac port :'(

Inkscape without X11 would be perfect! I always press cmd+z to undo and realize now I have zoom tool activated! With X11 is usable, but could be better! I'm also artist and know nothing about coding...

As a developer I can say with 100% certainty that a Cocoa port will not happen. There is no point in maintaining a separate version of Inkscape that uses a platform-specific API for its user interface. The only way to a native OSX Inkscape is to improve the Quartz port of GTK.

Tweenk wrote:As a developer I can say with 100% certainty that a Cocoa port will not happen. There is no point in maintaining a separate version of Inkscape that uses a platform-specific API for its user interface. The only way to a native OSX Inkscape is to improve the Quartz port of GTK.

well...that seems to put the kibosh on that...

Let me tack on some more thoughts..I don't want to express fatalism on this subject...

I have no idea whatsoever what it's like to develop an application. My code efforts are limited to HTML/CSS, and that's not even close to writing an application. So, I can't say if it makes sense to do this or that to an application, from the code/development side of things.

However, I do know what it means to an end-user whether or not a software tool does or does not work for them. I know what it's like to use a tool that was once great, then slowly swan dived into the pavement and is now full of bugs. I've been using Illustrator for 20 years, and I can honestly say that Inkscape is virtually on-par with illustrator as a creative tool.

this is not to say that Inkscape has all of the tools that illustrator has; it does not. but the way inkscape works in many ways is far...smarter, better thought-out than the way Illustrator works, despite illustrator's larger feature set.

I say this because many adobe users are getting fed up with the extremely expensive bug ware from adobe they're forced to use. I say "forced" because Adobe is the de facto standard for 2D, at least in the US...so...if you want to do graphic art, you're going to use Adobe products in the vast majority of jobs.

I do get the feeling that some employers or companies are getting a bit fed up, too...not in droves, but it used to be that you'd hear 0 dissent from the people who do the hiring and purchasing.. now, it's shifting. And, as the economy continues to take its time "recovering," shelling out for 10, 20, 50 seats' worth of licenses every year or two has got to be chafing somebody's loins.

My point is that writing Inkscape to run natively on OS X might entail more work for the developers (who've already clearly done LOTS of work) but in the interest of gaining acceptance and a larger user base, doing just that would be a smart move.

One argument is that it's only a matter of time before "everything goes PC anyway.." so you might as well simply write for PC, port to Mac, and call it done.

I've been hearing this "everything's going PC" for 20 years. Macs still rule in print...in fact, their position in print is stronger than ever owing partly to the fact that they also excel in many other authoring arenas as well, and represent a cost-effective "one-stop shopping" solution. This is not a slight against PCs; rather it's an affirmation that the Mac is a platform worth writing for.

thank you


inkcat

I would really like to see a native OS X implementation of Inkscape. Has any progress been made?

Not that I know of, sorry.

It feels like Gimp and Inkscape remain firmly in Linux and Windows land, with a half-nod to OS X via X11.

Blender is the only significant open source app which runs natively in OS X and it is a stellar app. Works as well in OS X as on any other platform it supports, and I hope that it serves as a model for other open source apps as far as showing what can be done.

InkCat wrote:Blender is the only significant open source app which runs natively in OS X and it is a stellar app.

Natively? Hmm, Blender uses its own GUI toolkit (based on OpenGL) - it doesn't "fit" into the 'Aqua' look and feel either (admittedly, it does not require X11 on OS X ;) ). But Blender has a unique history…

InkCat wrote:I hope that it serves as a model for other open source apps as far as showing what can be done.

You think developers wouldn't know? Please reread the earlier comment by one of the most active developers Inkscape currently has. To achieve any progress in providing Gtk+/Quartz-based stable builds, Inkscape needs additional developer(s) familiar with Gtk+, OS X/Quartz and packaging relocatable osx-apps, who are willing and able to help with fixing quartz-related upstream issues as well as those that need to be addressed in Inkscape's code base itself.

It's not the case that the Inkscape project isn't aware of the requests & complaints from users on Mac OS X - at the same time it makes sense (at least to me) that the scarce resources of the small team of active developers are spent in improving Inkscape's core features.

~suv;

you are right to bring up the GUI aspect, as it's an important point. and I would never say that "native" means "looks the same." Gimp offers themes which make it look OS X-ish, yet requires X11 to run on a Mac (not counting the "native" experimental aqua gimp)

Yet, Blender requires no X11 and runs as natively as any other app I use which readily launched within OS X.

I have some apps which don't look especially OS X-ish, such as Final Cut Studio and Reason..yet they work great, are speedy and stable and launch readily within OS X.

Not having the programmers and resources to develop an OS X-native version of Inkscape is certainly a resoundingly good reason not to do it and we can all relate to that...I would go so far as to say that it's impossible to overstate the importance of having money and programmers to advance development.

InkCat wrote:I have some apps which don't look especially OS X-ish, such as Final Cut Studio and Reason..yet they work great, are speedy and stable and launch readily within OS X.

You seem to imply that X11 backend of Gtk+ causes Inkscape to be slow and unstable on Mac OS X. I still have to see prove of this. Most performance- and stability-related issues (or bottlenecks) in Inkscape (as well as related bugs triggering crashes) are cross-platform and do not depend on the backend used for the Gtk+ GUI part:

• deficiencies in Inkscape's internal renderer [1]
• lack of multi-threading/support of multiple cores
• rendering of SVG filter effect (including blurs)
• handling of large or complex files
• font loading at launch time
• …

i.e. Windows builds using the Windows-backend of Gtk+ are equally affected even though they do not run under X11. Secondly - in my experience (from testing various files / test cases submitted to the bug tracker causing crashes when loading or exporting to PNG in Inkscape on Windows) - Inkscape running on a Mac under X11/Xquartz is more stable and less affected by memory-management issues than Windows builds, especially when loading large PDF or SVG files, or exporting e.g. OpenStreetMap tiles to PNG.

Platform-related (osx) performance-limiting factors I'm aware of:

• building: the compiler used on Leopard for the official packages doesn't support enabling threads (OpenMP) for rendering Gaussian blurs (works with the 32bit official Windows packages and on most linux distros)
• packaging: we don't have 64bit pre-built packages yet because the packaging is done on Leopard and the packaging process hasn't yet been ported to Snow Leopard

Aside from the know lack of desktop integration (menu bar, keyboard shortcuts, drag&drop onto canvas, clipboard <-> pasteboard, font system), would a GUI similar to e.g. this one [2] ease some of the critics which dismiss Inkscape based on 'requires X11' or 'looks ugly'?


[1] the switch to cairo as internal renderer as planned for 0.49 is expected to improve performance
[2] that's just me tinkering with icons and gtk themes (on Leopard) - on this screenshot mimicking Blender 2.56a - not part of the official Inkscape.app

~suv wrote:Aside from the know lack of desktop integration (menu bar, keyboard shortcuts, drag&drop onto canvas, clipboard <-> pasteboard, font system), would a GUI similar to e.g. this one [2] ease some of the critics which dismiss Inkscape based on 'requires X11' or 'looks ugly'?

I can't speak to the platform issues you raise..that is simply outside of my skill set. I do know that any version of Illustrator I use on any of my machines is markedly faster than any version of Inkscape. I don't know why; I simply observe that it is. I wouldn't say that Illustrator is hands down a superior tool; Inkscape rivals Illustrator in many areas. Illustrator is simply faster on my machines. Same comparison can be made by me on Photoshop versus Gimp.

As for the interface, I feel that Inkscape has some issues, one being that certain things like palettes and dialogue boxes could make a much better use of space. I don't know that inkscape needs to "look cool" — for some, that's probably an issue, but for people who are doing real work, the "coolness" of the interface is of zero importance compared to how well the interface helps them to work.

It can not be over-emphasized how different these two ideas are.

A good interface helps work to flow easily. things are located in a way that makes them easy to get at without obliterating other things, and helps work get done with a minimum of steps and gyrations.

You see "Pro" interfaces in a couple of different color schemes: predominantly white, and predominantly gray. I prefer gray. I don't like to be blasted at by a 2-square foot light all day. gray softens the impact for me.

InkCat wrote:I do know that any version of Illustrator I use on any of my machines is markedly faster than any version of Inkscape. I don't know why; I simply observe that it is.

I simply tried to raise the point that this does not have to be due to Inkscape running under X11 on OS X (lack of performance is a general complaint about Inkscape on all supported platforms), or that Inkscape would be as fast as Illustrator on Mac OS X if the GUI part was osx-native.

InkCat wrote:As for the interface, I feel that Inkscape has some issues, one being that certain things like palettes and dialogue boxes could make a much better use of space. I don't know that inkscape needs to "look cool" — for some, that's probably an issue, but for people who are doing real work, the "coolness" of the interface is of zero importance compared to how well the interface helps them to work.

It can not be over-emphasized how different these two ideas are.

A good interface helps work to flow easily. things are located in a way that makes them easy to get at without obliterating other things, and helps work get done with a minimum of steps and gyrations.

Agreed. Improving the user interface is not related or bound to porting Inkscape to a native (Cocoa-based) app: the user interface (and it's impact on the workflow) concerns core features of Inkscape and if addressed/improved, it should be done for all supported platforms equally well.

[Edit]
Sorry, enough of trying to make X11 appear only a minor nuisance for Mac users - I'll shut up now ;)
Hopefully we'll see some progress for 0.49
[/Edit]

InkCat wrote:As for the interface, I feel that Inkscape has some issues, one being that certain things like palettes and dialogue boxes could make a much better use of space. I don't know that inkscape needs to "look cool"…

and Let me be clear that after making the above comment, in no way do I convey the sense that Inkscape is some sub-par application.

on the contrary, I feel that it is leapfrogging Illustrator. Back in the day when the battle was between Illustrator and Freehand, Adobe had a force to keep them honest and growing. With that mainstream software battle having been won in Adobe's favor, we all suffer.

Enter Inkscape. The only other *real* contender in my experience for the Vector Crown. And Inkscape is not merely an "other" application. Inkscape can show even Adobe some new paths to follow. My money is not on adobe; they're too much like microsoft, acting as the 800 pound gorilla, thinking that they alone define what 2D should be.

As I discover the "inkscape way" of doing vector, I think to myself; "Why didn't adobe come up with this 15 years ago!???"

Answer? they're too fat, too rich, too entrenched, too self-satisfied.

As in nature, when a niche is unexploited, some organism comes along and fills that niche.

This is how I view Inkscape. I feel lucky that it even exists.

icat