RouteConverter and Mac OS X

[routeconverter]

I did further tests, especially on OSX, and it works very well.
I did a few tests on Linux, that version also works well, but I did not test that one extensively.

Thank you for your help! I get reports that some Windows setups lead to problems with the new code. If that is fixed, it's time for a new release.

[kenderman3]

Thanks for all the replies! so helpful!

[Gerwin]

Shouldn't you mention this on your website instead of presenting it as fully developed and tested software?

Hi Gerwin,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment, RouteConverter is alpha-software. If its in some state, then it's in constant flow. After 40 releases its conversion-core is pretty stable, the stability of the platformspecific UI parts nicely correlates with the spreading of the platform and the feedback I get: Windows is very good, Linux a bit behind and Mac OS X is basically a pet project from Harry and me.

Remember that this is open source software, not commercial software: it doesn't cost a dime and I lives from feedback and user engagement. If you don't like it, try something else. If it doesn't work, help to make it work. Its simple like this: if your platform represents a tiny niche, you need engaged users that are willing to spend their time helping other users. Most Linux users understand this. Most Mac users seem to forget this.

But Christian, I really don't mean alpha/beta status as some kind of criticism or that it's some kind of 'lesser' software. I just mean to say that to get people to realise that Routeconverter is in a constant state of flow, you could call it alpha or beta. That way, people would understand that it may work or may not work, and that improvements may be on the way.
A lot of opensource software is an a constant state of beta.
But never mind, it was just a suggestion. It's your software and you're doing a great job. Keep it up and thanks!

[routeconverter]

But Christian, I really don't mean alpha/beta status as some kind of criticism or that it's some kind of 'lesser' software. I just mean to say that to get people to realise that Routeconverter is in a constant state of flow, you could call it alpha or beta. That way, people would understand that it may work or may not work, and that improvements may be on the way.

Hi Gerwin,

thank you very much for your feedback. I've tried to write a few lines regarding this topic on the download page. Is that what you've meant?

[Gerwin]

But Christian, I really don't mean alpha/beta status as some kind of criticism or that it's some kind of 'lesser' software. I just mean to say that to get people to realise that Routeconverter is in a constant state of flow, you could call it alpha or beta. That way, people would understand that it may work or may not work, and that improvements may be on the way.

Hi Gerwin,

thank you very much for your feedback. I've tried to write a few lines regarding this topic on the download page. Is that what you've meant?

Looks good and very clear!

[routeconverter]

Yes, I do see that for the Mac version.

Hi Harry,

I've three reports now from Mac OS X 10.6.5 users that see the applet on the download page claiming the Java on their machine is 32-bits and when they download the 32-bit RouteConverter.app version, the Java that executes it via

exec java -XstartOnFirstThread -Xmx512m -jar $BASEDIR/RouteConverterMac64.jar

is 64-bit. To meet it seems that the Java Plugin in the browser is 32-bits while the default Java is 64-bits. Can you validate that? I've noticed you didn't want to have a 32-bit BrowserCheck4.jar so I guess you're using a 64-bit Java?

[routeconverter]

To meet it seems that the Java Plugin in the browser is 32-bits while the default Java is 64-bits.

Just as a note: on my 64-bit Windows 7 with 32-bit and 64-bit Java installed I see the same effect.

[hvdwolf]

OSX comes with a 64bit and a 32bit java version, just like windows.

The "java bit test" browser applet in your website is put on the wrong track in the browser.

If an OSX user uses Firefox, which is 32-bits, the 32bit java version will be used and your applet will show that OSX is running a 32bit java.
If an OSX user uses Safari (version 5 or newer), which is 64bit, the 64bit java version will be used and your applet will show that OSX is running a 64bit java version.

Your applet is "misled" by the browser. See images. Note that these are run on my macbook next to each other.

I'm affraid your applet is not trustworthy anymore.
The download page should just mention to download the 64bit version for OSX as the OSXes with 32bit javas are simply using a too old java version.

Sorry, I wanted to tell you this some time ago, but I completely forgot about it.

   

   

[routeconverter]

I'm affraid your applet is not trustworthy anymore.

Since 1.6.0_22 there is a dialog on Windows complaining about the missing root certificate of the Applet - do you mean that?

The download page should just mention to download the 64bit version for OSX as the OSXes with 32bit javas are simply using a too old java version.

Then it' s the best thing to remote the applet and the 32-bit download for OSX, isn't it?

Sorry, I wanted to tell you this some time ago, but I completely forgot about it.

Nevermind, as long as enough users download and use RouteConverter, I get enough feedback to discover bugs and problems... ;-)

[hvdwolf]

I'm affraid your applet is not trustworthy anymore.

Since 1.6.0_22 there is a dialog on Windows complaining about the missing root certificate of the Applet - do you mean that?

No, that's not what I meant. It has nothing to do with the java version. Your digital signature simply has expired on 23 January 2010.

What I meant is that your applet checks the java version via the browser, not via the OS. A jar that would run on the OS would probably give the correct result like you created some time ago when I asked to be able to check java version for the application.