[flapjaxy]

I'm not sure I follow the criticism here. Is the issue that a paid product only supports Mac, or an open source project didn't build for multiple OSs?

If it's the first; I've seen tons of Mac only software due to the perception that it's a more lucrative platform. (Users are price tolerant for good products).

If it's the last; scratch your own itch. Since it's open source you can write the softer yourself. I'm not sure if this outlook is the diy zeitgeist I grew up in, or just being old. I'm curious if this is still a common belief.

[kaladin-jasnah]

Looking back, I could have phrased my original comment better, but my criticism is neither of those things. I'm just saying that as an open-source project that has an open-source specification, the author could make it clearer that an interested customer could buy one of these and write their own open-source Linux/Windows implementations as opposed to making it sound like "if you don't own a Mac, this product isn't for you."

Reading the comments, it looks like the author already made a command-line tool that might let the camera work on Linux; why not say that it's Mac-only but community support for other platforms based on the open nature of this camera is appreciated (and provide whatever links [eg. that command-line tool] that were mentioned in this forum)?

[davekeck]

Appreciate your thoughts.

In case it helps explain the wording: I went with "exclusively for Mac" because I intended it to be an in-group signal to Mac folks that the product is high quality and conforms to the norms of the Mac platform. In my experience, cross-platform GUI software usually doesn't conform to Mac software conventions (and IMO just kinda sucks by Mac software standards). So my wording is trying to convey that the software isn't your typical cross-platform Electron/QT/GTK app.

Anyway, would love to add Linux support, just trying to figure out if that's what I want to do with my life right now.

[TwoNineFive]

This is top comment for a reason.