Well, I wonder ... how about the other way around? How easy/difficult would it be to port OS X apps to Linux OS? I've heard nothing about this.
Now why would anyone want to do that? I know I risk incurring the wrath of 99% of the people here, but I really believe that OS X sucks. I figure if I'm forced to use a UNIX shell, then I may as well use UNIX that actually works properly (aka Linux) and costs significantly less (like FREE). I have limited experience using Linux, but it's more than enough experience to know that it's a hell of a lot faster than OS X. And who needs that CPU-wasting, IDIOTIC LOOKING candy-colored, Windoze clone interface?
So I figure if there's a way to port FCP 3 to Linux, why should I bother with OS X at all?
Before you flame me, no, I don't do Windoze - and I'd much rather use OS X before I'd ever touch another Windoze machine. I suppose that OS X may one day work as it's supposed to do, but I still think Apple blew it big with this move, tossing aside the easiest to use and by far the most elegant OS ever made in favor of a UNIX shell that doesn't come close to Linux.
Until and unless OS X can -
1) Run at least as fast as OS9 (let's admit it - OS X should never have been released in such an elephantine, incomplete state)
2) Allow one to TURN OFF that horrible eye candy and allow us to regain use of our CPUs for, I don't know, running apps.
3) Properly support apps and hardware
4) KILL THE DOCK ONCE AND FOR ALL (I loathe this thing almost as much as I hated the M$ Office Animated Paperclip)
- I refuse to touch it.
Yes, I'm still happily running OS 9.2 and will continue to do so until it's been rendered obsolete by Apple (which should happen any day, given their Draconian support policies). And when the day comes that I am forced to make the switch to a new OS, if OS X isn't significantly improved, I'm going to Linux.