Re: The real fault for this wasted work lies mostly with Kaleidoscope
I think I came on too strongly there, and I didn't articulate myself well (it must have been a bad hair day, I apologise belatedly!).
I disagree with your analysis of the situation though. I can't see how it's possible to hold Kaleidoscope or it's authors responsible for a situation that I can only see as laying at the feet of Apple.
Whether you agree with Apple's consistant user interface policy or not, they do vocally oppose 3rd party theming of OS X though they are not overly obstructive about the process to the point of trying to prevent users from actively realasing software to do it, they have no interest in keeping consistant API's or documenting changes, making such a product very difficult to support and requiring time and effort and a new version on every major release (something which users of Kaleidoscope would no doubt tire of too).
I don't think the developers of Kaleidoscope are realistically able to continue support and development of the product given Apples stance with OS X and their strong desire to reserve management of the UI to themselves.
I'm sure that the authors would support and release Kaleidoscope (as other authors have done in migrating other shareware products to Mac OS X) if they felt it was viable, but I can see why they think it's not, and I agree with them and that this is because of decisions taken (rightly on wrongly) only by Apple.
The real fault for this wasted work lies mostly with Kaleidoscope
"The real fault for this wasted work lies mostly with Kaleidoscope"
It is not this programs 'fault'. That's quite a ridiculous comment to make.