Slashdot Mirror
Apple Open Sources OS X?/Jobs Permanent CEO
sudama writes "This report claims that OS X will be completely open source, 'like the popular Linux operating system.' " This is pretty fresh from someone hearing Job's keynote at Macworld, so don't plan your life around this or anything. They've been planning on releasing the core for some time now. The question is how much of the OS will be released. under an open source license.A lot of people have been writing with the word that Steve Jobs, surprise, surprise, has dropped interim from his title. Yes, Dict-er-CEO-for-Life Jobs is back.
And it's an incredible development environment! Makes the Java libraries look absolutely primitive in comparison.
He said all; maybe it's all! Abandon Linux! Head for OS X! The UI is already done!
The blurb you quoted is somewhat untrue. The author of the ubiquitous Linux vid player has been including binary only codec modules for some time. THAT is not the problem.. A suitable framework is already there; the people who control the formats (Apple and others) just aren't interested in cooperating with Podlipec (or others).
Well, if Micr$oft really wants to kill off linux, they should open source Win2k because then we would all die laughing.
That may be; I'm not a programmer. But the text-based protocol can obviously be made to work, if not very efficiently. You could certainly write something better than TiK that used TOC; I'm sure Gaim is better than TiK but still not as good as it could be (I don't know; I haven't bothered installing Gaim yet).
What are the limitations of the TOC protocol? What doesn't it allow you to do, or is it just annoying to work with? I'm curious.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I think somebody's on crack. Mac OS X is essentially a GUI and a bunch of tools and apps that run on top of Darwin, which is open-source (see http://publicsource.apple.com/). It should be possible to port Darwin to run on non-Apple PowerPC systems, and then run the rest of Mac OS X on top of that, thus paving the way for the return of Mac clones (except done right this time, not under Apple's control, with no licensing that Apple can suddenly pull if they want).
But no, the entirety of Mac OS X will not be open-source. You can port Darwin to x86, but since the GUI and other apps are PowerPC binaries only, you can't port the rest of it. First, they couldn't open everything because of licensing from third parties, but second, it doesn't make sense for them. They want to make money, and selling Mac OS X is a good way to make money.
However, I do expect them to open up more and more components (QuickTime is one I'd like to see). The beautiful thing about that is, since using open source software (and releasing the source code to your modifications and derivatives as required by the license) is so contrary to Microsoft's business model, by opening components such as QuickTime (which is free anyway) they let Linux/*NIX users have it, but Microsoft won't steal it.
Just like what happened with AIM and Microsoft Messenger: AOL made the TOC protocol and the open-source TiK client, so Linux users could play and be happy, but what Microsoft did is try to reverse-engineer and rip off AOL's proprietary binary stuff instead (which AOL then broke for them). Microsoft refuses to use anything open-source, which I think is hysterically funny.
Sorry for rambling aimlessly....
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Very definitely possible. The underlying OS is indeed a *NIX system. I'd say the biggest problem would be user interface, since Mac OS X doesn't use X Windows (thank God) but Linux and most other UNIXes do. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how hard it will be to port Mac OS X apps to X Windows. Probably not terribly difficult, though, I'd imagine.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Actually, although I never personally learned much of it, Apple provided a pretty decent command line interface in their MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Work(shop?) system. They did at least understand that programmers should have access to command lines, although it would have been better if it was csh/bash/tsh-like, so people wouldn't have to learn Yet Another Language to switch between the two.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
That's xanim, not the QuickTime for Linux project. Also, Podlipec can't get access to stuff like the Sorenson codec, because according to Sorensen, Apple won't allow them to license the codec to ANYONE else, even under NDA. Pretty sucky.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
No, MacOS X is not totally open source. The GUI and other higher-level stuff absolutely are not open source. There has been no change, it is still just Darwin which is open-source.
But some of you have got to stop criticizing Jobs and Apple for lying. It was shoddy reporting by the person who wrote the article, and a crappy post by Cmdr. Taco. Jobs never said that the whole OS was open source, and if Rob knew a damn thing about Apple he'd know that will never happen in a million years. The MacOS is the GUI of the MacOS. That is Apple's crown jewels. I hate to tell this to all you Linux users who were wetting your pants with glee at being able to steal the GUI(that is not flamebait, there is a post marked up saying that very thing), but it ain't gonna happen.
OTOH, the real new from today was what was announced and what wasn't.
All the new apple.com stuff is really great, and will be very attractive for new users and other ones. The child protection software sounds very promising, the mac.com e-mail address is good publicity, the free web space that integrates with the Finder could be very useful(especially if we could get more than 20 megs), and so are the other features like iReview and the free space for a home page.
In addition, the new UI for MacOS X, named Aqua, looks a little chessy/child-like but also looks to have some great features. I think it's a step in the right direction. Also, the fact that Mac users will finally have an advanced, buzz-word compliant OS is very exciting. Also, Jobs dropping the interm part from his title is good news for Apple and should be great news for the stock.
However, there is something that has been glossed over, and that is that there are no new machines. In case any of you have forgotten, the fastest Mac currently shipping is only 450MHz, and the prices are way too high. The G4 may be faster than the PIII and the Athlon, but it's not twice as fast. With Intel at 800MHz, Apple has a serious problem. No one here knows how serious, but I would bet people high up at Motorola, IBM and Apple do. What they know and we don't is when Motorola's new, 700MHz and over G4+s will actually be coming. Many Mac users have for a while been holding off the hordes of critical PC users with the claim that faster Macs would be here, now, at MWSF. They are not.
Apple looks to have the software part of the bargain all wrapped up, with MacOS X, Quicktime, the Internet integration and many new games and apps coming to the MacOS. However, if you start seeing games appearing that require 700MHz PIIIs or K7s to run, and Apple is still only shipping 450 or 500MHz G4s, I would suggest selling your Apple stock.
The fact is, this issue may be almost completely out of Apple's hands. If Motorola and IBM can't deliver, Apple is going to screwed. The only good choice left for Apple at that point would be to bail out on PowerPC and go to Alpha or x86(Alpha might be better because it would do something to differtiate between Macs and PCs). However, as I said, Motorola is working on much faster G4s, and they have demoed one at 780MHz. If they can ship them by Spring or so, Apple will be OK. But consider Motorola's recent record with delivering chips on time.
As a Mac user, I am now extremely worried about Apple. I will be buying a new computer in the late summer of next year, and I can tell you that, like other Mac users I've talked to, I will not buy a Mac if they are 1/2 the speed of a comprably priced PC.
But I very much doubt that Apple's going to Open-Source everything. It might Open-Source more than Darwin, but I don't think it'll do it all (or even as much as it even can).
My guess is that the author of this article misinterpreted what Jobs was saying. I suppose we can dream, though.
Back in reality, ZD writes:
Apple also unveiled Mac OS X, a new version of its operating system software, and said that its revamped Web site will include several new features such as iReview, a review guide, and iCards, an electronic greeting card site.
Greeting cards? I guess they could use it to generate advertising but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. Meanwhile, the stock is back up to $105 while the rest of NASDAQ keeps sliding. When it hit $50, I promised myself I'd buy as soon as slid back to $40!!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Also to be wondered is how QT will be "built in" and open-sourced... will sorenson codec make this transition? Perhaps... perhaps not.
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
The real trick is providing a command line interface, and yet convincing 3rd party developers that they really should develop apps with GUI use in mind.
Assuming they can do that, and developers don't slack off, this will be a very good thing. Command line tools, while not perfect for many things and many people, have a few benefits: automation being one of them. I hope Apple provides a full suite of tools, superior to their counterparts, that interoperate with the OS.
Another thing: The thought of scripting the OS using Perl is a cause for salivation. As it is now, Applescript integration with the MacOS is VERY powerful in this regard - I'm partial to Perl, though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Someone change this from 'flamebait' to 'informative'. Despite the somewhat inflammatory tone, what he says is correct. You can use multiple button mice with your Mac, and the other buttons can do things.
I would like to see 2 button mice become standard with the Mac though (3 goes away from the simplicity they're going for, but 2 is fine - 3-4 buttons can be assigned to macros, etc).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This is not a crazy idea. MacOS X Server will allow you to access a command line (tho' it tries to remove the need for one). I hope the Apple engineers & mgmt. team aren't stoopid enough to remove this from MacOS X Consumer. The minimum tool set you'd need (I think) would be make, gcc/g++, and possibly GNU binutils; some system headers and libs would be nice too. Then you could (in theory) be on your way. (Aside: I *think* a ported GNU suite is provided in the Server release; anyone care to clarify that?)
A big drawback for seamless Unix/Mac integration at the application level, though is the lack of X Widnows support in MacOS. Sure, you could run a freeware X server like MI/X, but it would be nice to compile an X Windows app on MacOS X and have it run on the Mac desktop, or to run MacOS X apps remotely via X Windows.
But all in all, the future is looking more promising for Apple's OS -- hope I get to see a port for my box (was a 604e, now a G3..)
-----
".sig,
That was a fairly accurate report of the expo keynote with the exception of the open source bit. Jobs merely reiterated that the core of the operating system, aka Darwin, is fully open-source. There lies the confusion, and underscores the need to double-check facts before posting a story here.
So, it's marketing, and it is a good move for /them/. It's not so hot that they're gonna piss off the developers they may be trying to recruit to help them out.
"Apple Couldn't right a decent OS if they tried."
Now, I happen to be the owner of an Intel Machine and a Mac, and comparing Windows and MacOS is a joke. In every aspect, MacOS is better looking, more convenient and more stable....in fact, MacOS is propably the best consumer OS out there. I use LinuxPPC and Suse Linux, each on my respective machines, and what I think the majority of Linux-frenzied Slashdot readers seem to fail to notice is that THERE IS NO WAY Linux can become a consumer standard. Just setting up Linux can be a major problem if you're a John Doe with little or no knowledge of computers. Therefore, I think making derigotary comments about MacOS is inappropriate, especially since you're propably a Windows user.
That comment of yours sure taught me never to underestimate human stupidity. Your comment was based on little or no knowledge, powered by ignorance. Apple makes excellent computers, excellent hardware and use superior processors. It's a shame the PPC isn't an industry standard. I wonder on what you base your assumption that Apple makes crap computers.
"Well, it's actually very simple. I sit down infront of a Mac. I try to use it. It's slow, annoying, and lacking a disk drive. I therefore exclaim loudly, "This computer sucks!" and go
about my business."
The MacOS may not make the utmost use of the great hardware Apple makes, but it is hardly "annoying" to any professional user. The lack of a floppy drive merely demonstrates that your computer use is obviously limited to out-dated and clumsy technology. If you wanted a floppy drive, you should have stuck with a Wintel box or gotten an external one. I presume you have an iMac....now, I am a developer for the MacOS platform, and I'll tell you this: The MacOS is an extremely developer-friendly platform, well suited to multitasking. I'm not too fond of the iMac, though....but then again, it's just an extremely successful Apple marketing ploy. If you want a real Mac, get a tower...like those tempting G4s.
And by the way, I find it inappropriate to present an ill-founded personal opinion to the Slashdot reader community....maybe you should vent your frustration on somebody else....=)
Personally, I think this reporter is on crack. I watched most of the keynote, and he did not mention this in the parts I saw. He did say that it had a BSD kernal, which was "the same thing" as Linux, and he probably said that Darwin would be OSS, but we already knew that. open sourcing the rest of their OS is simply not in their interest. They are going to make a lot of money selling OS X, and if they allow it to be used on non-Apple hardware, it eliminates one of the biggest advantages they have over the Wintel world. Someone could port the Apple UI to Intel hardware, and Apple can kiss their market share goodbye.
That page reads like a religious zealot's "These products are Evil, and these are Blessed" list. Not only should the believer not use the SCSL on their software, they should also avoid software that is published under it. I guess in the same fashion a "True Christian" avoids movies with Patric Duffy or Richard Gere, since they are evil, heathen buddhists.
I am quite thankful that I'm not associated with that cult that once upon a time actually had a point.
In August 1997, Microsoft signed a five-year commitment to support Macintosh versions of its software and has been pleased by the arrangment, Browne said ...
Well, when Office 2002 (which could be the last version for a while) finally ships for the Mac, the old MacOS will hopefully have been dropped. It would be beyond stupidity if anyone shipped a product at that point for a dead API.
I'll bet a six pack that all MS's development will be on Carbon, not Cocoa/YellowBox/OpenStep.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Yup, BSD is the historical choice from Next. I believe that BSD was also used when Mach was an academic project (worked on by several Apple/Next engineers), so the code is very stable.
Still, it should be possible to put a Linux subsystem on Mach, as that's what Apple did with MkLinux. The code is out there, so except for licence issues, someone will probably do it.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Apple really should provide LanMan / SMB support built-in, along with Novell and NFS support. Network interoperability has always been one the huge arguments against Macs in corporations, Apple has heard people bitch and has *never* fixed the problem (insisting instead that the NOS vendors emulate AppleShare on the server).
This is a long standing bitch of mine, ever since the old days when the AppleTalk NLM kept taking down my Novell 3.1 servers.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
it appears that he was only talking about the BSD kernel being open source, not the extenstions on top of it...
these extensions are what forms the 'consumer' and 'UI' basis of Mac OS X, namely:
Quartz - Postscript based 2d Graphics
OpenGL - 3D
Aqua - UI
Classic, Carbon, Cocoa - the API's...
etc...
but either way, this keynote rocks! The fact that apple is moving the kernel in this direction not as a consolation but because it will benefit everyone, is great to see...
I could be wrong, they could be open sourcing the entire thing, but I somehow don't see apple paying NeXT engineers to write a UI that everyone else can grab and use as they please...
my 2 cents, i see a long and bright future for apple...
and they haven't even announced the new hardware!
As far as some of the familar cli tools, ftp, telnet, ping, possibly Perl and GNU tools will be their. If you check out http://www.apple.com/macosx and check out the "Core" section it basicly says that Apache will ship installed (or optionally anyway) on every system, I assume to replace the current MacOS Personal Web Sharing. That's a pretty powerful replacement!
Adobe dropped Display Postscript. Who knows the exact reason why (other than it was only used by next and occassionaly sun).
Apple created a new Display Engine based on Adobe's PDF standard.
I doubt the UI will be completely open sourced, it might be community source (send your checks to steve).
What the user community need to the Damn IO Kit. A set of standard driver development code. Then one set of drivers could be developed for Linux, BSD and Apple OS's.
Would an open source MacOS allow the APIs to be ported over to other platforms allowing Mac binaries to run, say, on Linux like Windows apps can when run under WINE? That would be a great bonus. Or would the architecture limit this (i.e. WINE only works on X86)?
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Dict-er-CEO-for-Life Jobs is back. Dict is right!! Except that its supposed to be spelled with a "k" not a "t" :)
I bought a G4 Power Mac a couple months ago, and did not consider buying a different computer. Why? Photoshop, mainly. Sure, you can get Photoshop for Windows, but the Mac totally smokes Intel machines costing twice as much with this app. You'd have to be some kind of nut to buy anything BUT a Mac if you use Photoshop more than 20 hours a week.
As for Linux, I've tried the GIMP, and it's nice and all, but it falls far short of Photoshop in too many ways to even consider switching. Additionally, there is no FireWorks, no Flash, no GoLive, no After Effects, no Illustrator or Painter or equivalents on Linux.
Those are my pragmatic reason for choosing the Mac. The main reason I don't use Windows or Linux is that they are UGLY. Chrysler K Car ugly. The Mac is just gorgeous, like a Maserati Bora. Call me a snob for making aesthetics a deciding factor in my purchase if you like, the Mac OS simply the most refined visual user experience in computing today. This doesn't mean just pretty icons and desktop patterns; consistent metaphors, economy of form, effective communication, and careful proportion and layout make the Mac a delight to use, particularly if one's livelyhood concerns itself with these same issues, i.e. image making.
Choosing to interact with our computers in a visual environment rather than a textual one doesn't mean we are uninformed or brainwashed, just (sorry, but it's really appropriate) different.
The music is not in the piano -Clement Mok
Hello, Apple doesn't make the G4. Its done by Motorola and IBM. Apple is a partner (and the biggest buyer I think) but they didn't make it.
... ....
More to the point the G4 can run other operating systems. It makes no sense for Motorola to produce a chip that will only work for one client. I would suspect that IBm is starting to use G4's in there mainframe and workstation business.
What is more true is that apple was not very good about releasing the sepecs for both the G3 and G4 machines. Thus companies like Be have real trouble supporting them. But apple does work with some compaies (like linuxppc) to get there software to work. Linuxppc definetely works on apple G3 machines and somewhat works on newer G4's (development not quite stable).
One thing to look for in the near future is a spec for a powerpc box that IBM has released (for free I think). Slashdot I think ran a story about it.
Anyway some vendors are getting ready to produce some of these boxes. Should be cheap, industry standard, and hopefully very sweet. Linuxppc will work on it.
Also in reference to the general thread
Mac OS X looks really sweet. I really like linux (especially on intel) but give me some way of doing X in Mac OS X and I might even pay the money to buy a copy of X. It gives me all the apps I don't have in linux (but are coming), easy to admin, and all the power. But then it'll be another 6 months until we see the consumer version of X and linux moves so fast
By then we should have Xfree86 4, maybe kde 2 (and kde office), some new corel suite packages,
"Frequently updated tech news with a large portion of mostly informed opinion on the side. "
Haha, and check what they said about Drudge:
"Matt Drudge has bragged that he likes to go where the stink is. Something stinks, all right."
"Firstly, all of the X window managers that try to look like a NeXT are really pathetic, if you've ever seriously used a NeXT for any period of time. This is because there is much more to a good GUI than just the visual apperance of the widgets."
Sure, the apps need to be aware of the environment. This will come in time, with Mac OS X apps being ported to GNUStep and POSIX apps being made GNOME-aware.
"you still have X-Windows underneath, which is the worst GUI in the industry"
The X Window System (X-Windows does not exist) isn't a GUI. It is a windowing protocol and API set, and also the name of its reference implementation. The GUI is the window manager, in the case of GNUStep this is WindowMaker.
A GNUAqua coupled with GNUStep and apps ported from Mac OS X, NeXTStep, OpenStep or even adapted from Unix would be real competition. If GNOME won't make it all irrelevant first.
"You still have that horrible device-dependent display model underneath. OS-X uses Display-PDF..."
The X Window System is orthogonal to Quartz (the real name of DisplayPDF in Mac OS X). X Window does have a device-dependent display model, but it can be -- and is -- replaced by any other display model, by means of a plug-in module. In fact Sun Solaris and other Unices have been using DisplayPostScript for years to draw on X windows. The only reasons this is not used in XFree yet is that Adobe won't license DisplayPostScript for free, and the XFree group won't accept GPL'd software (GNU GhostScritp) in its distribution, so up to some months ago no one cared to begin a GNU DisplayGhostScript... but the FSF's GNUStep at http://gnustep.org./ is integrating GNU GhostScript into its project as a DisplayGhostScript (DGS), so it must be just a year or less before you can port Quartz apps to GNUStep running on any other Unix, GNU systems (Linux or HURD) or BSD.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
A new "Think Different" campaign will feature directors of the movie industry, such as Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, presumably because of the movie-making capabilities of the DVD iMacs.
I like Hitchcock and Kubrick, damnit.. Don't use them to sell Macs! That just pisses me off.. Let them rest in peace for crying out loud.. argh.. It was bad enough to use HAL to sell crap computers, but to use Kubrick himself is horrible.
OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system, with Quartz, Open GL and QuickTime all built in.
Sounds like the whole shebang is gonna be OSS. Of course, I'll believe it when I see it.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Total=3.
So it's Overrated Funny Flamebait? Heh.
I dunno if it was flamebait.. Troll maybe, but not Flamebait...
Ahh well. Just more proof the moderators are insane today.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Better than an X Window Manager based on the Apple source code, screw X altogether (it's old, tired, and needs to be retired) and redo the whole GUI system using Apple's source. As for an X86 port? Just use BeOS. It's everything MacOS wants to Be.
I found this quote kind of funny:
The coolest thing
sez Steve is the Dock at the bottom of the screen, always centered. When you minimize
a window it goes to the Dock. This is a feature similar to one in Windows, but looks
much better. (Well, what do you expect from the Apple designers, after all?)
Obviously the guy who wrote this had never seen a next at any point. The only difference I can tell is that it lies horizontal instead of vertical. Of course leave it up to Jobs to play the marketing spin doctor part that he does so well.
(this isn't a flame against apple by the way. I can't wait to play around with OS X myself.)
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
It's quite possibly that the TONE of your first post dictated flamebait. I dunno though cause I didn't moderate it.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
As long as they dont use motif for chrissakes I don't care about the interface. ;)
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
There is no way Apple would give up the crown jewels. If they were on the ropes, maybe, but not now.
I am going to put OSX on my box, but I will keep my LinuxPPC on my external. Just love that Penguin. I do believe TOP will be available in OSX. I also believe one can gain access to a terminal. I wonder if Xbill is hidden somewhere deep in its BSD soul?
photosMy Photostream
First things first, Mac OS X is not going to be fully open sourced. The core system based on BSD and the Mach kernel is already open sourced under a project called Darwin. You can find more info on that at Apple's publicsource site.
Second, WINE will not work on PPC. It will only run Windows apps under x86 Linux. IIRC the WINE team has written several of their own DLLs and just send the Windows app calls to those sections of code using the processor as usual.
A similar project for PPC to make Mac apps available under Linux would be Mac On Linux or sheepshaver.
Hope this helps...
"I have a cunning plan..."
What I took away from today's keynote was that Jobs is taking advantage of the fact that they basically control a platform from hardware to software to website, to renew a focus on proprietary tools.
Several times in the speech Jobs commented on how Apple was one of two proprietary widespread desktop OS solutions (I forget the euphemism he used for it) and that Apple will be leveraging off of that with iTools: programs and webapps from apple.com that will only work on Macs. He didn't stop there either. He used this proprietary dominance to justify the overhaul of the UI (oh my GOD, a blinking button to indicate a default response?!?) while at the same time trying to convince the audience that this was one of 4 key building blocks establishing Apple as one of the top 10 internet companies.
It amazed me that Jobs, who is doing such a great job of rebuilding Apple, would be so forthright about this strategy. It's almost as if he actually said "Microsoft is being sued for incorporating the browser, but since we're obviously not a monopoly, we'll incorporate everything else and make it proprietary."
They're doing exactly the things that Microsoft would like to, but can't because of the DOJ, and as much as Apple tries to appease the open source movement by open-sourcing the aspects of the OS that are furthest removed from the actual user experience, there is no way is an open-sourced kernel is going to make any difference to Joe User. They're open-sourcing Darwin because all that can be done is add API functionality and increase efficiency and security. And while they're doing this they build new, closed source layers on top of it, so that any features added can only be used in this locked-up, proprietary OS, unless you plan on building or porting all of the implemenation layers above the kernel, at which point there's little reason not to just enhance FreeBSD or Linux instead.
Jobs is quite the marketeer, but as far as today's keynote goes, the i in iCEO stood for illusion.
Kevin Fox
www.fury.com
Kevin Fox
Check it out here, and add your own user review!
./ and it'll climb in the popularity rankings.
They gave it 4 out of 5 stars, but use that page to reach
Kevin Fox
www.fury.com
Kevin Fox
With OSX, apps should be cross platform without a problem, thanks to openstep. Carbon is around to just transition developers and to make old MacOS apps run without a complete rewrite. New apps will hopefully be written with Cocoa (aka openstep). OpenStep was designed from the start to be completely cross platform. The frameworks that make it up are available for windows, and mostly available on unix (with GNUStep, which has quite some work left sadly). In theory any MacOSX app should be able to run under any platform with an Obj-C compiler (such as gcc) and an openstep runtime environment with the proper frameworks (such as gnustep and windows cocoa foundation). I would think it would be in apple's best interest to promote openstep on other OS's, so I really hope they will open source it, or at least support GNUStep. I'd also like to see WebScript (an interperated version of Objective-C) opened up, but I'm not sure if they would, not that they'd have anything to loose...
-zack
I wish I could setup a quick betting counter electronically because I'd haul in the dough on the following bet:
"We will hear a great deal about how Apple is 'Open Sourcing' OS X, but we will never see any code"
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Steve very cleary was talking about Darwin. He even had a slide with the word "Darwin" up on the screen. There's little room for confusion. The only interesting thing here is that he said Darwin was OS X's kernel, I don't think they actually committed to using Darwin in the shipping product before.
There's alot of other interesting stuff coming out of MacWorld though... I think of most interest to the usual slashdot croud would be the new interface for OS X. Some very slick stuff there, sytem wide trasparency, a powerful (geek friendly) new Finder, and of course one of the coolest docks I've seen.
CNN is running a good story on the keynote. Answers some good questions, poses some also.
Monkeyboy.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
A user-programmer is far more likely to deliver something useful in practice rather than something primarily useful in theory.
Nothing theoretical about it.
Popup a heirarchical menu in Gnome, then try to move to an item in a submenu that is below and to the right. You have to do some intricate threading the needle to get the cursor to exit the main menu exactly at the point where the arrow points to the sub menu. With a Mac, I can select the main item, then move my mouse down diagonally directly to the subitem. Missing the subitem more than once on a non-Mac system gets old very fast. And how about some built-in hysteresis? If I move the mouse along that menu very fast, every submenu pops up. The Mac has a built-in timer so that fast cursor moves do not cause that annoying flashing.
For references on why interface is important, see MacKido, Jakob Neilsen or Tognazzi's website.
Remember, bad interface killed John Denver.
$499 is the price for MacOS X *Server*. The consumer version will most likely be much cheaper.
However, the good looks don't always translate to practicality; check out the three buttons at the top of the window (I think they look like jewels). They look exactly alike, except for color, until you mouse over them. Then all three get little symbols (X for clode, + for maximize, - for minimize) embedded in the jewels. It's still bad interface, though.
Not only that, but putting the close button next to the minimize button violates the Human Interface Guidelines. I wonder how long it will take the engineers to move the minimize/maximize buttons back to the right hand side where they belong.
What kind of thing do you have in mind when you refer to 'native Wintel networking'...? Arpa's TCP/IP??? IBM's LanManager (you know, the thing with the shares that MS calls 'the core of microsoft networking')? Both things were created
before windows even existed (but of course you already know that). So what exactly _do_ you mean?
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
I'm an Apple fan and OS X is going to kick butt...
BUT IBM wrote AIX, Apple wrote AU/X (Is that where the slash goes?) If you are going to post in such and obnoxious manner, check your facts first. Otherwise you come off looking like the asswipe.
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
If Apple has a porting-compatibility layer, you're out of luck, because I guarantee you that they're not going to write that porting layer for X11. And if Adobe has to rewrite the code, they'll be rewriting it for MacOS X, which doesn't use the same UI calls as X11. Either way it would have to be rewritten for Linux.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I was watching the keynote via QT 4....Jobs never said the entire Mac OS X would be open source...he was talking about DARWIN!
Darwin is the Mach-based core of OS X which has been open source for several months, and is Linux-like in this respect. Sheesh...
No we havent. look at the kernel list archives..linux may be based on 1960's UNIX but the design decisions are very much 98-99's. Linux kernel design has learned and improved upon much of the mistakes of past unixen and other OS's.
We may not be EROS or microkerneled..but the old designs made by people who knew theory and practice are a helluva lot more reliable IMHO than most designs we could come up with today..dont forget that a lot of smart people have tweaked and improved on the old designs over a span of 40 *years*...and most of those people were programmers who knew what the hell they were doing.
Apple has a backwards compatibilty layer you can code for.
it contains around 80% of the APIS from MacOS (the good ones, ie, ones that dont cause problems with multitasking, memor, etc.) and it is called carbon.
PLEASE read apple's website about this, it is fairly indepth, and has a good load of information about it already. Apple doesn't just do press releases usually, they usually have a site about the product up right after they release it.
Remember Darwin?
That is at the heart of the operating system.
Steve Jobs said (i believe) " Darwin is the kernel of OS X... It is very Linux Like..." then goes on to talk about preemptive multitasking etc.
He DID not say the entire OS is going to be GPLed, he just confirmed that Darwin (which is supposedly the Opensource version of OS X server) is still going to be around for OS X. It is free, you can download it now, and they do have a CVS library for Darwin.
To give you an idea, Darwin is ~50 megs in size.
Don't trust that article, if you really want info, go to www.apple.com they have information posted on OS X now.
-Pfhor
Ah yes. I love the speed of the web. This is already "old news" for the linked site.
The actual article can now be found here.
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
I just finished watching the QuickTime live broadcast and what Jobs said was that the BSD core, aka "Darwin", is Open Source, like it has been for quite some time now.
See http://publicsource.apple.com/
Now I'm going to try to get me one of these @mac.com email addresses :-)
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/000105/zz.html
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
However, the UI, taken with the UNIX underpinnings is very impressive and from my vantage point, the system seemed much more responsive than Mac OS 8.6. Further they've added a document preview (something Win 98 has), with the ability to play QT movies in the file preview.
Other cool stuff: the dock magnifies icons as you roll over them and it appear that they are leaving some of the UNIX file structure visible, note the ~/Documents folder when the documents button is clicked. Looks like a /home directory to me. Furthermore the Apple presentations guy I talked to said the UNIX stuff *will be there* for those that know it. Finally, good to see Jobs having some fun at his own expense with the iCeo title.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Apple already tried that. It was a project called "Star Trek". 4 engineers from Novell and 14 from Apple succeeded in getting the Finder, QuickTime and some pieces of QuickDraw GX running on x86 hardware. The problem was it was source level compatible not binary compatible. Every Mac application would have to have been rewritten to work. Anything that directly taked to Mac iron simply would not run.
For the whole sorid history of Apple and its mistakes pick up Apple Confidential by Owen W. Linzmayer.
Well, we have to remember that NeXT *IS* Apple nowadays. It's not like they're stealing this stuff from NeXT, it's theirs!
Marko Karppinen
However, I highly doubt there's much good to come of this. Suppose Apple OS's the entire OS. What good will that do? They'll still control the releases, and no one will want to contribute to the code since people are getting paid hefty sums of money to develop it anyway.
What I think is, and I welcome anyone to correct me, this is just a publicity move and not much more. I don't think anything good will come out of Open Sourcing any part of the OS, other than allow individual hackers to toy around with it and understand it better. But without the GPL, and the meaning of Open Source being applied, this is just a clever marketing ploy.
Feel free to contradict me, of course.
Hey buddy, Linux ain't exactly light itself. If you put together the kernel, X, GNOME, GLIBC, GLIB, GTK+, one of the document formatting packages, Qt (for the C++ API and internet services), the Loki game library, all the protocols including IPX, and all the utilities and libraries you need just to get Linux working, you get pretty close to said 40 million lines. You guys don't realize that this is 40 million for the entire OS, not just the kernel. It includes DirectX, Internet explorer, MFC, COM, the database access stuff, all the configuratin utilities, etc. So yes, windows is fat, but so is Linux. (although to a slightly lesser degree).
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Hey buddy, Linux ain't exactly light itself. If you put together the kernel, X, GNOME, GLIBC, GLIB, GTK+, one of the document formatting packages, Qt (for the C++ API and internet services), the Loki game library, all the protocols including IPX, and all the utilities and libraries you need just to get Linux working, you get pretty close to said 40 million lines. You guys don't realize that this is 40 million for the entire OS, not just the kernel. It includes DirectX, Internet explorer, MFC, COM, the database access stuff, plus all the services that need alternate libraries in Linux, but are built into Win32, all the configuration utilities, etc. So yes, windows is fat, but so is Linux. (although to a slightly lesser degree).
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
No operating systems are not hefty no matter what. Unix people have this idea but it is false. The OS should be a thin abstraction and management layer around the hardware. The Be developers have the right idea, in that the OS should not be this behemoth thing that takes a 20-80% OS tax (in the word of Alex St. John) And closed source has nothing to do with it. BeOS is closed source and whips any other OS on x86 when it comes to speed. The problem is management and vision. Windows is not that much more bloated than Linux (at least not as much the 40M lines makes it look) Linux itself is lean, but the libraries above it are not. But where Linux developers concentrate on making the OS better and improving existing stuff then slowly adding new things, W2K developers just want to add features. In Windows you don't have major rewrites to a subsystem like you do in in Linux. That leads to workaround and general buggy code. Open Source wouldn't help it unless the philosophy changes. So no, W2K is not THAT much more bloated than Linux. And yes some systems are really good (like DirectX.) But due to the urge to add features, the systems are not refined, which leads to the general bugginess of the OS.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
From the article: OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system, with Quartz, Open GL and QuickTime all built in.
If this is true, that means that we finally get QuickTime for Unixen! Which includes Linux, my personal O/S of choice. So I really really hope that it's true.
Even if it's not open, if Apple has a Quicktime that runs on a Unix architecture (OS X), then there is little reason for them not to port it to Linux, BSD, Solaris, whatever. I know I want it.
I don't think I'd go for it if it cost money, though. Maybe if it was only 5 bucks. But since it's free for every other O/Sen thus far, I would feel like Apple was trying to gouge me since, in theory, I have no alternative. No thanks, I'll just use the Windows box in the other room.
What do you think? Is there a good reason for Apple not to port it, given that it's easy?
---
END OF LINE
Seriously, whatever else he may be, Steve Jobs is the only reason that Apple hasn't gone the way of the Amiga--i.e., died (and please don't try to tell me it's still alive. My brother owns an A4000 and he's not buying that crap either--he's getting a G4). Jobs seems to care more about the well being of the company more than any recent CEO, and not only that he also wants to turn it into what it once was--a company that brought cutting-edge cool technology to the masses. To my mind he has thus far succeeeded in that goal admirably, though he STILL needs to do something about those prices--they're much lower then they were back in the day, but if he really wants to provide an alternative to the x86 world they need to drop a wee bit more. But maybe that's just me ^_^. In any case, long live Apple!
if this is true will it be the first time a MAJOR vendor has moved from a prorietary development model to an OSS one using one of it's major products? I dont recall any previously proprietary company comming out with software that is this central to their existance that is OSS.
:)
if it is, it will be neat to see how it effects their performance in the marketplace - how people react to the company, etc. neat
It's great to be able to have your Linux box sitting at home running apache, and being able to telnet/ftp/http to it. That's a really great thing to know, that on the other side of the world, you can get at stuff that's yours. Regardless off what they call it, Apple has given users of OS 9 a really great tool for doing that. And, as is expected from them, they made it ridiculously simple to use; another drive icon on your desktop, that, oh, yeah, can be accessed by you from anywhere in the world. Sure, Linux will let you do that. But Apple, as always, will let your grandma do that.
iThink that's pretty damn cool.
It meets the Open Source Definition, which means (among other things) that it probably meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. On the other hand, I personally don't like its restrictions and would hesitate to modify covered software.
On the other hand, Apple has already revised the license once, mostly due to their work with OSI. If they get enough feedback on how the APSL could be improved, we might see it changed again, for the better.
What are you talking about with the "OS/Xpensive" and "$uper expensive OSes" remarks? Mac OS is $99. Mac OS X Server is $499 for a 5-machine license ($99) and there's no client-access license. Mac OS X doesn't have a price yet, but it's rumored to be the same as Mac OS 9 was, and Mac OS 8 was, etc. etc. - $99. Is that expensive? Even Red Hat costs like $60 with a box and manual. The upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000 is $239.
Just a minor corection, that was 17% converts from Windows, and 11% new computer buyers. Adding them up it is 28% were buyers new to the Macintosh Platform...
This, IMHO, is an EXCELLENT comment... a moderation of stories would emable /. readers to discern what stories were really important. A system based on different schemes of sorting the stories on the home page could facilitate users who like the current system of newest stories at the top.
;o)
Get to work Rob!
1) This announcement is just re-stating Darwin.
1a) Darwin was re-worked to be compliant with the term OpenSource
2) No, its not BSD or GPLed licenced code. It's Apple's own licence. Go read it if you care.
3) Apple has made other statements at keynote time. So, until you have what they promise in your hand, take it with a grain of salt. (This applies to ALL vendors, not just Apple)
If you want that OS X feeling on your PC, go get windowmaker and load it. On FreeBSD, the software works just fine, and it looks enough like Mac OS X server that one can't tell the difference on 1st glance.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I think you mean "...when Compaq took a pry-bar to the lock on Big Blue's closed system."
Look how beneficial that was for Big Blue.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
For the details on why the APSL is NOT a Free (speech) software licence go here:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
--
Ethan
The Free Software Foundation has a page explaining several of the more common licences, and whether they are truly Free or not (the APSL is not Free)
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html
--
Ethan
OK, let's see if this passes the "consistency" test. Let's say I noticed that KDE was going to be ported to Windows to replace the Windows shell. I post:
"The part I like is KDE is being ported to Windows! Hooray! Finally we can use KDE instead of the crappy Windows interface! Of course, the Windows zealots will never admit that the Windows interface needed serious help."
You know that wouldn't be moderated down. In fact, it would probably be moderated to 5.
QED
---
If Aqua is the new Mac interface, I haven't seen nor used it. To be honest, I'm making an assumption that Apple will improve things for the better, which is not necessarily valid [THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT]. Things like keyboard shortcuts (one of my pet peeves) or, god forbid, a CLI have never been a high priority at Apple, and they may not be now.
The reason is that Apple's priority has always been catering to the lowest common denominator of computer users [TINF]. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes those goals are incompatible with making an efficient interface, which is important to me.
---
It was intended to point out that the Mac interface was being replaced. This excited me, because I detest the Mac interface. Unfortunately, on Slashdot, you're only allowed to dislike Microsoft. I admit I could have left out the jab at Mac people, but considering the notorious level of insanity they demonstrate at any criticism of the Mac, I think my comment was pretty mild.
---
Actually, most Windows programs in my experience are pretty consistent. The only ones I can think of off-hand, ironically, are Mac-derived programs like Photoshop. Every "native" Windows app uses Alt-F,S for save, but Photoshop for some bizarre reason uses Alt-F,E. Illustrator, on the other hand, uses ^S. You would think Adobe would know better.
However, all this notwithstanding, one thing Windows did right (which they borrowed from Motif, incidently) was to implement keyboard traversal at the GUI level using standard keys (tab, alt, etc). That way you are guaranteed keyboard capability no matter what the application does.
---
LOL - OK, touche. I still hate MacOS, though. :)
---
Provably false, since every function in Windows can be operated from the keyboard (some you have to tab to, of course). That is not true of the Mac; in fact, I believe all keyboard shortcuts have to be programmed in at the application level.
---
More proof that the moderators are out of control.
---
The point of the post was that Steve Jobs himself announced that MacOS was getting a new interface. To those of us who hate the current MacOS interface, that's (potentially) good news. What you prove is how thin skinned Mac people are whenever anyone posts any criticism of the Mac (which, of course, proves my point about Mac users).
Why is it that Mac users cannot stand any kind of criticism or any negative opinion? Your first and only thought is to shut them up (as the moderator apparently decided to do).
---
What's more interesting is that MS is developing for OS X. How big a step is it from bsd-based operating system to linux? Not that much...
My experience is the exact opposite of yours. Apple has been much more cogniscent of Keyboard shortcuts than Windows and CDE (the two other main platforms I use). Macintosh also tends to make these shortcuts a heck of a lot more consistent. On windows I'm forever alternating between the mouse and keyboard. On the Mac, I can do everything I want with either the Keyboard or the mouse (MY CHOICE!!). On Unix, I use the mouse essentially for keyboard focus and the occasional cut and paste. (I know, off topic, and YMMV)
As for CLI, aside from the Unix shell, I've never seen one I like. Thompson Toolkit just doesn't do it for me. I'm drooling over OS X, because you get the Unix shell (Whoppeee!) plus all the wonderful tools that come with it (in CLI form or Mac-ified!!)
OTOH, Aqua scares me in terms of UI design, because I think more effort was put on aesthetics than usuability. Then again, Apple may surprise (they usually do).
Drooling till it comes out. Expect I will be drooling after it comes out.
Your "consistency" post should also be marked as
flamebait IMHO. Whether it would or not, is another question.
Fact: WindowManagerX is being ported to PlatformY.
Opinions: PlatformY interface is crappy. PlatformY has zealots that will never admit how much help it needs.
Better: PlatformY was missing this key feature, which I can now use. (notice no comment about the users of PlatformY, since it has no relevance at all to your post).
And in the irony department, you make this statement in another post: "I admit I could have left out the jab at Mac people, but considering the notorious level of insanity they demonstrate at any criticism of the Mac..."
That's just *too* funny. So like a Tim to make such an idiotic statement. (I suppose I could have left out the jab at Tims, but given how idiotic all Tims of the world are, I think the point is a valid one to make)
I'm interested though: Do you really think "Aqua" is all that much better? Sure it "looks cool", but usuability is more important to me than looks.
Yes, that's right. Everyone bought the iMacs because they have a quality OS. The fact that the regular Mac's have the exact same software is irrelevant. (/sarcasm) Please. The iMacs sold because they're cute, nothing more.
Apple is crafting an operating system that is mainstream in the consumer market. Come find me when Linux is commonly used in the household. WHen you have to edit a text file to change the color depth of your monitor, my mom, brother, friends, or acquaintances won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Um, do you even use Linux? Have you ever heard of XF86Setup? Graphical utilities work so much better than editing a text file.
Given, Linux has its niche, too--and a great one--but it can't touch Apple in the consumer market. That's plain fact.
I see this type of comment a lot. Linux is a server operating system! The fact that it works decently as a desktop OS is phenomenal in and of itself. The useability is actively being improved in "Linux time" (e.g. faster than Microsoft and Apples' developement teams put together), so that will be remedied.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The issue is furthur compounded by the fact that Open Source software has no deadlines--and as I've stated above, Win2K has been behind schedule for over two years. MS is in a big hurry to release it, and being in a hurry does not help your coding.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
BeOS == Desktop OS
Linux == Server OS
I see so many people bitching that it's too hard to use. Give it time; desktop useability is still in its infantcy. GNOME has only been around for a year--look how far its come!
Fact is, the desktop market will be the last place Linux makes an impact, and Microsoft will fight it tooth and nail. It will be messy. But I can wait until then; in fact, the rock hard stability and efficiency of Linux has made it well worth my while despite the various inconveniencies.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Ahh, I think we are both confusing the ideas of Operating System, and Operating Environment. "Linux" can fit on a floppy--it just won't do much. Technically, the kernel is the only part which is the OS. The Operating Environment, however, describes the extra crap that makes the OS more useful. BeOS is nice, but it doesn't do much on its own. Neither does Linux, although there are much more utils available for it. The point is, there's a straightforward ratio: the more virsatility you want, the more code bloat you'll have to put up with.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I'd say Netscape was first by open-sourcing the Netscape/Mozilla code. Although the Netscape browser wasn't the main source of their revenue at the time, it was central to their image in the public's mind. When people thought about Netscape the company, people thought about the browser more often than their servers or any other products.
bitterness :)
The port is complete and maintained already. It's just not available. OS 8 was originally ported (I think), and, in any case, PPC is the 'young' port of OS X, since it's part BSD part Nextstep.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
Whether or not it is legal to obtain the ROMs in this way instead of by romdumping a sacrificial Macdo is left as an excersise to someone who is a lawyer. My Linux box *is* a Mac G3, so I feel legit.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
"iCEO" started out as a semi-joke, because Jobs insisted he was merely the interim CEO - hence the "i".
He's finally apparently admitted that he is the non-interim CEO, but is keeping the "i" to show that Apple is committed to the Internet or some such marketing-babble thing.
Steve Jobs putting the "i" back into idiot . Why does putting certain color of plastic on a box and call it a flavor make it a better device? iPuke on the Maggotbox.
Ok... seriously now. This could actually be good for Apple. Really good. Opening the source will allow people to actually write the code for the stuff they actually want to see and do. Hopefully enough people will actually be willing to do this. I know I will be!
While we're at it, maybe be can try to avoid cloning windows with this OS. I know it's close now, but it's still early, the damage can be undone! Linux is almost at the point of bearing a microshaft label, lets not spread this disease.
Now if they'd only make their computers *look* decent and use mice with more than one freakin' button [preferably three]. I'm not dissing the colored cases, they're a great idea, but only if they don't look like something from Fisher Price(R).
--
FYI, I don't use Macs. I had the unfortunate experience of doing this once and have no real aspiration to go back anytime soon. Unless it goes open source that is. I'm a Sparc/Alpha/Intel kinda guy.
--
It bothers me that Slashdot would bother posting year old news again just because it has the word "Open Source" in the title.
/. had to post. There was undoubtably some NEW news to post on this topic, but as always, the "Open Source Posting Bot" saw the two wordes together and overrided all attempts at posting informative articles.
The Darwin project was announced almost a year ago, that is what Jobs was talking about. A 20 second trip to Apple.com tells you the same.
I am surprised that this is the best OS X story
Some things that haven't made it and one example of what does:
New PPC platform annnounced two weeks ago....not important.
OS X Interface Unveiled.....whatever.
SuSE announces PPC version of their distro....let's ignore it.
Gnome panel adds a new default button.....Earth-shattering announcment! Must be posted right away!
He is now the full-time, permanent CEO of Apple computer. He decided to keep the "i" for amusement.
Is it just me, or is it starting to seem as if opening the source to a high-profile project becoming a kind of status-symbol among commercial software vendors? /. over the past half year can see this trend - starting with companies close to the open-source community, like id and Netscape/Mozilla, we're now hearing open-source announcements from Wintel's largest [desktop] competitor!
I believe that anyone who has been watching
So does anyone else see this as a slightly worrying trend? If more and more companies open-source projects simply for the 'charity' associated with it, or simply as a snub to/distiction from Microsoft's now legally-defined anti-information policy regarding it's own software, with no intention of making use of open-source as a development tool, will it trivialize the projects and companies that have been open-source since their inception, that have driven the community forward?
Call me paranoid if you like (it's probably justified), it just seems a little too convienent to me.
Unless, of course, scissors can't cut rock...
Hmm...Interesteing, if they've opensourced Perhaps the BSD back end could be transitioned into linux... Wouldn't it be strange, if now, out of all the times when the refuesed in the past, Mac Software will run on X86... > Could mean some serious software, though, if Carbon is Open Soursed too.
-nick
-- Don't overthrow the government, just think about it.
Realistically, they can't open-source the entire OS. There will undoubtable be a ton of proprietary software not owned by Apple that will have to stay closed. But, with Linux PPC and even better BeOS, why would Apple want to open source OS X? I feel that this is just a marketing ploy to try and ride the Linux popularity wave while Apple can, since open-source or closed-source, Apple couldn't right a decent OS if it tried.
What? And spoil their line up of famous names... iMAC iBOOK and iCEO?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Ibought a (then) brand-spanking-new blue g3 last year, and at the time, I forced myself to consider other options (well, the other option, there being no way I'm going to have a Windows machine staring at me at home - I spend enough time cursing the things at school and work). Result? I dragged myself about to computer stores to be insulted by dishonest salesmen, found that getting any decent hardware would cost me a lot more than the g3 I had looked at and loved after about a minute, and finally gave up and bought the mac. I did get something valuable out of it though, aside from the computer - an appreciation of the fact that snap, intuition based decisions are often the right ones. Sticking around second-guessing myself only caused me needless headaches
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
If this is true - Big If - then this could really be a cool thing!
Of course, there are quite a few concerns here - how much of the system is being opened up? What license? Is this Free Speech AND Free Beer, or just Free Speech?
Personally, if the license only allowed people who purchased OS X to have access to the source, that would still be a damned cool thing, IMHO.
But, before I can get really excited about this, there needs to be more information. Right now, it's just a somewhat shapeless rumor. When Apple actually releases something, then everyone can comment on the real situation, instead of rumors. :-/
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
MacOS X has three API's, Classic, Carbon and Cocoa. Classic is the old API, because it is actually a way to run an older version od MacOS at the same time (almost transparently currently, it might improve some in the future). It is the API that Mac programmers have been using for quite a while. Carbon is a more modern version of the Classic API, it allows the system to take advantage of the BSD/Mach underpinnings. It also creates a greater level of hardware abstraction than the classic API does, so that the microkernel is allowed to run things instead of individual programmers, which can cause a lot of instability. It was created to smooth the transition from MacOS 9 to OS X. Cocoa is a newer version of the NextStep/OpenStep API. This is the API that's designed to look towards the future more than the past. There is also the BSD 4.4 API which is basically a console. The way the Mach microkernel works is to break things down into "emulators" or environments. Essentially by using Mach it would be possible to make an emulator for almost any type of environment. Including X and all of the subsidiaries based on it, even a Linux emulator. The BSD environment is actually an emulator, Mach isn't BSD, although they are usually related. A linux microkernel could be ported to Mach and used as an environment (Mach handles multi-processor configurations much better than Linux currently does, I believe it can also utilize more memory). I think the mkLinux project was doing just that. Anyway it gives a lot of advantages for usage. It's a real-time OS as well which puts it into situations where it is able to control things that need very accurate timing (like optical routers). Apple has only announced its intention to release the core of it. The Mach microkernel and the BSD layer. It is quite possible that they will eventually release other parts of it as well. This is something I would definitely like to see. The Carbon and Cocoa API's are very well written and provide a consistent look and feel across platforms. Cocoa exists for x86 but seems to have disappeared recently. If both the x86 and PPC versions were released as well as the old Next code it would be possible (I believe the next version was based on X anyway) which would make it accessible for Linux. It would also be nice if Apple released Carbon and Quartz as well. Quartz is a really kick-ass graphical core, and they can release it. They're not using Adobe code anymore, instead they're using something they wrote themselves. It uses the PDF standard but the code isn't borrowed. For the truly geek at heart, there has even been some work done to make it display as a webpage (there is a section of the PDF standard for PDF to HTML). Giving a remote desktop anywhere. By releasing the two main API's, the core and the graphical layer that could be ported to other POSIX platforms it would open up options for a lot more people to develop for Linux, including the traditional vendors that Linux needs to get in order to become mainstream. It'd also help Apple as it would help to bring more developers creating products for Apple platforms, if most of the porting work can be done with a recompile it opens up a lot of systems. By keeping portions of the OS proprietary they wouldn't have to worry about losing their current user base to others, it'd likely increase their user base even more than it already is. The key distinctions of the OS would remain theirs, while the core components could spread. I'm hoping that at a later presentation Jobs will be releasing more info on the open-sourcing, however, I think it will be sometime close to the release of OS X. Instead of allowing someone else to launch a port of the API's in time to steal the fanfare from OS X.
>And if you move the mouse, CPU utilisation goes up to 100%.
Excuse me?
I don't have anything nice to say about NT, but the above statement is just plain wrong. You can probably get to 10% if you try really hard.
And while I'm out of lurk mode, let me say it: boy, does the Mac OS X look sexy!
Boris, an avid Slashdot lurker.
But until then I just can't wait to get an Enlightenment and gtk theme that looks exactly the same.
iPuke when iHear these cutesy neologisms taking over. Seriously, what's next? "iClick on the iIcon to iStart the iProgram..." Why can't Apple concentrate on actually improving its stuff instead of making up cute names?
As for "redo[ing] the whole GUI system using Apple's source", that's a laugh. I don't know what graphics system OSX uses, but I suspect it's either X-like or MacOS-like. We're talking about multi-user machines here, remember? X is what you wanted to get rid of, and MacOS is built with the assumption that you've got one machine, one framebuffer, and one user (and one GUI!) in your "computing environment", none of which is necessarily true anymore, making it an unsuitable starting point.
1. Complete OpenSource. I would be VERY surprised if Cocoa (new name for the OpenStep AppKit, the class libraries for building GUI applications) and Quartz (the new window management system and Display-PDF) are actually open sourced as these are two of the "Crown Jewels" of Apple's software. Most likely the report is confusing the open-source core operating system (Darwin). Another poster dismissed Darwin saying that nothing has come about from that. Well, the operating system hasn't even been released (and won't be for at least 6 months) so I think it is premature to say that Darwin is a dud. Darwin has been keeping pace with the OS-X developer pre-releases.
2. OS-X on Intel. Apple got all this stuff from NeXT, which ran on Intel (since NeXT stopped making hardware back in '94 or so). Believe me, OS-X still runs on Intel. The problem is Apple still makes practically all it's money from hardware so they are VERY quiet about this. The long range plan must be to expand to Intel but this must be done very carefully in order to preserve their current customer and ISV base. They are still trying to figure out how to do it without screwing themselves. OTOH, Apple cares deeply about "Total Customer Experience" (yeah, it sound like marketspeak but it is real) and the only way they can ensure that the TCE is acceptable is to control the whole thing from top to bottom. This and the "Apple is a hardware company" thing are the two roadblocks to full-on Intel support. It is absolutely NOT a technological issue.
3. "Big deal, we'll make an X window manager that looks just like OS-X, just as we did with the NeXT" This always makes me laugh on several levels. Firstly, all of the X window managers that try to look like a NeXT are really pathetic, if you've ever seriously used a NeXT for any period of time. This is because there is much more to a good GUI than just the visual apperance of the widgets. More importantly, even if you make the widgets resemble OS-X, you still have X-Windows underneath, which is the worst GUI in the industry. I'm not talking about the way it looks, either. X-Windows beauty is only skin deep. Below it is awful. You still have that horrible device-dependent display model underneath. OS-X uses Display-PDF, which has the same powerful imaging model as PostScript and has the same description langauge as PDF, which is rapidly becoming a standard. PDF is device independent, you don't care what the resolution or color depth of your display is, PDF handles it. You get nice primitives such as bezier curves and extremely powerful coordinate space tranformations, masking and clipping, etc... Plus, you get *real* WYSIWYG and printing for FREE.
Furthermore, the Cocoa class libraries are the most mature and powerful available and really simplfy GUI development. There is still no equal to InterfaceBuilder (which does NOT generate code). Frankly, writing software for X is much more like coding for the old Mac Toolbox; everything is soooo tedious and manual. There really is a world of difference for the application developer that you must experience to believe. It's the class libraries and imaging model that are the key to simplified GUI development, not whizzy IDE's. It is the difficulty of writing GUI's brought on by the class libraries that holds back the development of cool software. That's why incredible applications were developed on the NeXT so long ago (such as Lotus Improv, Diagram, Notebook, and even Tim Berner Lee's original WWW browser) and took a long time to reach Wintel, if ever. They only got to Windoze because of the incredibly lucrative market. They still aren't on X since it's such an incredible pain in the ass that it isn't worth it (unlike Windoze).
I would highly recommend going to Apple's web site and check out some of the Cocoa API's. Especially look at the Text System Overview and Enterprise Objects Developer Guide. Even after developing on NeXT exclusively for so many years I was still amazed after reading the Text System Overview document.
4. Third Party Licenses prevent open sourcing. This applied to OpenStep but it is no longer true with OS-X. In fact, that was a major goal of OS-X and one of the biggest reasons why Display-PostScript was replaced with Display-PDF (which was written in-house). Other third party software that was dropped includes the Pantone stuff. I believe all third party licensed software that would be an impediment to open sourcing has been removed. However, I still believe that it'll be a cold day in hell before anything above the CoreFoundation libraries are made open source (CoreFoundation is an OS independent ANSI-C API that sits just above the OS upon which Cocoa, Carbon, Classic, Quartz and all of the other GUI software is built)
I guess they evolved... in a typical Darwinian fashion! Natural (or in this case, corporate) selection seems to win out everywhere. You know what would be funny? Now that Apple has chosen the evolutionary route, Micro$oft should go for a creationist theory. In the beginning the was the Dos, and then the Dos was made flesh.....
I am not saying they have to be an Open Source company, I am not saying they have to be a closed source company, but they have to choose which one to be. Once they choose they need to stand behind what they choice.
If they closed ALL source they have right now, that is fine, if the open all source right now that is fine, but when they do it in some half assed way that is what gets me ticked off.
If you go anywhere, anyone and everyone on wall street is saying, "open source SURE", "look at VA research's opening climb, look at Red Hat's stock, open source makes money". Then along comes Apple "Yea, uh yea, we are part of the Open Source movement to, see, see, invest in us, we have an Open Source model like those other companies that are making millions, yea, come on invest in us."
I have nothing against %100 pure closed source companies, it is their code, and they can do anything they want to with it. Companies have to make money or they are no long companies, that is the way to world works.
If they want to be closed source, that is cool with me. If they want to be open source, that is really cool with me. But if they are a closed source company and feed these little tidbits source and then claim to be open source, (in their words) 'like the popular Linux operating system.' that really pisses me off. They do not have an Open Source model anything like the Linux operating system. The only reason they are doing it is because they like getting off their invester with thoughts of Apple stocks being like Red Hat or VA Researches stock, that is ALL they are doing.
If Apple wants an Operating system that is Open Source 'like the popular Linux operating system.' they need to release it under the GPL. If they don't want to release it under the GPL (which is fine) they shouldn't claim that it will be like Linux. If it was REALLY 'like the popular Linux operating system.' I could download the source, change anything I want to and resell it on a distro CD, but for some reason, I doubt I will be able to do that.
GCC is 'like the popular Linux operating system.' actucally Linux is probably more like GCC, either way I am free is do what ever the fuck I want to with it. Can I say that about Apple? HELL NO. So why are they claiming that?
If they don't want to release under the GPL, that is fine, I have no problem with that. But if they suggest for marketing purpose that they are, and then they don't or can't follow though, they are just plain bastards that can't keep their word. If they don't want to release under the GPL (which if fine) they shouldn't even suggest in any way that they are. Their idea of Open Source is SO FAR away from the Linux and GPL ideal of Open Source that they shouldn't even suggest in any way to their customers/investors/publicly that they are like Linux's or the FSF's ideal of an Open Source community. They should say what it is and in no way suggest that it is something that it is not.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
1. Apple uploads source code to everything to an FTP site.
2. Someone downloads source code.
3. Apple is sued by stockholders.
4. Apple goes out of business (for real).
Say what you will, but Apple isn't lying to anyone about their intentions and stipulations. Read the license, and it will all be clear.
Why are they claiming to be open source like the popular Linux OS? Read the GPL then read Apple's license, how like are these 2 documents? They are so differant their is no way anyone should get one confused with the other. One is black the other is white, they are like night and day. Why is Apple trying to blur the line between the two of them?
Why is Apple cheating? Nobody. Don't like the license? Don't contribute. It's all there on their site.
I can't believe people hold it _against_ a company simply because they won't give away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time.
I don't hold it against them for not giving away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time If they don't want to, they don't have to, I will not hold that against them. But if they claim that they are, and don't, it gets me pissed. I don't like half-truths or marketing bullshit.
What is Apple going to do, sell support? Seems like a conflict of interest, as they're going to 'ease of use'.
They can do what ever they want. They make a decent system for people that just want to use the Internet and not worry about all the techno-crap underneath. They have a decent system and are doing a good job with it. They should keep doing what they are doing, and if they claim something they should make good on that claim. If they know they can't make good on anything they say, they should't say it.
Bitch about them not using the more restrictive GPL if you like, but it makes no difference. Unless you can figure out a way for them to stay in business (and - gasp! - prosper) under the GPL model, there's no way in hell they or anyone else is going to listen you.
I am not their CEO, I don't make their bussiness plan up. They can do whatever they want to do, but they should make good on anything they decide to do. If they say they are going to starting selling XYZ then they should start selling XYZ, the problem comes is when the start selling CBA and passing it off for XYZ, it just isn't right.
Code doesn't deserve to be free. It's a nice gesture, and potentially rewarding for everyone if done right, but it's not a right in the same way people have a right to live outside of slavery.
It is not a right. If they want to close it up, that is cool, I have no problems with that. I have no problems with Microsoft or IBM and their closed source models. They are companies and they have to make money, that is the way the world works. But if they say and suggest they are going to do something XYZ and do it ABC way, I see that as a flat out lie.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Jack
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I was talking about the G4 as the machine (the blue thing) not G4 as the processor. I shure hope
someone will market an open PPC box, those processors can shurely scream if they don't have
to run a broken OS (MacOS 9) . As for X it shure looks nice but paying $499.00 for an OS is a bit
outdated. And there are security issues too.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Isn't that the same company that built the G4 so
that it would not allow to run anything else but MacOS. Before opening up the source they might want to open the hardware first. That would be a start.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
If (and I do mean if) they actually open source OSX, it will mean wonders for the community. People will begin tweaking their copy of the OS to have just what they need, just like linux. Heck, maybe somebody will even release a version for the x86 platform. And maybe someone will actually build in that windows binary compatibility that apple keeps promising.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Even if the kernel is open source, the whole system probably won't be. And even if Apple makes the source easily available, unlike a few so-called "open source" projects are, it still won't be free, and it definitely won't be GPL or LGPL.
Remember, this is the same Apple that put a halt to the Mac cloning companies that they licensed.
"Apple pulled our license for speeding." -- Power Computing ad
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Thanks. It was very informative. I have a bit of a problem with some of it, however: why on earth shouldn't I use software that doesn't have an entirely free license? I prefer open source / free software / your name here but I certainly won't limit myself to it.
In short, if I write something by myself, I'll use the GPL or LGPL (to keep it simple, if nothing else). If I modify or write a patch for something else, I'll use the appropriate license (APSL, Netscape PL, etc.).
I find their reason for using the GPL over the LGPL interesting. It boils down to: the GPL is preferable because it is less free. In a sense, it makes GPL-covered code FSF-proprietary by not allowing private companies to use it in proprietary code.
I also thought it was funny that they said that the Artistic License contained "some passages [that] are too clever for their own good". Apparently they don't approve of Larry Wall's literary antics.
---
Oper on the Nightstar
I don't get these YAPLs. Don't they just end up meaning that the company in question gets to be the sole distro? Or is it more like they're the only ones who have the right to make a profit off of it? I don't see how that could really help the companies (esp. in the case of Mozilla, since Netscape will distribute Netscape 5 for free anyway, so there's no profit to protect).
Does anyone have a page up that explains/compares the GNU GPL, Netscape PL, Mozilla PL, APSL, etc. in plain English? Legalese makes my brain go squish.
---
Oper on the Nightstar
Just wondering: GNU says that Apples public source license is bad because it can CHANGE THE LICENSE on any moment back to something commercial. Meanwhile, all those enthousiasts trapped by this fake OSS license work for free for Apple. How do we feel about this? Thanks.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
But NeXT did fight hard initially to keep the Objective-C extensions to GCC
Apple is now threatening to make the same move that Microsoft said they were going to eventually make. They are making parts of the Operating System open source. No doubt they will claim that the whole OS is fully open source, but there is no way that they could do this and keep their business alive. Open source OS users will be very scared of this claim, and rightfully so. There are many people in the world that don't know as much about computers as us, and they will be satisfied with the claim that the OS is open source, even if only part of it is. Right now, Apple cannot release everything in their OS as open source, because they have applications and other types of software from other companies included with their OS, and these companies will not settle for making their software open source. When Microsoft sees that the move for partial open source made by Apple was successful, they will no doubt move in that direction. If this works, it will strongly damage the foothold that open source operating systems and software has made, because the media will interpret "open source" and "partial open source" to be basically the same thing, and cause the advantages of true open source operating systems and software to disappear in the eyes of the consumers
"Sometimes Truth... is stranger that Fiction." - Bad Religion
While I admit that having everything open sourced sounds quite dubious, let's humor Steve and assume it will happen. My next question is whether Apple will publish the older NEXTSTEP source code somewhere, which would be a great help to those of us who still love our old black hardware. And while they're at it, how about older versions of the MacOS, and the Lisa Office System, and ProDOS, etc. This is part of a larger question regarding legacy software that hasn't been part of a company's sales lineup for years, or was developed by a company that is now out of business. There is almost always somebody who would like to get their hands on a legitimate copy, but cannot. For folks interested in preserving their old hardware (for whatever reason), the OS source code would be a boon to have, and releasing it for free or at a low price would hardly hurt the company. Understandibly, businesses usually ignore these sorts of appeals - they have bigger fish to fry. Incidentally, the new and revolutionary 'dock' seems a lot like the one in NEXTSTEP, which makes sense. I'm glad to see it and look forward to the release. -F
MAN SHOOTS ROVER!
The impression I had was that MacOSX was based on the BSD code base. Also don't they already opensource the BSD portion of their OS?
;) ) and EIDE ATA devices. Would love to run Linux on one of those things. Of course I woulden't be able to run MacOS on it (Not if apple lives up to it's closed reputation) But then who wants to run MacOS on it anyways. Linux and BeOS will do just fine :).
Also the BSD part of the MacOSX is already released under OpenSource. Not that this matters, there are enough BSD based opensource operating systems. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD....
So this just sounds like a ploy by apple to get the support, and the press attention that opensource is getting lately.
The propriotary part is the Blue Box and the Yellow Box which sit on top of the BSD backend. Now if they were to Opensource this, that would be a major thing to talk about!!
What I am waiting for is a cheap Multiprocessing MotherBoard that will take PowerPC processors, and support Industry standard PCI/AGP cards and PC100/133 RAM (Maybe even DDR RAM
like it says...
Come on, Mountain Dew and Dog Cows are far cooler than penguins! I just have to say, of all of the programmers I've seen, I associate with the Macintosh developers the best.
For example, note the use of the word "developer," this is in stark contrast to the word "hacker" so affectionately used amoung Unix types. To me, hacker sounds like a hack, or like someone who breaks into systems. (Sure, the jargon file says otherwise, but language is dictated by usage, not by fiat--As Leslie Lamport points out when discussing how to pronounce LaTeX, or rather why he won't tell you.)
In d e v e l o p you'd read jokes about spotted dick all the time, it was pretty fun. And, as far as API documentation goes, nothing has ever come close to Inside Macintosh (not to mention The Human Interface Guidelines, which inspired the book Snow Crash).
Anyway, Apple disapointed me far too much, and after Windows caught up and I needed NT (to work on a Macintosh project, no less!), I just stuck with it. When I met some cool Linux users and stopped consulting, I started using it. I was quite impressed with all of the Unix and GNU tools. It was also the best place for me to do TeX stuff.
After Linux didn't work so well with my video card (X would freeze), I went to FreeBSD in frustration. It was far more stable than even Debian stable. Sure, Linux isn't supposed to crash (I could still log in and kill the processes from another machine), but having X freeze effectively loses all of your work in that session, making it basically just as bad as when Windows freezes. There's just something nice about one distinct group working on the project, too.
Speaking of fiat, I'm affraid by "open source" Apple might just mean "see the source," as in the Sun usage. Sure, "open source" isn't supposed to mean that, but it's starting to look like it. Sure, freesoftware is an awkward name, but the so called replacement for it might be worse in not too long. I'm getting really tired of these "reluctant disciples" telling me how to say and pronounce everything.
Anyway, I like the heritage of BSD more, and OS X is going to actually use some of BSD. I think my next system will be a PowerPC. If I can get all of the GNU tools to work in OS X (sure thing), I'd stick with that. Why pick a wm and windowing system when you got the MacOS! (Even Carbon is better than Gnome/KDE... or at least it's better documented, and I think designed truely well. Apple seemed to be the only types to really understand regions.)
They can drop the ball on this one, or they can carry us on into the next millenium, just as soon as it starts next year.
One of the other articles I read (at PRNewswire) said Jobs was Apple's iCEO. Is that a misprint or are they extending the over-used lowercase i thing all over the company? Normally I would say it was a misprint but with the iMac, the iBook, etc., I figured it was possible. Strange, hackneyed, but possible.
It could indeed imply a (non-Apple) port project to x86, but it would probably be as popular and well supported by ISVs and other developers as Solaris x86 is. (Which is to say: not very.)
x86 is an unworkable albatross owned body and soul by MS. Don't look for Apple to bail you out at the expense of their own bottom line.
And, since OSX is based around Quartz (PDF-based graphics) rather than X, there is no way you can use the GUI source to port an XWM. You could, theoretically, tack on the Quartz UI to Linux, tho, and retire X.
SoupIsGood Food
- As you say, which license would be picked is ambiguous, and has significant implications.
- Compare to Mozilla.
- What precisely is the "operating system?"
I'm game to disbelieve anything claimed on Slashdot until there's code available via FTP/CVS...Not all of Mozilla was Netscape's to give away. Notably bits from Bitstream, RSA (now Network Associates), and GUI stuff from sundry vendors.
Even if Apple "open sources" all of their code, that doesn't imply that Adobe code is treated similarly.
And I frankly worry more about Adobe doing "evil proprietary stuff" than I do about Apple. DPS, Type 1, Postscript, and PDF are more pervasive than MacOS. Greater danger lies there.
Much of the old "GNU/Linux" controversies come out of the quite legitimate issue of which parts are Linux, and which parts are "GNU."
Similarly, there has been much arguing over whether Internet Exploder is part of the "Windows Operating System."
And the ambiguity strikes again here; "the whole OS" could vary from merely being some bits of Mach to being inclusive of MS Office and OS-X development tools, WebObjects, and OPENSTEP.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
The real issue back then was that Microsoft was punishing Mac users (= non-Windows users) by selling buggy software and making the file formats incompatible. For example, MS Word for the Mac could not read WinWord 95/97 files for half a year or so, until MS decided to release an extension. And the Mac version of the Office Bar was so buggy that whenever you installed MS Office on a Mac the first thing you did was drag the Office Bar system extension to the trash! In short, MS Office on the Mac was almost unusable. No wonder people skipped to the Windows world! Granted, Apple did lots of stupid things too, making it even easier for people to jump the fence.
Only after the monopoly lawsuits started did MS start thinking that hey, maybe we *need* an adversary. Then they bought Apple stock for 100 million USD and made a stable and nice Office version, which incidentally did follow the Apple UI guidelines and did read Windows file formats out of the box. Coincidentally, Apple's decline stopped around that time. Steve Jobs' introduction of the iMac mostly made old Mac fans who didn't like the Windows world return to their roots. It also attracted new people who found it fashionable to be computer illitterate.
--Bud
Bit like "close, but no cigar"
I'd mod it down too, if I hadn't already posted.
Let's see... you provide absolutely nothing to back up your claim, which was laced with insulting words. To top it all off, you then move to insult Mac users.
If that's not flamebait, I don't know what is.
Actually, Linux is more of a monolithic SVR4 clone, with bits of BSD thrown in where it makes sense to do so. Or that's what it has historically been, anyway.
The problem with the NT kernel is that Microsoft tend to put unnecessary (and potentially compromising) things in kernel space (or its equivalent) to get better benchmarks. As of NT4, it's not a microkernel; you can't separate the Windows layer from the kernel (as you could have originally; I believe someone made a UNIX layer for it). And if you move the mouse, CPU utilisation goes up to 100%.
---
Don't they just end up meaning that the company in question gets to be the sole distro? Or is it more like they're the only ones who have the right to make a profit off of it?
---
Yeah, this is kind of how companies work.
People need to realize, Apple giving ANYTHING away is a benefit. Why? You don't have to choose it. What this provides to you is a choice - more choice is good.
In the Mac community, there has been a long history of developers going "Gee, I wish we had X feature" in the OS. Now, they are starting to have a place to make the changes necessary.
While Apple certainly isn't going to stop anyone, Darwin isn't necessarily focused on creating tons of different distros. It's aimed primarily at adding improvements to the core OS, with forking as an option.
Apple gets free development and bug testing, the community gets tens of thousands of hours worth of free code.
---
I don't see how that could really help the companies (esp. in the case of Mozilla, since Netscape will distribute Netscape 5 for free anyway, so there's no profit to protect).
---
The problem is that Netscape didn't want to worry about GPL-esque 'viral' code. They wanted to be able to combine the fruits of the open-sourced code with their own proprietary code. Netscape is doing this as well, as Netscape Communicator will have functionality not present in Mozilla.
Apple would be stupid to give away everything, esp. their UI code. Other than some hardware benefits, their UI is one of their biggest selling points.
As for a comparison, check ESR's site (as well as Bruce's, I think). RMS doesn't like it, but then again, RMS doesn't seem to like anything to himself and his license.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
On a side note, Word 6 for the Mac was so bad, Microsoft had to start selling Word 5 again because Mac users hated it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Apple should make it easy for command line conniseurs, but they also need to encourage developers not to get sloppy. If at all possible, all features should be available from a graphical interface.
I'd hate to see software being written that is configured by editing a text file. This is fine for Linux, but for the MacOS... Well, it's just plain wrong.
I'd still like complete command line support, GNU tools, Perl, etc. These things should come on the CD, as an optional install for 'power' users.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
1. Apple uploads source code to everything to an FTP site.
2. Someone downloads source code.
3. Apple is sued by stockholders.
4. Apple goes out of business (for real).
Say what you will, but Apple isn't lying to anyone about their intentions and stipulations. Read the license, and it will all be clear. Why is Apple cheating? Nobody. Don't like the license? Don't contribute. It's all there on their site.
I can't believe people hold it _against_ a company simply because they won't give away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time. What is Apple going to do, sell support? Seems like a conflict of interest, as they're going to 'ease of use'.
Bitch about them not using the more restrictive GPL if you like, but it makes no difference. Unless you can figure out a way for them to stay in business (and - gasp! - prosper) under the GPL model, there's no way in hell they or anyone else is going to listen you.
Code doesn't deserve to be free. It's a nice gesture, and potentially rewarding for everyone if done right, but it's not a right in the same way people have a right to live outside of slavery.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Read here for more info:
t ml
http://www.maccentral.com/news/0001/05.quake.sh
...sounds like his next project may be MacOS X _only_.
He has a history of liking NeXTStep, and today made his second MacWorld Expo appearance...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Where is the Linux marketshare in the desktop arena? That may take a couple years.
Companies don't just make silly decisions like open-sourcing their crown jewels without a reason, and a port takes a while.
Not to mention that vast portions of QuickTime don't even belong to Apple to port.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
The original plan was, in fact, to open-source a slightly sanitized (non-Netscape and non-exportable code removed) Communicator.
That was done, and the Mozilla folks spent a couple years with it before deciding the codebase was complete crap and rewrote the thing from the ground up, producing the Mozilla we know and love today.
You can still see the original "sanitized" Communicator tree in the "Mozilla Classic" CVS branch.
DNA just wants to be free...
It's funny, Mac OS Rumors also has a live report from Macworld and they haven't mentioned a thing about OS X completely opening their source. How odd that a group so on top of the Darwin release would just overlook this major paradigm shift on behalf of Apple.
It seems like the reporter from mac-tips.com is a bit of a (not to mean this too pejoratively) Mac user. Here's what I think Steve Jobs probably said: "The Foundation of OS X will be Completely Open Source." And the mac-tips guy thought he was saying that the entire OS would be Open Source. I'd love to be able to compile up OS X on my PC tonight as much as the next guy, (hell, open Quicktime would be nice too) but somehow I don't think it's going to happen.
Apple cannot, I repeat, CANNOT open source OS X in its entirety - its licensing agreements with thrird-parties would prevent it. I'm willing to bet that Jobs was just rehashing Darwin again (and we all know how far that has gone since it was released...)
One other point - anyone lese think that the Dock at the bottom of the screen that shows minimized windows looks almost exactly like the same feature in any number of X Window WMs (Window Maker comes to mind)?
What are you talking about? OS-X Consumer will automatically hit 100% market share on all shipping macs within a year of it's intro. What more do they need? Oh you mean OS-X for x86? One word... not a chance in hell of that happening.
.... Apple would be much better served by striving to cut the iMacs price point even further. A lot of home users would rather get a new machine rather than deal with the percieved struggles of repartitioning and installing a brand new OS....
Though i'd love to see it myself, 1/2 of what makes the mac a mac is the fact that it just works. You don't need to care about IRQ's or anything like that. Only the rarest of cards have ever had any requirement other than plug it in, insert floppy, run installer, reboot...
The PC is a commodity platform... everything about it is 2nd rate compared to Macs, Sun boxes, SGI's, etc.... The performance is WORSE, until you get to dual CPU machines, which Apple will be remedying soon.
And lastly, there's just not that much money for anyone but microsoft to make selling OSes for x86... Be charges what? $50?
Shall i continue?
:)
So long as they had other closed API's (such as display, etc...) MSFT would have no issues with that, i don't think. Office doesn't seem to spend much of it's time making low-level system calls, to my knowledge. But then how would i know?
Ummm small tidbit, but maybe go check around the web or buy a book (MkLinux... whatever the whole name is...) and find out what Mach is.
One thing for sure is that it's in no way based on BSD... Mach's a microkernel... it manages the hardware... BSD runs on top of it. And the beauty of Mach is that you would theoretically be able to run other OSes/environments on it simultaneously...
I'd go on, but then you'd find i don't know much more beyond that... but go look for yourself somehwere.... Carnegie-Mellon would be a good place to start.
Up until KDE and Gnome arrived, X seemed to me seriously dated... now they're here, but the MacOS has 15 years of usability testing behind it...
and besides that, how dare you call the Mac's interface old, when Linux supporters always point out that because linux has a unix heritage, it has 15 or 20 years of lessons learned behind it...
Same thing applies to the mac interface, and even more so, because at least 10x more people have used macs in their lives than have used unix...
Come on people, learn to read. Darwin is what is/has been open sourced. Mach and BSD have been open sourced a long time, the OS X kernel is based of these. Unlike Linux Apple is going with a microkernel which I think is a much better choice for the kind of work you're probably going to be doing on an OS X box. It sure does make me happy to see all this coming about, a couple years ago I was figuring Apple was going to go under. OS X is a culmination of YEARS of work by Apple's software people. I see people complaining it isn't completely open sourced and how some idiots want to make the backend Linux rather than Mach. Apple would never open source all of it's GUI stuff and basically give its OS away for free. The kernel is open sourced so it is much easier for developers to work on the platform since they can go look at the kernel's code rather than read a manual describing how it works. Apple won't change the backend to Linux because it has already tweaked the Mach kernel to be backwards compatible with existing Mac software. And the 12 month transition I think is an excellent idea because it gives companies plenty of time to get their hands on production copies of the OS and develop on it rather than having beta software that is being changed every month or two like Win2k. The only thing I am worried about with OS X is if I will be able to run it on my powerbook or not. With a desktop I'd have a little more expandibility but my powerbook I can add memory and disk space and the like but there isn't much I can do about the processor. 128x128 pixel icons must look beautiful on a 21" cinema display but how about on my 14.1" screen on my PB? I can't wait ti play with Adobe's stuff on OS X though, a stable kernel would be nice for those >2MB pictures. Speaking of Adobe, does the new GUI remind anyone else of MetaCreations software just a little bit?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The quality of writing in this article leaves a lot to be desired. For some reason I don't trust this author....
/. is adding more topics (like that "programming" one (or maybe I didn't notice it before)), could a "rumors" category be added? I'm sick of all those unsubstantiated rumors in which all the comments go "wow! that's amazing," then, "whoa, something's wrong," then, "IT'S A HOAX," then "SLASHDOT SuCkS! CHECK YO' SOURCES!! MORONS!!!!"
Not to seem off-topic (because really, it's not), but seeing how
Ah well, just my thoughts.
For 2 and a half years, Steve Jobs called himself the Interm CEO of Apple. He finally decided to take the job full time.
Reality has a liberal bias
your GUI designers are brain damaged.
Are you a professional crackrock smoker or do you just play one on TV?
#1 - linux doens't HAVE gui designers. There are however people who write windowmanagers for the X windowing system which is completely independant of linux. Hell X is run on every *nix out there.
#2 - secondly there are undoubtedly going to be some people that will write a windowmanager to mimic the look and feel of OS X if they so deem it usable.
#3 - thirdly OS X is the next progression of NeXT, if I'm not mistaken and there happen to be several windowmangers that can be configured to handle just like the NeXT/Openstep. Although I could be wrong about the progression part.
#4 - I shouldn't feed the trolls. It makes for a bad day.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Correct. Whoever misinterpreted Job's statement that OS X was open source doesn't seem to know that the underpinnings (Darwin) are already open. I think it was just a simple misunderstanding. It seemed clear to me when I was listening that Jobs was speaking about Darwin being "like Linux". OS X will have all of the other fun stuff sitting on top.
One more beta in the Spring and then a release in the Summer. Looking forward to playing with all the new doodads. And thankful that Jobs has solidified his position at Apple, although he still retains the iCEO title. Good humor and fun to see them growing as a company again.
"I have a cunning plan..."
I certainly won't contribute to any of these efforts, but I won't write another CD player either. However, there are projects I am interested in for which comercial solutions exist, and I would contribute to those projects if they were opened up.
With as many people online as their are, there is no question that some people will be interested enough to commit time and resources to these projects. If you have any doubts, look a little more closely at Mozilla. For an even better example, look at the projects people work on which interact with closed software, but are themselves open (wine comes to mind).
Your point is excellent. Some slashdoters clamor for large projects to open up, when they themselves probably wouldn't contribute. Actions do speak louder than words, and a lot of energy could be wasted trying to patch a huge beast instead of replacing it. On the other hand, any step towards more freedom is a step in the right direction. Would you condemn a nation for improving its laws rather than starting from scratch? Would you criticize those who encouraged the nation to open up?
This is not a disagreement, merely a clarification of the situation as I know it.
I doubt it. If they open the source to OS X, they'll no doubt continue selling what will become the premier distribution of the operating system. 99%+ of their current operating system customers will want to buy the OS off the shelf rather than construct it on their own, and I'd bet a whole lot of linux and interested WinXX users will want to check it out too and will find it easier to drop $100 than to invest a couple of days of work to get it running. Looks like more sales, not less, to me.
-- Adam
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Because the Mach kernel is _really_ cool. That is why.
It also extends the flexibility of the OS, remember, apple was going to provide Rhapsody on intel, and they, did, and it wasnt too hard.
Think of Hurd. Now think what power it would have if there was a company backing it as its sole operating system. Think of that that company as apple.
Think Different
>The quality of writing in this article leaves a
>lot to be desired. For some reason I don't trust
>this author....
As it says, it's is a "live coverage" page, that's being rapidly updated as the keynote progresses. Someone's sitting there typing into their box and updating the page as fast as possible.
It's not meant to be a journalistic article, just a rapid update for those of us who don't have streaming QT at work. So there's no fact checking goin on. He hears something wrong, it gets inputted wrong, he doesn't go back to check his facts till after the keynote's over.
I, for one, doubt that Apple'd open source the WHOLE MacOS X, not after spending so much on its development. Prolly, they'll just releast all the low-level stuff, like the Darwin release.
Tho, it's be teriffically cool if the DID OS the whole thing.
john
Imagine all the people...
Just because Apple releases the Code to MacOS X/Darwin or whatever other components it's releasing, doesn't mean that it will release compiled binaries for free, or even allow the distribution of free binaries. This would create an obstacle for the vast majority of Mac users, who would rather just buy an easy-install CD. However, serious MacOS developers could get a much more intimate picture of the core of the OS, hence improving application performance, or making more effective OS modules. In this way, Open Source !=(freeware for most), yet provides benefits for developers, and creates a better application base. Better OS, better apps, same or increased profit. Peter Pawlowski
Would the release of the Apple source code emable a port to the X86 platform? Sure, we all love linux, but from a GUI standpoint I'd rather use the MacOS over M$FT any day. Also, could it be possible to create an X WM based on the Apple source??
They actually have various themes for gnome, kde, and window maker that change the UI so that it works just like the MacOS or quite close to it. They also have Mac emulators for linux as well.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
This poses an interesting question... Will the continued recognition of open source by the corporate community be genuine, or are they simply paying lip service? Will they use a "real" open source license? Will the presence of commercial interests change the open source community? If so, how? Will people be less willing to code "for free" when there are companies willing to pay -- but they pay for what they want, not what you want...
I would think that most of what we have been observing as of late are attempts to make things that are closed source open source if two conditions apply:
1. The product is becomming obsolete or sales are dropping to levels that make its' continued presence in the marketplace not worth the energy they are putting into it.
2. The product has lost market/mindshare and it needs a shot in the arm (Mozilla/Borland).
If I was a corporation I would be looking at these options in great detail if I needed a boost. It makes your company look good and secretly you get more and more money in the process; while placating and convincing people with programming know how that you are a good choice to work with. Do I expect to see Microsoft ever to release any version of windows? No. Do I expect someday to see some crappy program to come down the pike with a restricted opensource liscence? Yes.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Would the release of the Apple source code emable a port to the X86 platform? Sure, we all love linux, but from a GUI standpoint I'd rather use the MacOS over M$FT any day. Also, could it be possible to create an X WM based on the Apple source??
;o)
Just curious to hear soe opinions
True, that's only conjecture--but MS has been under so much pressure from Linux, the Government, and the media lately that they're desperate to get Win2K out the door, no matter how buggy. I agree with Eric S. Raymond; Windows 2K will be a train wreck of an OS.
"The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version that I ever heard.... And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason. You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs." -- Bill Gates, qouted by Klaus Brunnstein of FOCUS magazine, 4 Nov 1995
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Well, I just listened to the keynote live & noted that Steve Jobs pointed out that Darwin, the OS X *kernel* will be open-source. He did not mention that Quartz (and QT, etc) would be. So, nothing new there .... check out publicsource.apple.com
Pete C
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
For a look at the Mac OS X interface, check out the Mac OS X page. Interfaces on nearly every platform have become rather stale. I've been skeptical about Apple's ability to improve the situation. However, the new interface looks increadible! The animations seem actually helpful while still looking quite impressive.
I worry about the speed hit machines will take because of this, but who knows...when NeXT first appeared, the interface was more visually pleasing than anything else around. Half the interfaces today are some derivative of that look. Apple seems to be taking things one step cooler but have put a twist on it: instead of just looking cool, it also looks friendly and approachable.
Check it out!
infobhan
Too late,we already have "the popular Linux operating system"
If the bottom level is truly open-source, that's a big win for clonemakers, who will now have all the information they need to build machines that run the software, including providing their own kernel port if needed. Since Jobs is the one who killed the Mac clone industry, that probably won't be the case. So watch for kickers in the "open-source" license.
If OS X is made open source, maybe now we can write new prog's for the mac. One of the things that has limited the popularity of the mac has been the difficulty to get software that will run on a mac. Now, maybe, we can look at the code and port more applications over to the mac environment. Who know's? Maybe now we can write a good interpreter for mac software on PC's.
-----
The question is how much of the OS will be released. under an open source license.
The second question, is what type of open source license?
Just because they release it under an open source "model" 'like the popular Linux operating system.' doesn't guarnette that it will be Free (as in speech).
Open Source does NOT mean freedom. Open Source in this case probably means the 'marketing' people at Apple are doing a 'fine Job'
Second what is the deal with all these companies claiming that they are part of the Open Source movement, etc, blah blah. Serously, if Apple really wanted to go Open Source all they could do it right now, right here. All Apple has to do to become an Open Source company is upload all it's source to one of it's many public FTP sites, slap a copy of the gpl.txt in the
A company or person has a right to release any program, in any way they see fit. If this is a binrary only release, source code release, source release under the GPL, over even no public or private release at all. In which ever way this company or person releases their program, I will respect that (even though I may not use it).
But for a company or person say they are going to release it in XYZ manner then be a little piss ant about it, doing it part XYZ and the other half ABC way, I can not respect that. Stick by your gun and do what you say, don't be fucking stupid about it either. If Apple truthly wanted to be an Open Source company, they could do it right now, right here, but they don't. They are going to stroke their investors off with thoughts of Linux and VA Research's opening climb, piss around for a couple months, then do some pathic and very restrictive release. By that time their investors will have already got off and Apple will fine some new BS way to feel up the investors in just the right way
Actions not only speak louder than words, actions are the ONLY way to speak. Hello Apple? I can't hear you, you will have to Speak up.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I hope that everyone realizes that if MacOS X really is opensourced that that doesn't mean that it will be GPLed. If Apple does opensource MacOS X then it is likely that only some of the code that would allow for extensions to be made to the operating system, etc. much in the way that UT was opensourced not too long ago. 'Opensourcing' is more of a marketing thing - it sounds like it'll be all great and everything, that Apple too is jumping on the open source bandwagon... but no. If they really open-source MacOS X it will mean even more monetary losses for the company. Obviously it would be a boon to the open-source community... but I really feel that this is a marketing ploy to make people feel like Apple is a great company. Just my two cents. - Iodine
printf("Why have a signature?");
Aqua's the new OSX interface; no one's used it yet (outside Apple anyway) but there are plenty of previews. Check it out at http://www.apple.com/macosx.
It's very pretty, and frankly I wonder if Apple fired its own graphic design team and hired a legion of demo-coders to implement it instead; it's undoubtedly the coolest-looking interface I've ever seen (with the possible exception of the BlueSteel theme for E, and the supposed interface for the new AmigaOS which, sadly, never showed).
However, the good looks don't always translate to practicality; check out the three buttons at the top of the window (I think they look like jewels). They look exactly alike, except for color, until you mouse over them. Then all three get little symbols (X for clode, + for maximize, - for minimize) embedded in the jewels. It's still bad interface, though.
In other words, Apple isn't getting it completely right with this revision. Hopefully they'll correct the mistakes by the time OSX is released; then it'll be really cool.
Now, what I'd like to know is why they didn't just adopt Linux for the kernel and toss a MacOS API on top of that. Oh yeah-- and do something about making QuickTime available for Linux, too.
Isn't the problem with QuickTime for Linux the various codecs that are used by it, like Sorensen?
I thought that was the reason there isn't a client for Linux that can play most of the movies that are on the web.
There is however a library for QuickTime at this page.
This is from that page.
Be aware of one thing: Quicktime for Linux won't read any of the movies you download from the internet. Quicktime is a wrapper for many different kinds of compression formats. What you know as "Quicktime 4" is really a distribution of libraries which contain certain compression formats not found in previous versions Quicktime. Regardless of the version number, each Quicktime distribution is able to read and write a basic set of compression formats that you can manipulate on Linux or any system not officially supported by Apple. Only a few of these compression formats are built in Quicktime for Linux because 99% of Linux developers can't use any commercial code in their software. Since 1998 Apple has licensed all the internet video formats for their own use. What you can do is create Quicktime movies.
i don't read slashdot anymore.
The very fact the a company that makes very good hardware (compared to some of the things that the PC market has) but has an interface that is a little geek limiting (I really like command lines and such) is now taking the opportunity to make a unix like interface that dosn't need to have totally graphical features and is Open Source! This is quite nice as well because it will also have full hardware support and be free of some of the hoop jumping of other PPC and related OSs.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
If MS open-sourced Win2k - and provided a license that wasn't completely obnoxious - would you use it? When the first group scrapped the UI, ported X/[WM of choice], and posted the tarball, would you run to download it? Would you volunteer to fix the problems in the Registry, or ACLs, or the DCOM subsystems? How about dumping that eMac WM/GTK theme, and just running OS X, with the latest set of patches from [mythical OS X guru]? Would you give up your spare time to help with the ports to OS X? Or will you instead write another CD player for Linux?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system, with Quartz, Open GL and QuickTime all built in."
Items of note:
1) The third phrase ("with Quartz...") has nothing to do with the first two, so the real quote is "OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system...".
2) "Completely" implies the whole thing, so Rob's (?) question is answered.
3) What does "open source like...Linux..." mean? GPL?
4) This entire thing is clearly smoke out of someone's ass. Why don't we wait until Apple's announcement of the anonymous CVS password before we piss our pants in excitement.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Actually, they probably didn't adopt Linux for the kernel because MacOS X is basically NeXTStep 5.0.
NeXTStep, for those of you who haven't been around that long, was the Mach/BSD-based OS that Jobs' previous company, NeXT, created in the late 80's. NeXTStep was way, way ahead of its time, but the developers made some choices which ended up being different from what the rest of the world did -- using Objective-C instead of C++ was the biggest one. Of course, the _incredible_ GUI development libraries and utilities of NeXTStep were later retooled into "OpenStep", and there is now at least one free-software project to reimplement it (GNUStep).
I have no doubt that the "advanced OO development environment" called "Cocoa" is actually just another retooling of the NeXTStep libraries/utilities. Which is fine, 'cuz they really are good.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I've been watching Steve Jobs' Reality-Distortion effect via QT4, and some people are missing a fine distinction. The lowest-level "Darwin" code is to be open-source, not Apple's proprietary higher-level OS (Carbon, Quartz, Cocoa, and all the other goofily-named bits).
Darwin is pretty much analagous to the Linux kernel, though it is Mach-based, rather than a monolithic kernel.
The BSD-based system interface that rides slightly above Darwin is also to be open-source, which is not surprising since it derives from the various *BSD's out there.
Judging from some discussion on various mailing lists, a lot of the developers are not too impressed with the slow speed at which Apple has been releasing source. This may be typical online whining though. Several Apple people have responded back in a very sincere-sounding manner, asking for patience. I'm inclined to agree with them, since Apple has really only jumped into this Open Source thing recently, and it takes a long time for things to change in a large company. As well, they have to make sure the code they post really belongs to them, that it's in decent enough shape to share, etc. Give 'em a little more time, I say.
Now, what I'd like to know is why they didn't just adopt Linux for the kernel and toss a MacOS API on top of that. Oh yeah-- and do something about making QuickTime available for Linux, too.