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.
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.
The fact is, the Macintosh has its niche in the marketplace--over half of Adobe's annual revenue ($500+ million) comes from their Macintosh products.
MacOS is more than a decent OS. It's incredibly easy to use, even to the level of 'stupid'... which is perfect for the market they're trying to attract. When 30% of the purchasers of your product (iBook) are *switching* from Wintel to Mac, you're doing something right.
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. Given, Linux has its niche, too--and a great one--but it can't touch Apple in the consumer market. That's plain fact.
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.
They've been using Hitchcock for a while, I've had a Think Different poster with him on it...for two years now.
Theres no sense getting all pissed at Apple, get pissed at the families that sell the likeness to Apple to use.
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.
MacOS may have a nice UI (for things that are best done with a mouse, at least), but the rotten guts of MacOS are another matter.
In the past, Apple have not had incentive to invest in the relatively unsexy area of operating system internals. After all, their competition was Microsoft, who despite having memory protection in their OSes, manage to put in enough bugs to not be too reliable.
The advent of Linux as a well-known OS will raise the bar, making it harder to get away with mediocre OSes, and forcing Apple (and Microsoft) to invest more in making their systems work reliably.
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%.
...which is irrelevant if the "Mac clones" to which the original poster referred would be PowerPC-based (the original ones that Jobs killed were, and the original poster said "return of Mac clones", so I suspect the intent was to imply PowerPC-based Mac clones - heck, if they're not PowerPC-based, I'm not sure I'd consider them "clones"...).
Tim -
I'll agree. Alt-tab is one of the (few) things Windows got right. It is of definate use.
I personally prefer the BeOS implementation above all others, though. The 'twitcher' is pretty damned nice from a usability aspect, IMHO.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
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
Those developers you cite are now not only Apple developers, but comprise the head of Apple's development group (Avi Tevanian comes to mind).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Yep. And from I hear, it's not nearly as good as the Mac version.
(I haven't used it much on the Windows side of things)
If so, they need to ensure platform parity. Once the Windows version works fine, Linux would be the next logical step (just don't bother asking for the complete source code - it's not all theirs to give).
- 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
My guess is that they're waiting for Linux to cut a larger swath in the desktop market. If it can gain a few more percentage points, they might just do it.
I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, though. QuickTime isn't exactly trivial...
- 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
I guess the general idea is that it's better to have 70-80% of the functions available using consistant key combinations than 100% with inconsistant key combinations.
Key combinations are worthless if they don't carry over from app to app. While the Mac doesn't cover some of the more obscure commands, most of the ones that are supported are very common in multiple apps.
Note that this is really a developer choice. Apple has just evangelized consistancy for so long, developers keep it in mind and users chew them out if they do poorly.
- 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?
:)
Not to say that Quicktime is shoddy or anything (it's not! especially on the Mac, it's very transparent... install a new version and all of a sudden your apps have features they didn't have before),
But Apple has a vested interest in making sure that Quicktime works best on their platform... Because if QuickTime or an equivilant appeared for Windows or Linux, (and no... AVI's and DirectX don't quite fit the bill) then Apple would indeed be in trouble, as far as the high-end (content creation) part of their market is concerned.
You'd most likely need to recompile apps, unless someone writes up a PowerPC emulator... but then what the hells the point of that? You're talking huge slowdown, there. Going the otherway isn't so bad, i don't think - emulating x86 on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, or any other risc... but the reverse would just be nutty...
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."
-----------
"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"
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.
I have to pretty much disagree with you here. If they wanted to ride the "Linux" wave, wouldn't they just drop "OS X" and go with Linux? It seems that they still believe they want to be "on their own" so to speak. Maybe they can still jump on the linux bandwagon by slowly transitioning all their "OS X" code into Linux. I'm still waiting for the first big company to release their very own linux distro. I've been thinking it would be IBM or SUN, but who knows, maybe Apple will beat them to it! I just hope it's not Microsoft Linux. Can you imagine Microsoft Linux with a new custom enhanced API?!?
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?");
Not clever marketing, just bad reporting. They're not opening the whole thing, just Darwin and some components - and it's already been done, and yes, you can download it. http://publicsource.apple.com/
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.