Slashdot Mirror
Jordan Hubbard (of FreeBSD Fame) Hired by Apple
Anonymous Coward and many others wrote in to tell us that Jordan Hubbard is going to work for Apple.
Here's his post to the FreeBSD-announce mail list.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Will Mac OS X ever be released for i386? I heard rumors that Apple had some sort of agreement with MS that it wouldn't invade i386 territory. Is there any truth to this? I can see Apple wanting to keep Mac OS X as an incentive to buy Mac hardware. But I think offering OS X for i386 will help OS X approach ubiquity and can only help the sale of Mac hardware indirectly.
So what's the bottom line? Anyone know the inside scoop?
Jason.
For those already posting wild-assed assumptions (like it would kill these folks to look up their own answers - this is the web!) here's a couple of responses bundled up:
-
FreeBSD is *not* the basis of MacOS X. The kernel is different and the utilities are a hodgepodge from a number of BSD distribs.
-
Darwin is the MacOS X core and it's freely available. Indeed Apple has ported it to x86 (a platform they don't sell) and provides it the same support they do their PPC implementation. It's Open Source, go grab a copy for yourself.
-
Darwin is the core of MacOS X - it's NOT all of it. The Classic, Carbon, Quartz, QuickTime, etc. parts remain in house & aren't likely to be released. Some folks whinge on about Apple taking advantage of Open Source - well yeah, that's why folks used the licenses they did. On the other hand Apple's also been contributing back a lot too (unlike MS) and while they may not have released your favorite bits they've been playing fairly.
-
Yes Apple has rabid lawyers when it gets to things that involve their name & IP, especially their "look". Sure imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, on the other hand they spenty a lot developing their look & it's their trade dress.
-
There is no "secret agreement" between Apple & MS regarding using x86 (at least that anyone seriously believes.) MS makes good money off of their MacOS products and wouldn't likely be strongly impacted by Apple using x86. On the other hand Apple is very unlikely to do so for a long list of reasons. Finally any such agreement would get MS in to too much hot water.
-
Porting BSD tools to MacOS X varies in difficulty. For simple command-line stuff it's pretty straightforward, indeed lots of stuff makes just fine already. On the other hand taking advantage of MacOS X's Cocoa OO environment with it's "services", "frameworks", "packages" and other nifty stuff takes a bit more work.
- For ports that do GUI there's some work involved in going from X to Quartz but it's entirely doable. X-under-Aqua is available but it's kinda missing the point of running MacOS in the first place. Java-stuff of course runs natively, uses the Aqua GUI via Swing.
What's Hubbard likely to do? There's a spot open for managing the Darwin porting. There's lots of BSD-harmonizing to do. Many parts of MacOS X are still being tuned so any help there is likely to be appreciated. There's also been a push to make MacOS X Server shine so that's also a likely source of work. Finally there's just basic evangelizing and developer relations.I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
--
Main reason was that it cost about a thousand dollars and was marketed as a special-purpose workstation OS. Which is exactly what Apple would have to charge today in order to cover their costs without the hardware business. Unrealistic.
Sorry, but MacOS X on Intel has "OS/2" or "BeOS" written all over it. Never going to happen -- There's only two ways to make it in the commodity OS market - have 90% marketshare or don't charge for your product.
Maybe a small group of john82-type hobbyists would pay for it (or would if the driver support was vastly expanded to cover 98% of PC mystery stuff). Most people will continue use the OS that came on their computer via MS OEM contract.
(Not to mention the technical issues of supporting the transition, not to mention the developer relation issues transitioning to both a new OS and a new platform, not to mention...)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
--
But then again, I could be wrong.
If Apple wants to survive they have to cater to more than what a niche market likes or prefers. Apple has to go for the mainstream because that is the only way they are going to stay alive. Mainstream users are used to the fluid multitasking and efficient behavior of Windows. Sticking with an antiquated OS architecture that just can't keep up is a sure way to make themselves even more marginalized than they are already.
So far OS-X hasn't really delivered. It does multitask better, but it is very sluggish and its user interface behavior leaves something to be desired.
Hopefully they'll do what needs to be done to get the efficiency up and then port it to the PC. If they don't they can kiss their ass goodbye because no one is going to buy slower hardware to run a slower OS just because they want to "think different."
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Look folks, Apple is a hardware company. That's were they really make their money. People buy their boxes in order to get the Mac OS. If they could run the Mac OS on cheaper x86 boxes many of them would choose to do so. Of course many people would still buy Titanium PowerBooks and iBooks for other reasons, but fewer.
That's sort of the picture the mass technology media has painted, but I think the reality is considerably more complex than that. There's not really enough room to explain the whole thing here but the essence of the issue is that Apple creates complete products. They are not merely an OS vendor, nor are they a hardware assembly service.
As far as I can tell, Apple and Sony are the only desktop hardware companies left actually developing products -- which is why their machines cost more. There are hardware companies that mainly buy components, put them all together, and try to charge slightly more than what it cost them to build the machine. We have plenty of these types of companies.
Mac OS X for x86 would give some people people immediate, short-term gratification, but I think it would really kill one of the industry's key sources of innovation in the long term. Bottom line: there's little reason to create Mac OS X applications when the same people have Windows-capable (or Linux-capable) hardware. The result: lack of differentiation, and lack of progress. 50% of the population thinks Apple's software sells the hardware, the other 50% thinks that the hardware sells the software. It's neither. It's a symbiotic relationship -- they rely on and complement each other. But this isn't immediately obvious to the user. They take these things for granted, and just see it as part of "the computer."
For example, the PowerPC runs at lower temperatures and uses less energy than its x86 counterparts. This is why several of Apple's machines are fanless, and substantially quieter as a result. And it does this so while providing more performance per clock cycle.
Few actually seem to notice, but Apple is in the process of creating substantial long-term value in the company. Revamping the OS, reinventing the hardware, fixing the advertising, opening retail stores, creating (free) industry-leading developer tools, and releasing open source software. These are all elements of building infrastructure. One by one, they're removing the barriers in front of them. They're in this for the long haul. Relegating them to an x86 OS vendor would dash any hope of true variety in commercial computing options.
(Voline, I realize your comment was not meant to be anti-Apple)
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I will also continue to support WindRiver's efforts in any way I can to ensure that the FreeBSD product line there continues and that FreeBSD can continue to be a solution which is broadly applicable to a wide array of markets.
The FreeBSD product line has reached the stage where I feel comfortable taking a job which allows me to focus more on Darwin. While I have enjoyed my time working with the people and projects at BSDi and WindRiver, I simply couldn't resist the
opportunity of working at Apple.
Nice move on his behalf as everyone needs to make a living, however I wonder a few things. How will this impact FreeBSD in the future. It's nice to for Jonathan to say he will continue to assist with the project, but what happens when his time becomes consumed at Apple, and he *has no* time for the FreeBSD project, how will FreeBSD stand up.
Another curiousity is, whether or not Apple has plans to move into another arch. Surely Jonathan could provide them with a variety of snippets on how to get it going, and if this does happen, how would FreeBSD compete with a company like Apple.
Now for the record *BSD is dying posts* will be ignored so don't bother trolling, I would like to hear perhaps from a developer what actions (if any) could, and would FreeBSD take, should Apple decide to switch into the i386 arena with Darwin.
Also I wonder how this will affect others who may be looking to focus more on themselves, as time becomes more valuable, and others decide to follow suit focusing more on a company and themselves, rather than the OS (FreeBSD). Are there backup developers, or does the team distribute the work left behind by a developer who jumped ship.
P.S. I hope the developers still aren't pissed at me these (1 2)
Want Root?
Of course not - everyone should remember when he rwall'ed the entire ARPAnet and in doing so single-handedly forced the invention of the firewall...
Saying that Microsoft somehow needs Apple to keep the DoJ off their back is out of date. Clearly, Microsoft is no longer worried about the DoJ: bundling MSN messenger, adding smart tags so they can control content on the web, changing their licensing agreements to force users to upgrade, and bundling VoIP clients into XP. Having Apple around to show they don't have a monopoly isn't enough to stem their recent activity. They probably figure they can entrench their position pretty well until dubya gets replaced in office. No, I think it's more likely that as long as the Macintosh BU is making Microsoft money but not cannibalizing Windows sales, and Apple keeps "preferring" Internet Explorer, they'll keep writing software for it. But if Apple gets into selling an OS for x86, the gloves will come off.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
"the next version wil be a lot less *nix-y". Uh. Not likely, they've pinned their future on OS X and its BSD foundation.
The graphic artists in your office who downgraded, its probably because Adobe has been slow off the mark in Carbonizing their apps. If they're like most graphic artists, they are dead in the water without Illustrator and Photoshop. "Low level access" to their computers has nothing to do with it. OS X protects users from having to do anything at the command-line. It's a different user experience than OS 9, but it's certainly not giving them anything like the complexity associated with the average Linux installation.
Apple would not have done better by continuing with OS 9. They've squeezed as much as they can out of a very old OS with no protected memory, no preemptive multitasking, and limited networking power. Not to embrace *NIX would have been suicide.
As for wanting "low-level access", a lot of Mac users do want it, but those that don't want it don't have to bother with it. Gee, what a concept!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
CmdrTaco confirmed this week that *BSD trolls account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Slashdot posting. This news serves to reinforce what we've known all along; *BSD trolls are collapsing in complete disarray.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict a *BSD Troll's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD Trolls face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD Trolls because sooner or later, their Windows95 boxes will hang. As many of us are already aware, *BSD Trolls continues to be moderated down to -1. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Anonymous Coward is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. Amiga Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7,000 Amiga Trolls on Slashdot . How many *BSD Trolls are there? Let's see. The number of Amiga versus Emacs Trolls roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7,000/5 = 1,400 Emacs Trolls. Hot-Grits Trolls on Slashdot are about half of the volume of Emacs Trolls. Therefore there are about 700 Hot-Grits Trolls. A recent article put *BSD Trolls at about 10 percent of the Hit-Grits Trolls. Therefore there are 700*.10 = 70 *BSD Trolls. This is consistent with the number of *BSD Troll postings.
Due to the troubles of *BSD Trolls karma and so on, Anonymous Coward went down this weekend, and was taken over by by a small shell script. That shell script was running on a leased Dell, and was taken back by the Dell Leasing for failure to pay. The computer was re-leased to a charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD Trolls have steadily declined in market share. *BSD Trolls are very sick, and look vaguly like the goatse.cx guy. Their prospects are very dim. If *BSD Trolls are to survive at all it will be among Microsfot-OS dabblers.. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD Trolls are dead.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
He can't work there - that means they'll have to give every copy of OSX away for free! Can't they see the error of their ways?- -------
------------------------------------------
Definitely better than their original idea -- bringing in Theo De Raadt to lead their PR department.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
MacOS X does need some tweaking, especially in the speed department... Go, dude, go!