Slashdot Mirror
Apple Plans To Release Rendezvous As Open Source
Snuffub writes "According to MacCentral, Apple announced during an interview today that they would be releasing Rendezvous, their implementation of the zeroconf standard, under an open source license. I can't see this as being anything but great news for everyone involved -- the community gets a mature implementation of an emerging technology, and Apple benefits as more devices are created to support Rendezvous. For everyone interested, you'll be able to download the source from Apple's site in a couple weeks." uglyhead69 adds: "The article is light on details and doesn't mention what license will be used, but it's probably safe to assume that it's the APSL."
I believe Windows XP's Universal Plug and Play is similar to this... it auto-discovers network components, such as gateways, etc and allows the OS to determine the external IP address, for example, which is useful in some applications. But this seems a whole lot cooler... and now that it's open source, hopefully we'll see it get integrated into a lot more OSes. Apple is really good when it comes to the "innovation" and "ease-of-use" way of doing things.
I think Apple should allow the Open Source developer community access to the code bacause ...
oh wait. they already have?
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Recent interview post here. Stuart is awesome (he wrote Bolo).
But seriously, how beneficial will this really be? I'm not an expert on open source (I'm not qualified for the term "beginner" either), but what advantage is this to Apple?
I can see where developers could use this to create thousands of cool applications for little tasks here and there, but what is the advantage outside of this? And how would it help the Rendezvous program grow?
The Political Programmer
...for RAGING HOMOSEXUALS everywhere, isn't it, pinky boi?
Good. Will.
The better Apple responds to the needs of the Open Source community, the more folks move toward its computer platform. It's a logical follow-up on their commitment to Darwin.
Well, the challenge for Apple has been to get peripherals makers and consumer electronics manufacturers to use Rendezvous in their products. What better to do this than to open source the only working implementation of the zeroconf standard?
in a market that is suffering, apple is actually one of the stronger performers...if you bothered to take notice :)
But not any more than any other computer manufacturer.
Obviously Applie isn't going to do this if they're going to lose something in the deal. Clearly they think this move is best for their business. After all, they're required to do what's best for their business.
Of course, Enron thought differently. It thought it should do what was best for their high level managers and executives.
Learn to spell.
The last Stevenote showed this off, a PowerbookG4 being walked in range of a Rendezvous enabled HP printer, they were configured on the fly by the OS and in seconds they were able to print to it. No wires, multiple users, no configuration. Besides iTunes p2p music library (it automatically locates other Rendezvous enabled Mac's and adds their music library to yours, streaming wise, it doesn't actually transfer the music ;) )
Many, many possibilities here.
From Apple's point of view, anything that puts Microsoft outside a large pool of functionality is good. Essentially, it's an attempt to conduct a reverse embrace and extend. Take something that was already there, improve it, then give it back.
Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed. I've been using 10.2 since the public release, and I'm impressed by Rendezvous, and I can't wait to use it with Linux as well.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Good comparason. It's pretty obvius that the level of commun sense is about the same bettween hiring arthur anderson and basing your FAGSHIP PRODUCT on a n OS that everyone knows is dying.
Are we mad that the only thing your PC can do is play video games...and spread sheets...wow can I be a x86 user please
ex(86)tinct
At least have the decency to speak the entire phrase, you pompous ass.
Well, awhile back apple took what appeared to be some abandonware from the old mac Sprockets system, and released it as openplay, an open-source gaming library that would let you write cross-platform networking code for games.
Has that been beneficial? Has it been used by anyone, for anything noteworthy?
It looks from where i'm sitting like there's been so little interest in it that despite the long time it's been released, the linux port hasn't even been completed.
If OpenPlay's been ignored by the community, what makes Rendezvous so useful that we think the open-source community will pick it up and run with it?
I'm not trying to put apple's decision down here. They did an honorable thing, and i'm proud of them. But this is an honest question. Why would/should the linux/OSS community be interested in Rendezvous? Is it a technology that would actually be useful to the open source world?
Follow up on your promises dammit. plz die k thx
I implemented one of the Zeroconf internet drafts on Linux for a class project. It can be found here. :)
It is in no way a complete implementation, but got me an 'A' grade
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
Blow me, jerkoff.
I'm holding a copy of Mac OS X version 10.2, aka Jaguar, in my hands right now. It includes a functional implementation of rendezvous/zeroconf.
It was released last week, and my copy just arrived in the mail. I am going to install it just as soon as i've glanced through slashdot. I will be running it within the hour.
Is this what you call "vaporware"? Because that is not what it seems like to me.
Perhaps you should clarify yourself.
Apple didn't really have a choice on this one. The only way their technology will become successful is if it is accepted and supported by a large number of companies. If its open source, why not include it in your next hardware release?
SIGFAULT
It will be nice when they do release some source for this, and make all of the technical documents available. I'd like something to look over about all of this autoconfiguration software.
I mean, am I the only person this scares? Microsoft Outlook had (has) the autoexecute feature that allows virii authors to introduce new and inventive ways to drop rootkits into IIS servers.
Linux has their own little features that have to be guarded against as well. In the basis of security very few of my companies Linux boxes are running any form of FTP. Way too many security alerts, and 90% of the boxes don't need to do file transfers anyway.
Now Apple offers us a really cool and interesting technology that will allow a computer to automatically find a printer. How long before one of these virii authors writes himself an object that allows his PowerBook G4 to introduce itself to a Rendevous network and take control of several machines at once.
Here you go, a really sweet streaming virus.
I for one, hope that there isn't just a way to turn this off, but delete it entirely from a running system. Because as of right now, I'm a little more worried about this than anything new from Redmond about automatically updating my systems.
We use all *NIX on the outside anyway, so that doesn't really apply to any sensitive systems ^_^
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
Are we mad that our toy platform only gets hand-me-downs from the x86 world?
Wa wa, baby wants a ba-ba.
Lots of people complain that Apple is too expensive. My question is: How much do you want to pay for an Apple?
Seriously, what would be the price that would make all the "Apple's too expensive" camp shut up and buy?
I'm not trying to be fussy, I'm seriously interested...
My father is a blogger.
Suppose you want to write a distributed system.
Lots of processes running on an array of machines. Say for example you have a data center full of racks of 1U servers, and each one is cranking away on some part of the application code. You have redundant processes scattered around too, so if one machine takes a dive, you want the whole application to stay up and running anyway.
Imagine you're the administrator of this system. How do you tell each little process in the system what IP address and TCP port to use so that every other process in the system knows where to find it?
Without Rendezvous, you have several options-- all of them unappealing. You might start with some kind of application specific configuration file format and a cobbled-together system for distributing such data around to all the hosts in the system. You might instead store such network configuration in some directory server on the network, like DNS or LDAP or some kind of custom front end to some kind of evil database backend.
Either way, you quickly encounter what we veterans like to call "the cache coherency problem," i.e. the information in the directory must be consistent at all times with the actual state of the processes in the system. Whenever processes start, stop, migrate or change their profile, you have to update the directory. Solving this problem with existing technology can be expensive. If you don't solve it, then single-point failure modes proliferate and the system becomes exponentially more difficult to manage the larger it gets.
With Rendezvous, the network itself is the directory service. Since all the little processes in the system are responsible for their own advertisements, there is no cache coherency problem. You don't have to assign addresses and ports to all your processes because the application can simply assign itself a set of abstract service names and discover all the instances of those services on the network with Rendezvous service discovery. No configuration files to keep updated. No dynamic updates to LDAP or DNS servers that might get overloaded, or may not be running or in the right place when they need to be.
Of course, there are alternatives to consider. You might think to use SLP (RFC 2608-2610), which you can download now from www.openslp.org, but strangely... SLP hasn't managed to get much traction in industry. Some say that's because it's too unwieldy to use effectively.
You should compare Rendezvous with OpenSLP and see which one you think is better.
--
jhw
I'd really like to be able to take my iBook (or any networked laptop, really) into a public place with the AirPort card turned on and have it not only pick up a base station signal, but every once in a while send out a signal over the wireless card to see if there are any other non-base-stationed wireless cards present that might want to hook up for a small wireless mini-LAN. This sounds like the kind of thing Rendezvous would be a great start for. It'd be a good way to meet people, too. Set up your machine with a little program that does the 'ping' for other machines and advertises whatever it is.
Ping.
iBook, OS 10.2, anyone around?
It'd be like combining Wardriving with those weird "Beep if someone you'll consider hot is nearby." things they were selling in Japan a while ago.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
If Apple uses the APSL, then the source code could not be used in Linux. I'm uncertain if Debian would accept any APSL submissions.
The issue to my mind is that Rendezvous needs popular adoption, and rapid acceptance would be best. If Apple has it in mind to emphasis Windows' network reliablity, then a GPL license would allow the technology to be integrated into Linux, and percolate into FreeBSD via ports. If Apple wants the most rapid adoption a source license can provide, the BSD license would be best, but then Microsoft would be free to embrace & extend.
This is why I root for the GPL in this case. Rendezvous is very cool technology, so Microsoft would either have to ignore it, attack its mindshare, impliment its own version, or bend knee to the GPL. Their own implimentation would be inferior for a time, and due to demand and early deployment, Microsoft would be unfairly judged as having an incompotent implimentation, rather than a primitive one. This would add pressure to move to non-Microsoft platforms. This is good for Apple, because non-Microsoft means Unix, and in many cases, that means MacOS X.
That's aside, however. I'm afraid that an APSL license would cause the source to stagnate except for the eyes of a few Wizards that learn from the implimentation and then develop their own (L)GPLed version.
I think I'm rambling.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Right, OS X is dying, that's why slashdot is actualy reporting on Apple relevent topics. THey have an Apple section. That's why Apple's stock is at a decently healthy $14 per share. That's why over the last 52 weeks, their lowest has been $13 per share, and their highest $26 per share. That's why the media is reporting on Apple with headlines other than "Apple is Dying". That's why Apple is one of the few companies that made any decent amount of money during the tech marcket downturn. Of course OS X is dying, just like Linux is a dead dog.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I like to think of Rendezvous as a much smarter analogue to NetBEUI, which I often refer to as the "butt sniffing protocol" that Windows machines use to detect each other in the absence of IP networking.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
Methinks this is just a technology to allow Bolo players to find games without any configuration changes being required.
Bolo and WinBolo rock!
Cheers
VikingBrad
But seriously, Sharp has already embedded this technology in thier printers, so it's not just Epson, HP, and Lexmark that will be supporting this standard.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
eom
Apple is in the business of selling clients. If all the vendors of servers (yes, your network printer is a server) adopt this technology, then they can sell more clients. It's that simple -- make it easy for everybody to implement Rendevous, and you make more money. This is different from Micro$oft's business model, which calls for controlling both the client and the server, so they don't make it easy to implement ANYTHING that's compatible with their software.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
hahahhaha.. funny
what bait and switch did they pull with OSS
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
NETBEUI as the "Butt Sniffing Protocol"
Priceless.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Just because you can find my address in the phone book, it does't make it any easier to break into my house. Rendevous doesn't ship any actual code around, so what's to carry the virus? About the worst that can happen is multiple machines come up with the same address -- but a malicious node on your network could make that happen WITHOUT Rendevous.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Your sig can actualy be simplified to one mind boggling statement.
"This statement is false"
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
fuck
I was talking with a buddy of mine about the possibility of putting a wireless card in the iPods and then going to a club with them. The dj would then be able to pick and mix music off of people in the club. Similar to the iTunes demo but with a little more flare.
This is simply setting data. It is NOT automatically executing anything from a foreign host. MS fails becuase it allows literally anything to run anywhere. Hopefully Rendevous will allow the MS world to start cutting network admins back as they are costing companies a lot of money for nothing.
And is that also why their current market share is currently 3.7% down from almost 5% a few years ago?
On your Jaguar CD, CFNetServices adds a higher level abstraction on top of zeroconf; this part most likely won't be open source, since it is in one of the higher level frameworks on the sytem (CFNetwork in CoreServices) The relevant headers are: /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/ Frameworks/CFNetwork.framework/Headers/CFNetServic es.h
Using these, I was able to get my server application Rondesvousing in about 10 minutes...
hand me-downs. You mean like:
The Floppy Drive, no we had that first
The home computer, no we had that first too
The mouse, no we had that one first
The GUI, no Xerox had that but didn't want it, we got it and made it good.
Oh I know SCSI, no wait, that was another first for us.
You must mean USB, well yeah Intel developed that first, but they just sat on it, Apple ran with it and wow, now look where it is.
Oh you mean 64 bit processors for consumers, no wait that was us too.
You must mean M$ programs, no wait we had those first too.
Oh well
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The more Rendezvous-enabled devices and apps are out there, the more useful it is.
...yet it just emerged?
a night job at your local all-night Arby's?
A good Ti Powerbook's
worth saying 'drive through!'
for a month or maybe two.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Apple has yet to reveal their clustering solution for Mac OS X and Xserve, but consider how easy Rendezvous will make this task.
(see above)
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
zeroconf breaks applications in several ways, for instance:
zeroconf will be really nice when we figure out how to make it work well without breaking apps. It's unfortunate that Apple is trying to deploy a technology widely that has several serious known flaws and claim that it is a standard before those flaws are fixed.
According to news.com apple is using the dmca to make sure its itools software does not work with any other dvd player but there own internal ones. Apple does not care about the opensource community and like Enron care about profits above all else.
http://saveie6.com/
I'm kind of wondering if this is only a technology for small networks, or if this is something we would ever want to use on the WAN. Is this AppleTalk II? Anyone?
Since when was asking for proof of a statement considered flamebait?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Funny, any link for the draft you might find refers to draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-10.txt which just doesn't exist on the ietf site. So being real clever I flipped that 10 to an 11 and behold theres a new version dated the 26th.
r oconf-reqts-11.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ze
...how just this morning everyone was bashing Apple for using the DMCA to protect property that was theirs, and was being abused by a distributor (ie. they don't really care about the crack existing, they just don't want THEIR DISTRIBUTORS giving it away - pretty fair). It all changes when things start being given away for free to everyone, not just people that actually PAID good money for a product.
it seems like the next generation of appletalk, it brings printer sharing back to the mac os, but now it's easy as pie to do. you can put iChat into the mode to talk to people on the local network (if anyone remembers the app broadcast from the old mac days). people have been using it over airport to access a printer hardwired to another mac. from what they have said it sounds like a lot of the future uses of rendezvous have not been realized.
For that matter who said that crack is a negative? Have you ever tried crack? Mmmmmm... crack....
As I read the APSL, it's simply and open licence that also ensures that Apple remains removed from you. That seems perfectly reasonable. GNU doesn't like it because of the termination clause, but when you think about it, it's entirely nessesary. What if a version with your modifications becomes the norm, even becomes packaged with Apple machines. If that happens, and you get accused of infringing on someone elses patented work, Apple could be in serious trouble. By terminating the agreement and stopping distribution of your code, Apple can keep themselves free from you. Just because they terminate does not mean they will sue you. As near as I can tell, the APSL is a very very open license for a corporation and is what we arround here might call a Good Thing (TM).
OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL, which may be the reason corporations have been slow to take up software released under the GPL. If as you say, proprietary or APSL and other less open licensed software was not permissable within GPL software, many companies would not want to take up that software. The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software. For example, I worked for a time at a well know power company which shall remain nameless. This company had a software suit which they had purchased which provided for the creation and movement of troubleshooting "tickets". The software in it's basic form was useable, but the company had other needs. They wrote modifications to the software (with the original creators permission) to run within their networks and throughout the company. If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications and release them under the GPL, the company would not have taken up the GPL software.
Freedom is a good thing, but forcing people to open their code is almost as bad as the closed code is.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Seriously folks, the dick isn't going to lick itself!! Let's snap to it!!!
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
As I see it, there's no real difference there.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
To me, there seem to be no big differences, so why do people have such a problem wiht the APSL
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I found this at zeroconf.org:
A final requirement is that the solutions in the four areas must coexist gracefully with larger configured networks. ZEROCONF protocols MUST NOT cause harm to the network when a ZEROCONF machine is plugged into a large network.
Doesn't the multicast DNS stuff always just use a .local TLD? So, there wouldn't be any conflict with a real DNS system outside of that TLD. From what little I've seen, that was the impression I got.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
no, the .local TLD isn't in the current proposal,
it's been removed.
see draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt
Seems to me this would be a chatty protocol. It must behave like "smart" protocols like AppleTalk, NetBEUI, or (slightly different but still chatty) HSRP. I have no idea if Rendezvous does this or not, but if each device is broadcasting hello packets every 3 seconds it wouldn't take long for medium sized networks to become saturated with nonsense.
yyb
This might be a bit redundant, but it seems to me that the most interesting thing about all this is that Apple seems to have hit on a business model that actually makes money off open source software. First came OSX, which isn't really much more of a modifed PPC port of FreeBSD (Darwin) with a wicked nice (and nicely engineered) GUI (Aqua) slapped on top. Now we have Rendezvous, where Apple is making their implementation of an open standard open source, in hopes that its broad adoption will encourage people to buy Apple's software. Imagine what these guys could do with Ogg. . .
So maybe the moral of the story is this:
Of course, you can't attribute all (or even most) of Apple's financial success to their OSS endeavours, but (and I speak from personal experience here) OSX has changed Macs from cute little toys to a viable and intiguing alternative to x86 hardware. And if Rendezvous takes off, not only will it be a boon for the community, but Apple could do quite nicely as well. In the end though, Apple might be a pretty unique case: Apple is primarily a hadware vendor, and Apple's involvement with OSS primarily adds value to the hardware it sells (I'll buy a TiBook because it's the only game in town for running OSX), and there aren't a heck of a lot of hardware vendors who are in a position to duplicate what Apple is doing.
but up from 3.5% last year, that's right, GROWTH. muhHAHhahHAHahahahahah.
Unfortunate but predictable. By recruiting free (as in unpaid) help from the Open Source community to develop zeroconf, Apple saves money on the R&D costs of developing the underlying software for the non-open CFNetServices API layer (see oaklybonn's comment else-thread). I think Apple's "friendship" with Open Source is rather one-sided. An obvious example being the continued absence of even binary-only Sorenson codec modules for Linux. As a Linux end-user, I like Real and Macromedia (both of which provide excellent free viewers for Linux) a lot more than I like Apple. Every site Apple wins is one I can count on finding largely useless due to Quicktime.
Yay for Apple! They are leading the way for BSD and the truly open way (unlike other parties who have coopted the word open to mean something other than open.)
I know that I shouldn't succumb to temptation but. . . .
Oh, you must mean reliable ethernet on the motherboard?. No, you still don't have that.
Oh, I know, you must mean Firewire. Nope. Apple invented, SONY implemented, still flaky elsewhere.
Oh, then you must mean native support for multiple monitor systems? Hmm, guess not.
Oh, then you must mean uniform type usage standards. Oh, dear; I guess not.
Well, maybe you were referring to an OS-level implementation of Postscript? No, not that either.
Ooohhh! I get it! You were talking about uniform and reliable cut and paste across applications. No, not that either.
Wait! maybe you meant audio and later video-editing systems that are usable, inexpensive, and that creatives actually want to use. Hmph. Nope. Another one down.
Ah, now I remember, it's HTML and hypertext that you're talking about. Oh dear, HTML=Berners-Lee=NeXT, widespread hypertext=Hypercard. So not that either.
It must be that great out of the box security and resistance to cracking. Hrm; it certainly can't be that.
Maybe I just misunderstood the question.
Must be my mistake.
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
yeah, a dying os which only sold 100,000 copies in its first to days, cramming 50,000 people into 35 apple stores over that period (stores which sell 40% of its merchandise to PC switchers) and breaking every apple sales record in process, oh that dying os x? is the same the same dying osx which helped apple raise is market share about 10% in first quarter of this year? the same dying os which somehwo manages to compete with a criminal monoply OS which has 95% of market?
Is it just me or does Apple seem to be basing all of their recent strategic corporate announcements on what will make headlines on /.?
We use .local as our internal dns domain, which means that we can't get MacOs 10.2 machines, which insist on running rendevouz, to work.
Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed.
I think that the coolness factor may have played a big part in Apple's reasons for this business move.
The hackers of the Open Source community are addicted to cool and will use this technology and exploit it to the maximum. I think this may have an even bigger effect than Sun's open sourcing of StarOffice because an office suite just doesn't have the same coolness factor. Sure, it's very important and the OpenOffice team have been doing a great work but it just doesn't scream "play with me!" to tinkerers and gadget freaks like this does...
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
APSL is really quasi-free.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I LOVE THAT GAME. *pouts* I need to get back into bolo. I'm still convinced it's the best network created.. Then again, I may just be silly. lol.
I don't have time to go thru the other replies to this story.. so I don't know if someone else already posted this or not, but CNET thinks differently about the open source thing... They are saying that Apple didn't open the source.. just trying to woo open source developers. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-955988.html?tag=fd_t op
But that is a confusing article anyway... the headline says one thing, article says another..???
And yet again, we see a reimplementation of something that ITS and lispms had (in this case, through CHAOS).
...if the so-called "community" would spend less time playing wannabe lawyers arguing about licensing minutiae and spend more time developing new applications for users. The users you need to attract have never heard of Richard Stallman, buy shrinkwrapped software (including Linux, if and when they do use it), and judge an OS by the quality and range of applications available to run on it.
/. insults to users as too stupid to know what's good for them. In reality, they decide your future.)
Endless iterations of the same traditional Unix toolset, tools for the server side, and attempts to mimic Office and the Windows interface, won't cut it. Be imaginative.
When I've tried to explain Linux to people who make corporate buying decisions, their questions boil down to: Why buy a cheap knock-off when the real thing is available?
(Please try to refrain from the usual
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is great and all, but will it let iDVD automatically detect my non-SuperDrive DVD burner?
ok, maybe you haven't heard this 100 times yet, but APPLE DOES NOT OWN THE SORENSON CODEC!!! Sorenson does, talk to them about it.
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Devel oper_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-PPC_Desktop/PPC_7500_850 0.pdf
^You mean that on board ethernet? Or maybe you ment the on board ethernet that came on my 5400/180?
Funny, I remember the Firewire extension being present in system 7.5.5, and I know I remember it being in System 8, and I also recall seeing firewire products then too.
By native support for multiple monitor systems, do you mean a video card with 2 outputs, or do you mean system level support, becasue if you mean system level, multiple monitor support has been arround since system 7.
What do you mean by uniform type usage standards?
As for post script, I'm no expert, but I would assume that seeing as how system 7 came with a full set of post-script extentions, that it did have support for it.
Cross program cut and paste? That's easy enough, I've never once had a problem with "unreliable" cut and paste, what are you reffering to? Hell, the mac can even cut and paste from within Windows (running in VPC) to the mac environment.
Audio and Video editing systems that creatives want to use. So... the fact that Moby uses a G4 powerbook and some other macintosh systems for his audio work is't a creative wanting to use the mac? Or what about the fact that macs are used in many TV and movie productions. Or how about just the simple fact that the mac niche market is the creative market?
Yes, I'm glad that hypertext=Hypercard, seeing as how Hypercard was an APPLE technology. HTML = NeXT, that's fine, guess who owns NeXT?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I am stunned by the sheer brilliance of this extremely compelling argument.
dude, don't flame people who take your side in an argument.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
The netcode for both win and mac versions of Myth 2 : The Fallen Lords was done in Open Play. WWDC 2000 it (openplay) was really highlighted in the various game workshops.
I'm really confused. Are you criticising Apple or Windows (or Linux)? From the context it looks like your criticising Apple since you are responding to someone making claims about the Mac Platform. Yet all your criticisms seem to apply to windows but not to Apple.
Maybe I just misunderstood the question. Must be my mistake.
Either you did, or I did.
How is that not a modified version of FreeBSD? You, sire, are cruising for a bruising.
Heres my favorit part..
http://www.gaeldesign.com/ib/mw0702_stuart.php
Now the ZEROCONF Working Group that is part of the IETF is responsible for developing and maintaining the open-standard Zeroconf networking protocols, dubbed Rendezvous by Apple. Can you give us a brief overview of these protocols and the history behind them?
The initial seeds of Zeroconf started in a Macintosh network programmers' mailing list called net-thinkers, back in 1997 when I was still a PhD student at Stanford. We were discussing the poor state of ease-of-use for IP networking, particularly the lack of any equivalent to the old AppleTalk Chooser for browsing for services. I proposed that part of the solution might be simply to layer the existing AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol (NBP) over UDP Multicast.
Yes, this is the standard Apple lie. However, it was disproved MONTHS AGO. See Slashdot article http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/01/ 2012217&mode=thread&tid=107
Apple is preventing Linux support for Quicktime in an attempt to force people to buy MacOS. That's a fact no matter how many times Apple (and uninformed Apple fans) deny it. Sorenson has no motive to keep the codec away from Linux, Apple does and acts on it.
-Flame retardant suit on-
Quicktime is the only software that Apple makes that an average non-Mac user cares about, so until they port it to other platforms which people regularly use, I won't see them as a 'community friendly' company (ie a potential Microsoft.)
If they care anything for the community, they would have ported Quicktime to Unix platforms. They're pushing websites to use their platform (Quicktime mov), but they don't provide players for any platform that doesn't have huge marketshare, thereby furthering monopoly-like status of Windows and MacOS. Hell, even Real ported to Unix when they were pushing to be the dominant steamed video platform back in the day...
As a matter of fact, there's a RealOne beta port for Unix.
Let the OS vendors do OSes and leave the multimedia to a 3rd party, please.
I can't blame them for doing what big corporations do (further their market share) but I don't have to like it or support it.
Long live Ogg!
Why do I keep typing pythong?
And dont forget to mention that there already is a proven & mature IETF standard for service discovery: SLP (www.srvloc.org). They just created a new one because they did not need all SLP features for their use case and DNS-SD is more similar to AppleTalk's discovery mechanism. What they did may be understandable from Apple's point of view. But it doesnt make any sense to create a second service discovery standard with less capabilities just because Apple's existing software doesnt use SLP's advanced features...
I'm sure others still aren't satisfied. But at least the responded to some of the initial complaints.
I suppose that some zeroconf implementations could be needlessly "chatty", but that would be a problem of the particular program, not the protocol itself.
Does quicktime for Java address this at all?
We care for freedom, including yours. Because no one can be free in a slave society. If you want to be enslaved to proprietary software, unable even to read your documents without paying a license to a corrupt, greedy corporation, your problem.
It's very difficult to produce quality software when you have to spend most time reverse engineering proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols, and hardware interfaces.
Forking is a real problem. GNU GPL is a good antidote, but not enough if people don't agree on what they want. Stop whining and help build consensus.
What's the problem with server side? People need servers. The world isn't made only of desktops.
Why be imaginative? People need a migration path, including an at least partially familiar interface.
Try understanding free software next time. Linux yet another Unix kernel clone is pretty interesting. But you will never understand freedom if you ignore basic realities about society and the market, like suits usually do.
Because it's not a cheap knock-off, but frequently better than the original. And because the original is proprietary. What's the price of freedom?
BTW, no need of buying. Use Debian and buy services instead.
Few people now what's good for themselves, because few people are both wise and informed enough. Learn History if you think otherwise.
We are building a new future. Please get out of the way, troll.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Though I don't have the link, I could swear that people have posted hacks and work arround for all of this before. Not only that, but if you're so desperate to watch your QT movies on your linux box, might I suggest you just use wine and the windows version of quicktime?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
thanks for your help. have a good weekend.
-pat
Code to implement this stuff would logically be made available as a library, but if it's released under a GPL-incompatible license, it will complicate the job of using it to add support for Redezvous to Linux desktop programs, other libaries, or the kernel. This problem can be avoided if a dual-licensing approach is used, that is, terms are either GPL or whatever terms Apple prefers.
http://developer.apple.com/samplecode/Sample_Code/ QuickTime.htm
a
e x. html
http://developer.apple.com/sdk/index.html#QTJav
http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtjava/ind
Alright, let's see some developemnt out of the OSS community. Seriously, this here would be a great challenge for the OSS community, make your own quicktime.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Rendezvous really brings AppleTalk functionality to IP, which has been sorely missed. Specifically, it replaces AppleTalk's NBP (Name Binding Protocol), which let you discover devices (Laserwriters, Macs) on a peer-to-peer network running on phone wire back in '86. The mechanics are different, but the functionality is the same.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Apple is trying to get all time-based media to be MPEG4, that way any media player that can play the MPEG4 standard can play "QuickTime". Apple and Sorenson are not as buddy-buddy as they once were, so I see Apple moving away from Sorenson to MPEG4 and then pointing at Windows Media Player and Real and shouting "not standard".
By the way, newer versions of IRIX (6.5.1x) can play QuickTime (just not with the Sorenson codec).
I started out as a rabid mac user, i did a lot of multimedia stuff in the early days, some time around the Quadra 840AV and a few years into the first PowerPC machines. Macs were fun and i could do what i wanted, which would have been way harder on PC platforms.
then when i went into hardcore web applications development and entered the corporate world, well, as cool as BBEdit is, i couldn't justify to my boss to get an expensive Mac Laptop over the DELL everyone gets. Win2K served its purpose, then DELL hardware and win2k started freaking out, randomly freezing the mouse, corrupting sectors on my hard drive. I lost *a lot* of time.
Then Apple came up with unix at the core of its OS. now as a developer, UNIX makes sense. my dell was crap. so my boss got me my early 400mhz TiBook, with OS 10.1. beautiful thing. it never ever crashes, i never need to reboot it aside from software upgrades, it does what i need it to and just WORKS.
What I'm trying to get at is:
How much are you willing to pay for "It Just Works". Frankly, I will wholeheartedly shell out an extra $1000 on an apple system running OS X, over any PC equivalent.
Why? Because:
1) eventhough linux occupies a special place in my heart while i'm running LinuxPPCQ4200 on an old PPC 7500 pci mac at home, it's still not the perfect desktop OS. It's getting very close with office suites, browsers, email clients, but it's not quite there yet.
2) there is no fucking way in hell i'll ever run windoz for any serious computing, in light of all the security holes this thing still has. Should i forget to disable netbios i don't wanna get fucked by script kiddies. plus the SSL issues, IE5/6+ scripting holes, i mean we could go on and on.
3) in the end i want an platform running an OS which has it all. and that's Mac OS X.
Until OS X came along, i'd say "fair enuff, macos is nice but it's really not all that powerful, not really enterprise-grade material and out-of-this-world networking. you can't really hack into it because you can't get command line. it's not super-stable. provided you've got good hardware, a clean install and some luck, you'll get great stability out of win2k. All in all, provided it doesn't crash on me, i can do more things pertinent to my job in win2k than macos, such as running cygwin".
But since mac os 10.1 came out, and now 10.2, in my book there is no other solution for serious computing, for doing work under tight deadlines, for which you are getting paid non-negligeable amounts of money, and where your ass is on the line, i know OS X's got my back.
Don't get me wrong i'm not saying apple systems are good for everyone, they *are* more expensive.
It boils down to this:
How much is dependability worth to you? How much is your time worth to you? to me, priceless.
Oh another thing worth noting ... apple's "digital lifestyle" concept works very well. i bought a sony digital camera, an ipod, i don't even own a dvd player but my TiBook does play DVDs so i buy DVDs. apple's iSoftwareSuite freakin' rocks. iPhoto totally ownz.
I've installed GNOME and Oroborus, i play Tetris in xemacs under OS X.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
keith, can rendezvous-based packets be routed across a wan using multicast routing (like dvmrp or pim) to enable applications to function?
no, mDNS/LLMNR is supposed to use link-local multicast scope for queries, and linklocal IPv4 is not supposed to be routed. however another problem with rendezvous/zeroconf is that (at least in the current specs) it's not clear that mDNS/LLMNR and linklocal IPv4 have the same scope - so you could end up finding IP addresses via mDNS that aren't usable to you, or conversely
you could end up having local hosts that are accessible but which you can't find using mDNS even though they support it.
i.e. this is nowhere nearly ready for prime time
Now, if __insert_company_name__ had released it in such a way that it directly benefited me and my work... well, then they would have been champions of freedom and respectful of me as a human being.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
keith, thanks for the reply. that's a bum deal.
Jesus, can you read? Sorensen wanted to put their codec in a non-Quicktime player, ie Flash. Apple has a contract with them that it must be in Quicktime. There you go.
What motive does Apple have for preventing the adoption of Quicktime on Linux? Do you really think that Apple considers Linux a viable competitor on the desktop? If so, you need to get out more.
great idea, poof!
Actually multiple monitor support came with System 6, not System 7. It was hacky under 6, but it was there. .... and Postscript support came much earlier than 7.
I think the main reason they don't port to x86 Linux/Unix is because of priorities. Like any company competing in a field where Microsoft is involved, Apple knows that they have to fight Microsoft first and foremost; they may be thinking it smarter to polish the Windows product as much as possible rather than risk spreading themselves too thin. I'm not saying it's the best of decisions, but they may see it as necessary to their survival.
As it stands, Apple is much more a model of the "friendly" corporation than Microsoft is, so I would support them for that reason alone.
Besides, it may only be a question of Apple being able to discard legacy development for Quicktime before they have the intention and resources to develop for Unix. They're starting to limit iApp updates to OSX (iTunes, iPhoto, etc.), but even now the crucial apps like Quicktime 6 still have to run in OS9. When Apple can pull the plug on even that, Unix ports will probably be more viable.
More like,
"Ping.
"iBook, OS 10.2, M, leather, bondage, toys, any like-minded F around?"
-spheric*
Network Butt-sniffing Protocol again?
Sorry bubba... But the PowerPC is a 32bit chip. Alphas, Sparc64, Itanium and Hammers aren't.
Apple has a technote correcting Radius' suggestions on how two deal with multiple displays.
The first multiple monitor mac system built on entirely Apple produced hardware (as opposed to 3rd party add-ons.) was the Macintosh II, in 1987. That would be what Apple now calls System Software 2.0 (back when the system file and the finder had separate version numbers. What at the time I would have called System 3.3)
Perhaps the number crunching ability of the Athlon is the same, perhaps better, than the G4 in a price/performance compeition. Not even the most steadfast mac users can deny that the G4's inability to double-pump the FSB is holding it back from being the best proccessor on the block.
But you're forgetting you get other kinds of performance. You never crash, you seldom reboot (usually only for core component updates). Peripherals work without even touching the concept of "drivers." Even crazier, if you WANT to get into that stuff, you can. Apple has bent over backwards to make the end user AND the developer happy.
This kind of "performance" may not get you 6 more fps on your quake3 demos, nor will it make your Seti@Home group shoot up to the top, but it certainly makes life with a computer a lot more bearable. It's like everything good about using Linux or BSD without the bullshit.
I think people have gotten to caught up in a kind of pissing contest over who's computer can do a FFT faster and who's computer can push 17 more polys. Quite frankly, computers are damn fast these days. Be it 1.4 Ghz or 2.0 Ghz, it's very, very speedy. We need to stop caring so much about how our computers CAN do things and how they DO in fact, solve problems in our life. Computers are conveiance tools. Apple seems to be the only company that remebers this in their design strategies, and it shows.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Yeah right --- I remember now. We had one of the radius FPDs at a place I worked. Came with it's own NuBus video card, specifically keyed to the display. Quite nifty for it's day, and we were getting good use out of it as late as 1997.
especially with vanilla ice cream
Yes, I can. Apple's contract terms of "Quicktime Player Only" for the Sorenson codec coupled with Apple's policy of "No Quicktime Player for Linux" equals no native access to Sorenson streams for Linux users.
Do you really think Apple doesn't see the connection between keeping Quicktime support away from Linux (and *BSD for that matter) and sales of MacOS X?!
I'm sorry. If you are talking about NuBus cards, you are still talking about later models. The first Radius FPD was designed for the Macintosh Plus. They got around the lack of an expansion bus by having a board that clipped over the (DIP, through-hole mounted) CPU
...or some such ridiculous term for rendezvous-ing where you're not wanted.
If it's like Appletalk on IP it's perfect. The problem with Appletalk wasn't the routed protocol, but the routing protocol. Appletalk network reconfigured themselves all the friggin' time sending network configuration packets between routers to determine routes. This is what made Appletalk chatty, but IP already has that handled, and matches current network topologies. So it's done then.
Seriously, Appletalk is bad on a big network. We hard code everything in Appletalk so the service doesn't try to reconfigure itself all the time.
However it's quite possible that he wasn't talking about the G4 to start with.
and for anyone else that thinks that a higher-bit chip is some non-existant miracle of computing.. check your video card chances are it's 128-bit with 256-bit extensions.