GNU-Darwin Dropping Cocoa, PPC Support

Johnny Mnemonic writes "MacSlash is reporting that the Gnu-Darwin ports project has taken issue with some of Apple's current policies, to the extent of: 'GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries, and that includes Cocoa, Carbon, CoreAudio, etc. There will be no native package manager from GNU-Darwin (pkg_add suffices). Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.' Astonished reaction on MacSlash, and recognition of the Fink alternative. Is this a worthy principled stand, or is it more like Kruschev banging his shoe in the UN? Will this help or hurt Apple's adoption of GPL technology?"

Comments

Re:Strange or stupid

[Mr2cents]

Only allowing iDVD to work on internal drives because of marketing reasons is childish too.. No, wait, "evil" is a better description.

So long PPC...

[gkbarr]

Hellooooooo AMD! Rumors abound about Apple and AMD signing a new microprocessor deal for the next round of Apple Macintosh computers. Look for more at MacWorld SanFran in January.

-G

Re:To all who say it's a bad idea

[jdcook]

"What, the slashdot crowd says that standing on pricipals, even if it's like kicking yourself in the nuts, is a bad idea?"

I'm pretty sure that if I had ever stood on my high school principal, she would have kicked me in the nuts. Those Catholic schools are tough.

Whatever

[g4dget]

I have two Macintoshes. They are nice consumer devices, look sleek, and work pretty well most of the time. I recommend them to friends and family who want a decent personal computer that's a little easier to use than Windows. And the fact that they come with partial support for UNIX APIs makes them easier to deal with than Windows.

I do appreciate Apple trying to cooperate with the free software community to some extent. But, frankly, I don't expect too much from it. I think there is really not all that much Apple has to offer, and most of the things that Apple has opened up were really forced by licenses or business realities (e.g., gcc was forced by the license, Rendezvous and QuickTime were forced by business considerations).

Overall, I think it just doesn't matter much what Apple does, either technically or in terms of their business. I don't see Apple winning in a big way: they can't take away much market share from Windows, and, based on my experience with them, I think they are not a major competitor for UNIX or Linux workstations or servers either. Apple doesn't have the power to fight the DMCA or DRM. And technically, I think Darwin and Cocoa are dead ends for practical purposes and it really doesn't matter whether people clone them (GNU Darwin and GNUStep). Open source developers should emulate Macintosh style and simplicity in their; copying lots of low-level nuts and bolts is neither necessary nor sufficient for that.

So, basically, I gave up getting particularly pushed out of shape about Apple or open-source OS X-related projects either way--there just isn't any point to it.

Re:Great Statement, I hope Apple listens.

[Permission Denied]

As far as Apple and the DMCA, the only time I can think that they did anything shitty there was to go after Other World Computing who was basically making a patch for iDVD allowing it to work with 3rd party DVD burners.

What about shutting down themes sites that have gel-like buttons or gray and white row patterns in menu backgrounds? Is Apple going to sick their lawyers on Slashdot next because the little friend/foe button is a blatent rip-off of OS X buttons?

What about the Sorenson fiasco? For years, Apple has been telling the unix communities that they cannot release a binary-only codec to allow unix movie players to play Quicktime movies. The reason they claim for this decision is because they do not control the Sorenson codec, but rather Sorenson does. However, when Sorenson tries to sell the codec to Macromedia, Apple speaks up and claims exclusive rights to distribute the codec. So, Apple has exclusive rights to distribute the codec, but not when it comes to a market that won't bring them any profit?

What about Apple's membership in the BSA? They're premier members, along with Adobe and Microsoft. These are the people that bring in federal marshalls to shut down businesses when ex-employees claim that a business is does not have enough licenses for the software they use.

Apple is not a "nice" company - they'll shut down small companies and sick their lawyers on fans just as quickly as Microsoft. Apple, does, however, have a great PR department and Mac fanatics believe Apple can't do any wrong. Their support of the DMCA is just one example of how self-serving they are.

I for one congratulate the GNU/Darwin folks on their decision. It may just make some Mac fanboys ask just how ethical their favorite multinational really is.

Re:A matter of self-preservation (Re:Utter Stupidi

[mattmunz]

A) How exactly is Apple "choosing to enforce the DMCA"?

They complained.

B) The GPL only has meaning because of copyright.

The GPL is an attempt to modify or extend traditional copyright. It is a set of limitations that make publications more free. It is copyleft. The DMCA has several provisions that make publications less free. I won't bother enumerating them here.

GPL != GNU. GPL is a tool that the GNU community uses to enable the production and protection of free publications. GPL relies on copyright, but the notion of freedom does not. This notion predates Gutenberg significantly ;)