Mac OS X Sessions at LinuxExpo

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac OS X Sessions at LinuxExpo

Posted by pudge on Sunday January 26, 2003 @06:14AM from the because-linux-is-just-a-synonym-for-unix dept.

h0tblack writes "The latest ADC Newsletter has details of a few sessions Apple are hosting at LinuxExpo in Paris in a couple of weeks. The sessions are: Mac OS X for the Linux Community, Mac OS X in Heterogeneous Environments and Mac OS X and Developer Tools. Shame that the first session clashes with the keynote from RMS ..." Yes. Shame.

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Screw that conflict! by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 06:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I want to see real conflict between RMS and Steve Jobs. I mean knock-down, drag-out brawl conflict. Anybody with me?

--
Starnix: It don't matter if you're a Linux, OS X, *BSD, Solaris, AIX, ... user, Starnix is the Unix community for you.
1. Re:Screw that conflict! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  jobs stands 6'5" and isn't a small build.
  
  But then stallman is hairy. ...
  
  JOBSEMÓN I CHOOSE YOU!
2. Re:Screw that conflict! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Isn't that actually:
  
  iSteveJobs vs GNU/RMS ?
3. Re:Screw that conflict! by vandel405 · 2003-01-26 09:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah, i want to see it on MTV, in claymation? Or better yet, Afganistanimation!
4. Re:Screw that conflict! by andrewski · 2003-01-26 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Stallman doesn't look like he works out all that much, but Jobs get more and more ripped every year.
5. Re:Screw that conflict! by x136 · 2003-01-26 17:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Only if Jobs has a few digital cameras to use as weapons. :)
  
  --
  SIGFEH
6. Re:Screw that conflict! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  I want to see Jobs, RMS and Ellen Feiss in a mudwrestling match together.
  
  Actually, just ellen would do fine
7. Re:Screw that conflict! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  That was such a fucking gay ass comment!! Well.. I suppose if you really are gay, then... er... carry on, you gay bastard.
I want to see.... by ike6116 · 2003-01-26 07:01 · Score: 0, Troll

Jobs kick RMS's ass. RMS can die for all I care, he is the leader of the kind of zealotism (Linux, Mac or otherwise) that I just can't stand. No not everything should be under the GPL, no the GPL isn't scripture, yes; the GPL sucks. If you want free, use one of the many other BETTER licences out there.

--

Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
1. Re:I want to see.... by Scarblac · 2003-01-26 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You can put your own code under whatever license you want. RMS has personally written a shitload of code and released it under the GPL. No Linux distro runs without FSF code. If you don't want it, don't use it. If you don't like his speech, ignore it.
  
  He may be a zealot, but he puts a lot of code where his mouth is.
  
  --
  I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
2. Re:I want to see.... by ceejayoz · 2003-01-26 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think what rubs people the wrong way isn't that RMS uses the GPL license. I think the problem most people (including me) have with him is his attempt to make everyone else use it, as well.
  
  I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
  
  No Linux distro runs without FSF code.
  
  I believe there's a distro out there that runs without any of the FSF tools (gcc etc). Don't remember the name, though - perhaps someone will post a link.
3. Re:I want to see.... by Mister+Proper · 2003-01-26 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
  The BSD license and the public domain allow you to modify the code an release it under as proprietary software. This means that people can use BSD licensed or public domain source code and then restrict you from using derivated works. That doesn't count as freedom in my book much like being "allowed" to sell yourself as a slave does not consitute freedom.
  If you want a true anti-copyright license, it would be like the BSD-license except that derived source code and its object code would be allowed to be copied, studied, modified and distributed after modifications. In cases where only the object code was distributed, it would be allowed to decompile that code.
  You could also say that it would be like the (L)GPL except that the source code would not have to be distributed along with the object code. Except that it would explicitly allow to decompile the binaries and then excercice the rights granted by the (L)GPL.
  As no such license exist, it is my opinion that the (L)GPL comes closest to true freedom. After all, the obligation of having to distribute the code is but a small effort and brings huge gains to end-users (or the programmers they hire.)
4. Re:I want to see.... by Scarblac · 2003-01-26 12:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I believe there's a distro out there that runs without any of the FSF tools (gcc etc).
  
  As far as I know, Linux doesn't even compile without GNU binutils, GCC, GNU make and probably some others.
  
  When I installed a "linux from scratch" system a few years ago, the number of GNU packages to install an as-basic-as-possible Linux system was on the order of 50 out of 60.
  
  It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to make a distro without GNU tools - but otherwise it would just be stupid, even on many commercial Unix versions people install GNU tools because they're better.
  
  --
  I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
5. Re:I want to see.... by burns210 · 2003-01-26 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  freedom is not openning code and requiring(!) that everyone else that uses that code must also open their code.
  In the USofA we are free... don't argue, just go with it... we have this Bill of Rights and the Freedom of Speech, That freedom doesn't say "You can say whatever you want as long as it's nice" it says that we can say things that other people disagree with, we cannot threaten the President's life, but we can openly disagree with him. That is freedom, giving someone a right(code) and saying "here ya go, do what you want with it, even if i don't agree with how you use it".
  PD and BSD are like this, you can take that code, and use it however you want... FREELY.
  The GPL is saying "Take this code, but you can't close it, you have to leave it open. That isn't free.
6. Re:I want to see.... by andrewski · 2003-01-26 16:39 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I'm sure that you are smarter, more philosophical, and a better coder than Stallman so you are absolutely right.
  
  You twit. The GPL was designed for a purpose, and it serves that purpose admirably. If you don't like it, don't use it. The GPL isn't forced on anyone.
7. Re:I want to see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  > The GPL is saying "Take this code,
  > but you can't close it, you have to
  > leave it open. That isn't free.
  
  Neither is buying a gun from someone and
  then shooting him in the back with it.
  That is exactly what would happen if
  FSF code was under a "more free" license
  like BSD.
  
  Windows' TCP/IP stack is BSD, and plans to
  extend and embrace it is in the works.
  
  There is no such thing as freedom without
  responsibility to others and to society.
  The GPL is there to counteract the basic
  human urge to stab each other in the back.
8. Re:I want to see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 19:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Just wondering what was the last piece of code that RMS has actually written?
9. Re:I want to see.... by Mister+Proper · 2003-01-26 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  I give you object code. You decompile it. I have you arrested.
  That's freedom??
  No, no, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Copyright is by definition a restriction on other people's freedom. The license I described in my previous post undos that restriction. It also takes away the "right" for those that make derived works to punish you if you, for example, decompile their modified code.
10. Re:I want to see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  Well thats not true is it? The GPL is forced on you if you change some code to fix something that bothers you... or if your looking at some GPL code and think of some grand idea for some program... or well im sure other instances exist where the GPL could be forced on you. If RMS is smarter than joe blow on the street does that make him right just because he is RMS? NO. If subject A is smarter than subject B must subject B follow subject A even if subject A tells subject B to jump of object X? Does it matter how "tight" RMS can write hello world? Please don't call people names we are not in second grade here.
11. Re:I want to see.... by ceejayoz · 2003-01-26 19:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Depends on your definition of "freedom".
  
  I consider "Free" software to be software you can do anything with - and that includes making proprietary changes. The original code is always available.
  
  Calling the GPL free is like calling mandatory voting freedom.
12. Re:I want to see.... by ceejayoz · 2003-01-26 19:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, it's certainly silly to make a distro without GNU tools.
  
  In your original post, though, you seemed to equate the usefulness of his released code with the validity of his ideas. They're completely separate - I appreciate his contribution to the Linux community (e.g. his GNU tools), but I think his ranting and irrationality does the community a disservice.
13. Re:I want to see.... by Mister+Proper · 2003-01-26 19:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Calling the BSD license free is like allowing the buyer of a gun the freedom to decide whether or not he'll abide to the constitution.
  You're right. There are two schools of thoughts in this matter and sadly their differences will never be settled.
14. Re:I want to see.... by Scarblac · 2003-01-27 01:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In your original post, though, you seemed to equate the usefulness of his released code with the validity of his ideas.
  
  What I wanted to get across is that since he has written a significant portion of the code, his ideas are significant too - he has more say about what should happen than people who contributed a lot less. I think this open source/free software/whatever movement should be a meritocracy.
  
  In arguing that, I assumed that the guy I replied to, who suggested that RMS should die because his license isn't perfect and his advocacy can be quite obnoxious, did not contribute a lot himself.
  
  Note that other people or projects who do have a lot of their own code usually just pick whatever license they happen to like and stay out of the debates. With RMS, the license came first, and then he produced the code to back it up. Therefore not arguing would be missing the point for him.
  
  I have no idea if I'm getting any consistent point across at the moment, but whatever :-), back to work.
  
  For the record, I also contributed next to nothing so you can ignore me, and I do happen to like the GPL and the ideas behind it.
  
  --
  I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
15. Re:I want to see.... by jbolden · 2003-01-27 01:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I believe there's a distro out there that runs without any of the FSF tools (gcc etc). Don't remember the name, though - perhaps someone will post a link.
  
  You aren't going to find it. The kernel doesn't compile without certain extensions that are part of libc and not part of the standard libraries everyone else uses. That's how Linus gets great performance and cross platform low level routines.
  
  I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
  
  Free software is about supporting the 4 freedoms:
  
  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
  Those are the freedoms that free software provides. The only freedom the BSD license seems to offer over LGPL is the right "embrace and extend" with closed source.
16. Re:I want to see.... by jcr · 2003-01-27 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think what rubs people the wrong way isn't that RMS uses the GPL license. I think the problem most people (including me) have with him is his attempt to make everyone else use it, as well.
  
  I wouldn't describe what RMS does as attempting to make everyone else use the GPL. What he tends to do is get on some kind of socialist moral high-horse, and berate anyone who doesn't use the GPL. Sure, that's obnoxious, but it's not force.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
17. Re:I want to see.... by Halo1 · 2003-01-27 22:30 · Score: 1
  I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
  They're just different kinds of freedom:
  
  Once something is released as GPL, it will always remain GPL. The consequence is that when other people use and improve the code, more (and hopefully better) software will become available, so you choice (and thus freedom) expands (since if you have only one possibility to choose from, you can be as free as possible; yet you will always have to choose that one thing).
  
  In the BSD license this is not guaranteed (everyone can use the source and keep his/her improvements closed -> no new free alternatives may emerge -> freedom is not guaranteed). Theoretically, it's even possible that suddenly only non-free versions remain of a BSD/public domain-licensed program, along with a completely outdated free version, which is useless for all practical purposes (except for heavy reworking or experimentation).
  
  In the end, you could say the GPL tries to guarantee the freedom of the community (you have to share your improvements with everyone), while the BSD license is more a protection of individual freedom (you can do with the source whatever you like, as long as you give proper credits). I wouldn't say one is "more free" than the other, since it depends on your perspective...
  --
  Donate free food here
I suppose RMS wants Mac OS X renamed? by miguel_at_menino.com · 2003-01-26 07:59 · Score: 4, Funny

RMS is probably disassembling Jaguar, looking for evidence of any GNU code.

Then he'll start correcting people for calling it Mac OS X or Jaguar.

"It should be GNU/Jaguar"

Don't Jaguars eat GNUs?
1. Re:I suppose RMS wants Mac OS X renamed? by entrylevel · 2003-01-26 09:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Uh, there is plenty of GPL code in Mac OS X. For example: bash, cvs, gcc, gdb, gprof, diffutils, and patchutils, just to name a few. Apple has, of course, submitted any changes to this code back to the FSF and any other applicable maintainers. They also have this thing called "Darwin" that allows you to download the open-source core of Mac OS X, which also includes lots of GPL code. However, there is also plenty of BSD code, like fileutils, top, and sysctl.
  
  Finally, there is some proprietary code which you can purchase as an add-on to Darwin. It comes with an easy-to-use installer, a nice GUI, and support for actual commercial software that people use to make money!
  
  Of course, if you truly must have your GNU add-ons, you can just install Fink, or, if cash is your problem, give GNU-Darwin a try.
  
  I know, I know, I Have Been Trolled ;)
  
  --
  Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
2. Re:I suppose RMS wants Mac OS X renamed? by andrewski · 2003-01-26 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Just an off-topic rant here, but this is the Apple section, so that's expected.
  
  I hate BSD top. It's too plain and austere. Where are all the fucking options? Same goes for a lot of BSD utilities. Ah well, nobody has stopped me from compiling and installing them on my Mac.
3. Re:I suppose RMS wants Mac OS X renamed? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of tools that are not GNU base make up a Linux distro too lets not forget. Anyway my comment is this. Slashdot has a strange line between troll and funny. Funny isn't it?
4. Re:I suppose RMS wants Mac OS X renamed? by Draoi · 2003-01-26 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  I hate BSD top. It's too plain and austere. Where are all the fucking options?
  Fair enough. So why don't you just go add them yourself, then? That *is* the idea, right? BTW, Apple has already produced a half-assed GUI layer around TOP (ProcessViewer)
  
  --
  Alison
  "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 10:02 · Score: 0, Interesting

Jesus Christ. I can't believe the only thing you morons have to say is "Steve Jobs for President! RMS sucks!"

You're so stupid I don't even bother logging in anymore. I don't care. I don't want a conversation with you idiots, I don't care about keeping track of what you people think. Your thoughts are 99% worthless drivel, following the same groupthink you claim to be against. "Think same!"

And the lone guy who defended RMS (from what, his "crime" of being scheduled across from a Mac seminar?) got modded down. The guys who were just as offtopic, but pushing the Mac party line, got modded up. You think it's "cool" to insult RMS offhandedly. You morons have done NOTHING for anyone. This guy's a hero to millions, it must be for something good.

You clowns have no objectivity. It's sad that Windows users like me have to defend linux guy RMS from the Mac crowd because you're as zealous as he is. Pathetic. And by the way, your memories are about as short as your dicks (microscopic) if you can't remember the DMCA crap Apple recently pulled, or the price fixing, slow buggy browsing, killing opensource projects and cool mods for the iPod, a hefty .Mac bill after promising "free forever", overcharging for bug fixes and updates, kicking that developer off because of age, killing theming as long as possible, killing fansites who copy the OS X look, blah blah blah. I remember all this crap. You obviously don't. Or you're so biased that you'd kill Gates for pulling it, but you forgive Stevo in a flash. And Gates wouldn't even pull half this crap, because he's not an ass. He's just a hardcore businessman out to kill the competition. Jobs is an ass out to kill the competition, the customers, the third-party guys, the news sites, and anyone else he can. Prove me wrong if you can.

You're living a lie and loving every minute of it. And what is my reward for trying to wake you retards up? Modded down, I'll bet. Sorry to disturb your worship fest.

How gay. You're not worth another word.
1. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Drizzt+Do'Urden · 2003-01-26 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hum.. wait.. I thought they were againts DMCA, that the allied to tell the GVT that it was used wrongly..
  
  Also, I thought that they were providing jobs for opensource developpers, that they were returning the sources back to the originator of the projects they used (think safari) and that people liked them for that?
  
  And.. when did Apple ever said that if you made something good, they'd ship it with the OS? I mean.. Chimera developpers have a right to hope for that.. but not to expect it! And.. I'm shure the KHTML guys are happy to get the bugfixes Apple made!
  
  I'll conclude by saying that you have to uderstand that Apple is a compagny, living to make and sell products. They can't give everything away.. and they have to protect parts of what they do. I think they are a good mix of open/closed source, they provide good usability, speed, functionnality ans stability thanks to that mix. You have the right to disagree... but right now I'm disagreeing with you on some points ;)
  
  --
  Menzoberranzan Networks
2. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Drizzt+Do'Urden · 2003-01-26 14:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Yeah.. I skipped this part because I didn't want to say anything dirty.. I have a gay friend than would have kicked his ass and drug him in the street for that :P
  
  --
  Menzoberranzan Networks
3. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by h0tblack · 2003-01-26 16:06 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Actually, although many people within Apple, and Apple themselves, at various times have argued against the DMCA to varying degrees, they have in fact used it themselves. OWC used to sell a patch for iDVD so it could be used with external DVD-R/RW's rather than just the BTO ones from Apple. They were informed by Apple that this violated Apple's intellectual property and the DMCA act and told to stop selling it. which they did, immediately.
  
  While I like a lot of what Apple is doing, and they do employ open-source guys as well as give back to the community, this was a bit off. Especially as iDVD will soon be a non-free (as in beer) app as well as only working on certain drives. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than them giving iDVD3 ability to work with all drives, as this would be even more of a slam in OWC's faces.
4. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by dalamcd · 2003-01-26 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, OWC insinuated that Apple had waved the DMCA around something like two weeks after the orginal brouhaha; and this was after the original press release/whatever that talked about it, where no mention of the DMCA was made.
  dalamcd
  
  --
  moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
5. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-26 22:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The problem is Apple has to pay a royalty on copies of iDVD, IIRC and are onl licensed themselves to use it with their DVD writers.
6. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by h0tblack · 2003-01-26 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  OWC never publicly said a bad thing about Apple, which isn't surprising as they are relatively small (especially compared to Apple) and are Authorised Dealers so want to keep on the good side of the mothership.
  Of course, the rest of the world reported things with a more critical eye, and the DMCA was mentioned during initial reports of what happened. Even if the DMCA wasn't directly attributed, it's still not fair-play from apple IMHO.
  OWC have a good history of making nice hacks for unsupported hardware (including the current XPostFacto for running OS X on older Macs). This really was a move to keep cheap and easy DVD production in the hands of Apple - it's the added extras that so often help sell Macs. It would not be difficult to remove this limitation in software and allow any DVD-R drive to be used, as is the case with much more expensive DVD Studio Pro. Ask yourself why this is the case...
7. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by h0tblack · 2003-01-26 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Apple have to pay a royalty, to whom exactly? DVD drives themselves have royalties attached, but thats a completely seperate issue. iDVD is Apple software, so who would they pay a royalty to.. themselves? Guess it could be a funky tax-loophole ;)
  
  If you have any info on where these royalties go, I'd be interested to hear. I guess it's possible they're using someone elses code, but if this is the case, I'd have thought Apple would have just bought the product (ala Soundjam and iTunes) rather than be stuick with royalties.
8. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 01:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Apple pays royalites to be able to encode DVDs. The money goes to various patent holders in relation to various algorithms, etc that go with a video DVD. The royalites would be distributed via one of the DVD consortiums, or something like that -- I'm not sure of their name off the top of my head.
9. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Even if the DMCA wasn't directly attributed, it's still not fair-play from apple IMHO.
  
  Apple has to pay MPEG2 licensing fees per-drive for iDVD. If they release iDVD without this software limitation, then suddenly they are legally obligated to pay PER MAC SOLD, instead of paying per Mac w/Superdrive sold. That's tens of thousands of dollars more per year...and OWC isn't gonna be picking up that bill.
  
  That's why they shut down OWC's little patch...because it would have cost them a helluva lot of money, with no return. How is that 'not fair play'? And don't bother to say 'well, they could just SELL iDVD!" because I can tell already that' you'd be the first to complain if they did.
  
  Do everyone on this board a favor and take your uninformed whining elsewhere. Don't post if you don't know the facts.
10. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Gropo · 2003-01-27 03:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Well... to be fair, I've heard many a gay or lesbian person use the term "breeder" disparagingly...
  
  And... well... I can't argue with that usage. There are too many hairless apes on this planet as it is.
  
  Especially too many that waste evenings fabricating flame circuses like this one echoing a communist party line calling the 'filthy capitalist supporters' "mindless sheep" etc...
  
  Good gawly...
  
  --
  I hate Grammar Nazi's
11. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by h0tblack · 2003-01-27 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  oh well, looks like I'm going to bite....
  iDVD is available via one of two means, with a new Mac (i.e. paid for) or bought from Apple (i.e. paid for). The OWC hack could only be used with a legitimately owned copy of iDVD, to make it work with a legitimately owned, but non-BTO DVD-R drive. The workaround that OWC made, although possibly breaking a license agreement here or there, did not take money away from Apple, it just took away their control of the product and the market.
12. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by h0tblack · 2003-01-27 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Good point... thanks for clearing that up. I stand fully corrected on the royalty issue ;)
  Still not impressed with the crippling of iDVD compared to DVD Studio Pro though.....
13. Re:Wow, flamefest on RMS. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you are dense. Learn to read, mmkay? He said that Apple must pay the MPEG2 people to license the encoder in iDVD. That license is paid for, per SuperDrive Apple ships, not per copy of iDVD. Therefore, any copy of iDVD that didn't come with an Apple SuperDrive is not legally licensed to use the MPEG2 encoder. Apple had no choice - it was either that or pay for several million MPEG2 licenses for machines without SuperDrives.
  
  Simple as that. Stupid arrangement on Apple's part? I think so, but perfectly understandable. They should have simply made iDVD impossible to get without an Apple SuperDrive. Instead, they took the easy route of using one system image, including iDVD, for new computers whether they come with a SuperDrive or not.
  
  Again, this was not about Apple taking money away from OWC or using the law to compete against them. It was about Apple's obligation to the MPEG2 people. Understand now, knucklehead?
Good to see this by Knife_Edge · 2003-01-26 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is good that Apple is encouraging cross-platform interoperability, and they are genuinely interested in open source developers. Linux users should find a lot to like about current Apple systems. They are continuously getting more capable from unix point of view. I am watching for ever more powerful server hardware to come out of Apple, probably in about six months, when they are expected to release the next major update to the operating system.

They are courting geeks to try to get them to switch from other *nixes. Initially, they are focusing mostly on individual desktop users. I think part of their strategy now is to get their products into the hands of people who will be making corporate purchasing decisions down the road. Right now the server variant of the OS is not there yet - Many advertised features do not work as documented, or as they should. The next major update will probably be much better. Once you have an Apple in the server room, it is possible for you to provide all sorts of specialized services to Apple clients, making it more attractive to obtain them.

Watch for businesses that want the stability and manageability of Linux but also want to be associated with a mainstream company to look at Apple. We are already seeing plenty of sysadmins switch. First, personal machines, then (Apple hopes!) the machines they are responsible for.
1. Re:Good to see this by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-26 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  It is good that Apple is encouraging cross-platform interoperability
  Mmmm.... how so? MacOS apps will only work on MacOS. It's not like you can just install Aqua and a Quartz server on Linux and display these apps, like you can with X11/GTK is it?
  I think part of their strategy now is to get their products into the hands of people who will be making corporate purchasing decisions down the road.
  Possibly, but it'd have to be a pretty dumb sysadmin to blow their IT budget year on year replacing PCs with Macs, only to find that model has been obsoleted by Apple a few years down the line. Plus of course repurchasing all their software as well. And IT budgets aren't getting bigger quicker like they used to.
  Personal systems for UNIX geeks is one thing, because most likely all their software was open source already so can simply be recompiled and run under X. Most businesses and home users however run Windows, and aren't really interested enough in technology to want to cough up for shiny things. At least, that's what I've observed.
2. Re:Good to see this by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-26 22:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mmmm.... how so? MacOS apps will only work on MacOS. It's not like you can just install Aqua and a Quartz server on Linux and display these apps, like you can with X11/GTK is it?
  
  But Apple do provide X11 for you to run and you can compile a lot of Unix stuff for the Mac, so in that sense it is cross-platform.
  
  Possibly, but it'd have to be a pretty dumb sysadmin to blow their IT budget year on year replacing PCs with Macs, only to find that model has been obsoleted by Apple a few years down the line. Plus of course repurchasing all their software as well. And IT budgets aren't getting bigger quicker like they used to.
  
  Just because Apple builds a better computer a few months later doesn't mean the one you bought won't still do the job you bought it for. There's no law I'm awar eof requiring you to upgrade computers continuously. It's been noted quite a few times that the TCO for Macs is significantly lower than for Windows machines, in part due to not having to replace/repair/upgrade them as often.
  
  I for example am using an iBook 500 which the better part of 2 years old now. Newer iBooks for lower prices run rings around it. It still does everything I need it to perfectly well. It runs Jaguar, gets me on the Internet, runs Maple and Appleworks/Office, plays the occassional game, manages my photos and mp3s and allows me to dabble in movie-creation. In short, it is far from being functioanlly obsolete.
3. Re:Good to see this by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-26 23:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But Apple do provide X11 for you to run and you can compile a lot of Unix stuff for the Mac, so in that sense it is cross-platform.
  No, open source UNIX apps are cross platform, MacOS apps are not. You can run linux apps on windows too. Is Windows nice and cross-platform? I don't think so.
  Just because Apple builds a better computer a few months later doesn't mean the one you bought won't still do the job you bought it for.
  What if you want a bugfix in the next version of MacOS, but they tie it to some hardware. Businesses need support, and Apples goal is to sell more hardware. As apps move on, OS 9 is being abandoned yes? So those people have to upgrade if they want to keep up with their one particular app, regardless of whether OS 9 was all they needed or not. This is well known, you can't just buy some technology then never upgrade it (well you can, but it's not wise).
4. Re:Good to see this by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-27 00:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's a difference between Mac OS X running nix stuff and Windows running it. OS X is a version of Unix in its own right. Apple is encouraging the open source community, writing software for them (Safari rendering engine, Darwin) and giving people a much wider range of software to work with. Write a program in Cocoa and it can be moved a lot quicker to another platform than most programs.
  
  As for bugfixes requiring hardware, that doesn't really happen. Your 9-X analogy is flawed as 9 was a continuation of 7 and 8 i.e. a series of OSes that spanned a lot of years. It will be a good many years before an operating system requires radically different hardware to run. And as long as current programs run on older OSes, everything is fine. We don't have a 9-X situation every couple of years; ee have it once a decade which is not unreasonablle.
5. Re:Good to see this by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-27 01:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  There's a difference between Mac OS X running nix stuff and Windows running it. OS X is a version of Unix in its own right.
  There's no difference. An operating system being UNIX is determined by how POSIX compliant it is. When OS X was first release, even Windows NT was more POSIX compliant than it. I don't know if that's still the case. Anyway, academic arguments about what is or isn't unix gets us nowhere, it's technically irrelevant.
  Apple is encouraging the open source community, writing software for them (Safari rendering engine, Darwin)
  Huh? KHTML was written by the open source community, that's not Apple writing software for us, exactly the opposite. In the same way, Darwin was mostly FreeBSD, which was already open source. They've released practically no code they've written that wasn't simply modifications to something that was already open source.
  Write a program in Cocoa and it can be moved a lot quicker to another platform than most programs.
  Not true at all. Java maybe. Cocoa is not a cross platform set of APIs, nowhere near. Where is the reference implementation? Where is the implementation for Windows, or for Linux? GNUstep only implements the OpenStep APIs, not any of Apples own extensions.
  As for bugfixes requiring hardware, that doesn't really happen.
  Apple are constantly pushing up the system requirements for new OS releases. Once there is a significantly faster machine out from them, expect to see even more cycle-eating eye candy in MacOS. MacOS X is hardly usable on old iMacs, I've tried it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in a few years the G4s were considered too old to run the latest versions of MacOS.
6. Re:Good to see this by Graymalkin · 2003-01-27 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're forgetting that Cocoa and OpenStep are source compatible. OpenStep is a free specification, one that the GNU-Step is making decent progress reimplementing. If you want to write a cross platform app you can target it to the Cocoa/OpenStep API and have it be compatible on anything that will run GNU-Step. That was the original point of the OpenStep initiative was so enable an OS vendor to write their own OpenStep implementation and run source compatible apps. If your compiler supported fat binaries you could easily have a single executable that would run on just about any OpenStep host.
  
  No Apple isn't about to release the source for Quartz or some of their more tightly held technologies, this however does not preclude you from writing open source applications that will run on both Linux and MacOS. For a large commercial company Apple's done a pretty good job with open source thus far. They've given code back to several open source projects including but not limited to enhancements to GCC and KHTML. They're also using a ton of open specifications in their products which makes it quite easy for you to make hetrogeneous Linux/MacOS environments work very well together.
  
  I'm not sure your system purchasing comments make much sense either. You're saying a company shouldn't ever change platforms (to anything) because the move is expensive. Well duh. That however doesn't mean switching platforms whole hog or incrementally is a bad thing. Would you not want a company to consider migrating from Windows to Linux if Linux was a better proposition for them?
  
  As for the hardware, it isn't the fastest or cheapest in the world but it lasts a pretty long time. Out of the box they're going to last a while but if you're so inclined you can upgrade them for a pretty decent price. I've seen more than a couple "obsolete" Macs with a G3 or G4 upgrade card running OSX without any problem. Just about any PCI Mac with a little tinkering will run OSX. Even without upgrading to OSX there's a ton of old Macs that are plenty usable.
  
  --
  I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
7. Re:Good to see this by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-27 03:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There's no difference. An operating system being UNIX is determined by how POSIX compliant it is.
  I avoid Windows where possible, so I could be wrong about this, but don't you have to install extra software to run most Unix stuff? Cygwin or something like that? And it doesn't come with the basic Unix tools built in. Windows has some POSIX compatability, but OS X has FreeBSD running underneath it, ships with a proper Terminal program, has a free X11 implementation available from Apple which will no doubt soon be included as an install option with the OS, gives you nice free deveeloper tools and Apple plays nice with the OSS community. They encourage the use of Unix and advertise themselves as one, promoting the ability to run Unix software. Microsoft's attitude is the exact opposite. If you don't see the difference here, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you.
  Huh? KHTML was written by the open source community, that's not Apple writing software for us, exactly the opposite. In the same way, Darwin was mostly FreeBSD, which was already open source. They've released practically no code they've written that wasn't simply modifications to something that was already open source.
  
  Which is one of the big selling points of open source. You don't have to build code from scratch - you can take somebody else's, modify it, distribute it and let everyone share in the fun. That's what a heck of a lot of open source developers do. f everyone had to write code from scratch in order for it to be defined as open, what would be the point?
  
  Apple took KHTML, fixed a lot of bugs, built Safari and released the rendering code with enhancements back. I fail to see how this sin't open source development on their part.
  
  Not true at all. Java maybe. Cocoa is not a cross platform set of APIs, nowhere near. Where is the reference implementation? Where is the implementation for Windows, or for Linux? GNUstep only implements the OpenStep APIs, not any of Apples own extensions.
  I guess I should have ben more specific and said the Java parts. Sorry.
  Apple are constantly pushing up the system requirements for new OS releases. Once there is a significantly faster machine out from them, expect to see even more cycle-eating eye candy in MacOS. MacOS X is hardly usable on old iMacs, I've tried it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in a few years the G4s were considered too old to run the latest versions of MacOS.
  
  That's not true in my experience. Each elease has made the system faster. hat's what's amde the updates to eagerly awaited - getitng usable speed. 10.0.x was useless. Did nothing and did i slowly. 10.1 was usable, but not ready to full time replace 9.x. 10.1.5 was where it became woth using full time and 10.2.x flies. It feels just as fast on an iMac 400 as 9.x, is more stable and looks better. It even performs satisfactorily on my iBook.
  
  Perhaps Quartz Extreme is confusing you - it is a benefit for machines with a good video card, but that doesn't mean that it causes older machines to slow down. It isn't a zero sum equation. The existence of Quartz Extreme has not impacted my iBook in the slightest. So far, the OS has bene getting faster and the software is being written better. If anything, I expect speedups over the next year as people get used to coding for X.
8. Re:Good to see this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your entire argument was lost with me as soon as you stated a need to upgrade Macs every few years not being feasible.
  
  I have a Biege G3 (1998) and 2 first inception G4s (2000) in production. All three are running Jaguar just fine, and will for another couple years at the least. (The G4s will probably last much longer)
  
  Conversely, we have 450 Windows boxes which have been through 3 replacements since 1998 because they can't keep up with the demands of modern Windows OS and apps.
  
  You have failed to convince me that Apple is requiring more freqent replacements than Windows is. The reverse is actually true in my experience. The noly upgrade I've made to the Macs is new video cards to take advantage of Quartz extreme, and that wasn't a requriement of Jaguar, just an added bonus.
  
  As for running Uniz apps on Windows, your experience must be different from my department's experience. Apache and PHP, frankly, aren't worth attempting on Windows. Not if you know how it is supposed to run on a *nix plat. Many OpenSource *nix apps won't run properly, or offer no benefit, if used on Windows.
  
  Your argument is fraught with misinformation and opinions.
9. Re:Good to see this by Lebannen · 2003-01-27 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  While I agree with some of your comments, I'm not so sure about others.
  
  1) I used to run Mac OS X 10.1 on my iMacDV quite happily - that's over three years old by now. And this was 10.1 - rather than jack up the requirements with each release, Apple have so far lowered them. This isn't a trend that's likely to continue (!) but it's a pretty nice achievemnt nonetheless. However much people complain it should have been this fast to start with, OS X did mean an enormous step up in what it was doing - full alpha compositing, etc. And the reason it was included at the time was so that OS X wouldn't change too drastically as it developed; we've been seeing a lot of changes, including API changes, but the overall technique of the OS hasn't changed and is fairly unlikely to.
  
  I'm not saying Apple don't render old hardware obsolete, cos they do... especially some of the older graphics hardware, which still doesn't have OSX acceleration. But I wouldn't say they're always pushing up the hardware requirements; things like Quartz extreme aren't a requirement, they're an acceleration.
  
  2) Open source-isms; Apple haven't released many totally new projects into the community, except for a few minorish things such as Rendezvous, but they have done some sterling work on some of the projects they've used. The KHTML team received an enormous amount of changes, fixes and optimisations; it's not just a one-way path, and while it may just be compliance with the licences, they're being pretty nice about it. I was working on a little app recently, wrote apple's engineers about something I was having problems with, and the guy didn't just help but sent me some of their proprietary (ie, not Darwin) code to illustrate how they had performed certain functions.
  
  Yes, I am an Apple fan; no, I'm not an Apple zealot. For all their problems and some of their suckitude, they're also doing some rather nice things in a rather nice way.
  
  --
  Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" whilst looking for a rock
10. Re:Good to see this by Lussarn · 2003-01-27 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple are constantly pushing up the system requirements for new OS releases. Once there is a significantly faster machine out from them, expect to see even more cycle-eating eye candy in MacOS. MacOS X is hardly usable on old iMacs, I've tried it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in a few years the G4s were considered too old to run the latest versions of MacOS.
  
  This is speculation and should have been left out. On about all other points I agree with you.
  
  It boiles down to that software written for mainstream unixes runs on Mac but not the other way around. This is of course very deliberate from Apple and thats why I don't touch them. Unix has been through incaompabilities before but this takes the grand price.
  
  Apple can't even release a quicktime player for other unixes... Great move guys. We love you and will surely buy your systems.
11. Re:Good to see this by Llywelyn · 2003-01-27 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Apple can't even release a quicktime player for other unixes... Great move guys. We love you and will surely buy your systems."
  
  You do realize most of us purchase computers because they do what we want/need them to for a minimum amount of fuss and not because we are politically motivated as to what someone chooses to or not to port their software to.
  
  Please, I consider QuickTime Player to be a reason *to* use MacOS X rather than that they won't port it to other systems a reason not to.
  
  As to the file format, its MPEG4.
  
  --
  Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
12. Re:Good to see this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-28 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  only to find that model has been obsoleted by Apple a few years down the line.
  Sure, but it happens much more rapidly to those who think obsoleted is an actual word.
13. Re:Good to see this by BrodieBruce · 2003-01-29 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  >>But Apple do provide X11 for you to run and you
  >>can compile a lot of Unix stuff for the Mac, so
  >>in that sense it is cross-platform.
  
  >No, open source UNIX apps are cross platform,
  >MacOS apps are not. You can run linux apps on
  >windows too. Is Windows nice and cross-platform?
  >I don't think so.
  
  Don't give Bill any ideas for new marketing slogans. I'm sure they could afford the court costs to prove that "cross-platform" actually means something other than what we here at /. think it does.
Bold of Apple by absurdhero · 2003-01-26 10:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is pretty amazing that Steve Jobs had the guts to set up shop in a linux expo. By the same token, I applaud him for taking notice of and respecting the linux community. Certain other OS vendors try to hide linux in the closet and pretend that it isn't a serious undertaking.
1. Re:Bold of Apple by grantb · 2003-01-26 12:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So this is like Steve coming out of the closet? I think the main reason that apple is in attendance is to say, "..hey were not Microsoft..." and frankly OS X does work pretty darn good with linux. But Steve has been pushing Unix in general since NeXT. So he really came out ages ago(on unix that is). But also look at apples recent release of X11 for OSX, they are really trying to push unix in general and if they can attract some Linux people to the platform all the better.
2. Re:Bold of Apple by gravygraphics · 2003-01-27 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  "..hey were not Microsoft..."
  we were not Microsoft, but we are now. Bu-ha-ha-ha-ha.
OSX and Linux by Jim+Buzbee · 2003-01-26 14:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's what I'd like to see :
User Mode Linux under OSX That would be interesting. Running a complete Linux OS as a user process under OSX.
1. Re:OSX and Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  *me running for barf bag*
  *me reding parent posting again*
  *me opens up barf bag*
  *me barfs*
  Why do *we* need this? Why? Just asking WHY.
2. Re:OSX and Linux by Draoi · 2003-01-26 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why do *we* need this? Why? Just asking WHY.
  Well, *we* obviously don't - that's for sure. Personally, I like the idea. Why?? Well, I develop cross-platform s/w for both Linux and MacOS X. With this, I should be able to target and verify both platforms on my little ol' TiBook instead of having to bother my butt with my desktop PC. Storage space is cheap, so why not??
  
  --
  Alison
  "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
RMS??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 15:46 · Score: 0

Sorry to go slightly off-topic with this, but would someone clear this up for me. Who (or what) the hell is RMS? I keep seeing this RMS refered to all over Slashdot but nobody uses his/her/its real name. Is it some kind of Linux diety and uttering its real name will bring instant death? Or is this the standard geek love affair with acronyms? What gives? I've done Web searches and come up with nothing.
Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.
1. Re:RMS??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 16:08 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  RMS.
2. Re:RMS??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Who (or what) the hell is RMS?
  
  Perhaps you should search on a website called "google.com". Yes read it: goo-gle-dot-com.
  
  Because Stallman's homepage came up as the first hit
The New Apple by mitchell_pgh · 2003-01-26 16:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

If Safari is any indication of what we have in store for OS X and the iApps, Apple is going to really start embracing Open Source projects. Everyone, including Apple, is starting to realize that it's going to end up being a Linux/Unix vs. Windows "war". Apple has realized that it will win over more Linux users by showing them that OS X is everything Linux strives to be, but with a larger user base, a unified vision, commercial applications and a WOW factor. The question to Apple should be, will Linux users use an OS that has a proprietary GUI and hardware? That being said, I bet many Linux users would love to get a little of that Mac user base money...
1. Re:The New Apple by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-26 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  If Safari is any indication of what we have in store for OS X and the iApps, Apple is going to really start embracing Open Source projects.
  I think you mean embrace and extend. Safari is not open source for instance.
  Everyone, including Apple, is starting to realize that it's going to end up being a Linux/Unix vs. Windows "war".
  Actually it's a Linux vs MacOS vs Windows war. Linux is probably Apples biggest competitor. That's very true on the server for instance, I have yet to see good value propositions for Apple servers. Right now Linux is still playing catchup on the desktop, but once it "gets there" in terms of ease of use, all those geeks who so easily went to Apple could easily go back. Will they? Who knows. But it's certainly possible.
  The kind of customers Apple have now are the slippery kind, they quite probably use MacOS, Linux and Windows day in, day out. That means they can move between platforms very easily. That also means Apple are going to have to work very hard to keep them.
  Apple has realized that it will win over more Linux users by showing them that OS X is everything Linux strives to be, but with a larger user base, a unified vision, commercial applications and a WOW factor.
  I think you missed the point about Linux, which is software freedom and openness RMS style. It's not striving to have lots of users or commercial applications, although that is the implication of having lots of people work on it and use it.
  The question to Apple should be, will Linux users use an OS that has a proprietary GUI and hardware?
  I wish people would stop saying that. It's not simply a case of a nice but unnecessary added extra you know. Mac apps will not work without all the proprietary Apple code, which isn't just the gui note, but also CoreAudio, IOKit, Cocoa, Carbon and so on.
  If it was really "just a proprietary gui" then I could run MacOS apps in KDE yes? I'd be using a different desktop but I could still use the apps. But that doesn't work.
2. Re:The New Apple by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-26 22:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Safari may not be opensource, but the rendering engine, i.e. the bit they used from Konqueror, is. People are quite free to take it and use it in their own browsers. A few months and we'll see it as a framework in OS X, so people won't need to bother with the source code.
  
  Apple are doing exactly what they're suppossed to with open source and coming out and saying to the world that it is A Good Thing.
3. Re:The New Apple by WaKall · 2003-01-26 23:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is the way that software should be done - open source foundations and tools, and the options of commercial and free software for things the users (well, non-coding users) interact with. You as a user choose software that has a payment model and source license model that works for you. The developer does the same, and everyone is happy.
  
  There should be free (as in beer and liberty) tools and OS's, but to claim that everything on a system should be OSS, thats just silly. If you want it personally for your machines, that's fine. But don't preach it to everyone else, because OSS doesn't imply usable; it doesn't imply reliable, or secure, or any other part of what makes a piece of software great, except for price and extensibility. And the truth is, extensibility means next to nothing to most people, as they don't have the slightest idea how to modify source code.
4. Re:The New Apple by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-26 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes yes, I'm quite aware of that. Using open source is not the same as embracing it however. Redhat embrace open source. Apple use it. Microsoft use it too, believe it or not. Have they embraced open source?
5. Re:The New Apple by iomud · 2003-01-27 00:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Using open source is not the same as embracing it however. Redhat embrace open source. Apple use it. Microsoft use it too, believe it or not. Have they embraced open source?
  And guess what, they're free to do so. You don't give someone something under certain conditions and then bitch when they actually take it. They're still abide by the conditions set forth and that's all they have to do. Apple isn't in the make the world a better place business, they're in business to make money. Be thankful that by all accounts they've taken an incomplete rendering engine with a relatively small and clean codebase and will help turn it into a respectable one that Apple users and Linux users will both benifit from.
6. Re:The New Apple by jbolden · 2003-01-27 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think you mean embrace and extend. Safari is not open source for instance.
  
  I'm not really sure what you mean. As others have pointed out Apple is working with the KDE team to integrate their changes in KHTML back into the KConq browser line and work off a common source tree. As far as the Cocoa functions which create a high power HTML library for Objective-C which calls the KHTML engine they've released that open source as Webcore. Omni for example is thinking of switching over to webcore. The graphics templates are under some licensing restrictions since that's part of Apple's look and feel however they available to anyone with Safari. Finally they open sourced KWQ which is there QT for Aqua not using QT.
  
  I guess I'd ask what do you think is missing? The only thing I can see is look and feel.
  
  If it was really "just a proprietary gui" then I could run MacOS apps in KDE yes? I'd be using a different desktop but I could still use the apps. But that doesn't work.
  
  I think you are oversimplifying. Apple has not just created its own window manager but rather an entirely seperate system from the frame buffer on up. Its not X11 based so it doesn't run under KDE (which assumes the apps are making QT or X11 calls). It can be implemented under X11 (see the GNUStep project for example). Further Aqua can support X11. You can't run Berlin apps under KDE either; even though both are open source Unix gui apps.
  
  So it is in fact a propietery gui; which is more than a propietery window manager.
7. Re:The New Apple by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-27 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is insightful? Oh yes, of course, this is apple.slashdot.org
  I never said they weren't free to use it. I never claimed they were violating the license. I'm not bitching that they took it.
  I pointed out that embracing open source would mean actually taking the ideals of the movement to heart, not simply using code from it to further their own ends.
  Anyway, I really can't be bothered arguing with you on this point, I've been around it a hundred times before on dot.kde.org, look in the Safari story. It should be pretty obvious which posts are mine. Apples long term goals are to lock the industry in to their proprietary hardware and software, which are in conflict with what I think is best for the industry. Therefore people should realise that simply using free software, even if you meet your legal obligations in doing so, is not the same as embracing it.
8. Re:The New Apple by Gropo · 2003-01-27 03:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Apples long term goals are to lock the industry in to their proprietary hardware and software, which are in conflict with what I think is best for the industry.
  Forgive me for not trudging through the aforementioned slashboard to read your opinions in full (must get busy soon), but I would find any argument other than:
  What is best for the industry as a whole is a diversity in choices - including choices between 'closed-loop' platforms that offer more ubiquitous integration and more strict human interface guidelines against fully open platforms.
  ...to be entirely hard to swallow regardless of the qualifying arguments. My personal problem when overlaying a biodiversity analogy against the platforms is thus: GNU represents the Paleozoic era (chaotic period in which it seems every possible body type was tried and discarded - very slow evolutionary period in context to the later eras)... Whereas Closed-loop platforms such as Sun, Apple and IBM (and yes even M$) are more akin to the Cenozoic era (Mammals, Mollusks and Birds have attained cerebral niches, dominate their environments, diversification of species is carried out at a much faster pace).
  
  That isn't to say that OPENopen platforms are less relevant in today's general computing arena, just that the philosophy can never fulfill the needs of *all* users. In my opinion, Paleozoic-era biodiversity is neccessary for a healthy computing humanity - but no moreso than the strict, regimented 'dominance' paradigm.
  
  Anyways, I should probably digest Raymond's "tCatB" before I ramble off in this direction again...
  
  --
  I hate Grammar Nazi's
9. Re:The New Apple by JonathanBoyd · 2003-01-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Steve Jobs stood on stage at the latest MacWorld and said that open source was a good thing.As has bene pointed out, open sourcing everything they do would be bad for business. They seem quite happy to work with OSS on the heart of a program as long as they can put a nice skin over the top, which allows them to make money to develop new apps which take open source, improve on it, release it back, and so on. Apple making money off of open source is a great thing because it means that they'll keep coming back, improving on code and releasing it to the OSS community to use.
  
  The Adopt a KDE Geek program exists because developers of open source don't have a lot of resources. Apple does. They're doing way more than their fair share of RnD in the computing industry and everyone can benefit from that if it is turned towards developing even a small part of open source code.
10. Re:The New Apple by jcr · 2003-01-27 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I pointed out that embracing open source would mean actually taking the ideals of the movement to heart, not simply using code from it to further their own ends.
  
  Umm, EVERYONE who uses open source code is simply using the code to further their own ends. That includes RMS, BTW.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
11. Re:The New Apple by ealar+dlanvuli · 2003-01-27 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Using open source is not the same as embracing it however.
  
  Well, I might ask you what you think the following slide shown to 40,000 people meant:
  
  "Open Source
  We think it's good."
  
  I mean, seriously, if that's not embracing it does he have to sleep with RMS to get on the "inside track"?
  
  --
  I live in a giant bucket.
And then... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 16:49 · Score: 0

"...and then you had to ruin it all by saying something stupid like..."
Apple at a Linux Expo? by VertigoAlpha · 2003-01-26 19:03 · Score: 1

Although Apple has introduced a lot of GPL based software, it has remained consistent in pushing "the Apple look." Just look at the Aqua interface and their hardware. Clearly built to push a image. What I would like to see is a more liberal stance. IF Steve wants to push OS X as a alternative to Linux, then the least he could do is try putting themes into the OS. I like aqua, but those lovely blue buttons just aren't me. (Incidentially, I have information from a credible source stating that themes would make the OS considerably less stable.)
1. Re:Apple at a Linux Expo? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  Why do people desire themes so much? Have you ever wonder why X11 window mangers, which are themeable, look so good awful ugly, poor UI to boot? Might themes and UI clash?
2. Re:Apple at a Linux Expo? by foniksonik · 2003-01-26 22:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "then the least he could do is try putting themes into the OS"
  
  Interesting that even with Linux distributions you have to download and install 'themes'...
  
  I have a theme on my OS X 'top... MaggraX by reknowned theme designer... Takashi Izawa. It's very nice! Right now there isn't a warehouse full of themes available but there are some nice ones... and templates for making more. Several free tools and some shareware tools enable painless theme installation, etc.
  
  So stop complaining and start Gimping your way to a new freakin' theme!
  
  'nuff said,
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
3. Re:Apple at a Linux Expo? by jaysones · 2003-01-27 11:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  MaggraX is located here.
4. Re:Apple at a Linux Expo? by VertigoAlpha · 2003-01-27 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well that works well for those of us who actually *KNOW* what GIMP is. Now what about newbies, one of Apple's target consumer groups?
5. Re:Apple at a Linux Expo? by davids-world.com · 2003-01-28 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Apple opening up the user interface design requirements / guidelines? No way. Because that's the main added-value OS X has in comparison to any GNULinux distro. While Linux, after many years of joint effort, hasn't managed to create a unified graphical user interface that people need to comfortably use applications, Apple has done so and made me happy with it. Don't forget - even command line interfaces in Linux differ from application to application. Sometimes it's -?, sometimes --help, sometimes just nothing. It could be -h or /h, or even (crazy!) -help.
Royalties by mcwetboy · 2003-01-27 03:19 · Score: 1

Apple has to pay a royalty for the MPEG-2 encoder required to create DVD video, so it would be to whomever owns the patents on MPEG-2 video compression.
1. Re:Royalties by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  This still doen't make sense to me. If Apple needs to collect the royalties they could simply tack that on to the price of iDVD whenever they sell it as a stand-alone product. (You can buy it separately for $19.95--at least till iLife comes out) They just want you to buy a whole new computer, it's obvious. I bought a bare, internal DVD-R and installed it myself and it works fine with iDVD, What's the difference, as far as royalties are concerned, if I had bought an external drive?
2. Re:Royalties by ealar+dlanvuli · 2003-01-27 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well let me explain some history here.
  
  Until next weekend, the only way to aquire iDVD legally is by buying an Apple system with a DVD writer. Any system without an Apple built in DVD drive cannot have a legitimate copy of iDVD. Next week this changes.
  
  When that letter was sent there was no possible way you could legally have iDVD and not have a compatable DVD drive. No matter what law apple had used they were in the right for this one.
  
  Apple legal chose to use the DMCA because it was the best law to get their point across, they probably did not consider the community backlash when they did so. There are other laws they could have used to stop this software distribution, but Apple legal thought this was the most sound one in court.
  
  I really think it's really silly to complain about this particular usage of the DMCA though, as this was a good example of a proper usage of the DMCA (yes such things exist). Apple did not ask for any rights they did not already have, and just looked to enforce their rights over software they had created. If nothing else they could have used the same argument the RIAA used against napster and won easily, it was really a non-issue what particular law they chose to prove that what was being created violated the spirit of the law.
  
  --
  I live in a giant bucket.
interoperability explanation by rogueroo · 2003-01-27 04:49 · Score: 1
interoperability. I agree with Knife_Edge that Apple is encouraging cross-platform interoperability.
- Apple includes a notable Java environment.
- Apple promotes (see the "Use the best tool for the job" heading) Virtual PC.
- fink
- Appleworks provides file-format interoperability with common Microsoft Office applications through the use of MacLinkPlus tools.
Jaguars don't predate on Gnus, no. by bandy · 2003-01-27 05:02 · Score: 1

Gnus are old-world herbivores.
Jaguars are new-world critters.

No.

--
"You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
1. Re:Jaguars don't predate on Gnus, no. by cc+bcc · 2003-01-27 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  And then there's the Atlantic Ocean seperating them..
There is much more to the Mac than GHz by afantee · 2003-01-28 08:06 · Score: 1

How about Firewire 800, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth, Superdrive, 2 MB L3 cache, 2GB RAM, 4 internal disk drives, Gigabit Ethernet, Mac OS X, dozens of free programming tools, iLife, the style, the reliability, the lower TCO, ...

Come on people, I thought /. readers are intelligent enough to look beyond the box.
Re:You guys are all fanboys. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-30 02:58 · Score: 0

Do you realize how blind with love for Apple you all are?
We don't _want_ to know, FLAMEBAIT.
---I DARE you to hold Apple to the same standards you hold Microsoft.---
Now you're just being stupid. Microsoft is EVIL, Apple is GOOD. And no matter how similarly they act, this will always be true. We have already decided, and facts can't change our minds, FLAMEBAIT.
Think different.
Shut up. Don't throw our own words back at us, loser. WE decide what "different" is. We'll think how we want, FLAMEBAIT.
*Think for yourself*.
No. Why don't _YOU_ think for yourself, FLAMEBAIT.

Apple is God, you suck. We don't want your kind here.