Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac OS X Sessions at LinuxExpo

Posted by pudge on 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.

9 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I want to see.... by ceejayoz · · 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.

  2. OSX and Linux by Jim+Buzbee · · 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.

  3. The New Apple by mitchell_pgh · · 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 JonathanBoyd · · 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.

    2. Re:The New Apple by Gropo · · 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
  4. Re:Good to see this by IamTheRealMike · · 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).

  5. Re:I want to see.... by Scarblac · · 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.
  6. Re:I want to see.... by jbolden · · 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.

  7. Re:Good to see this by JonathanBoyd · · 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.