Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Sessions at LinuxExpo
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.
I want to see real conflict between RMS and Steve Jobs. I mean knock-down, drag-out brawl conflict. Anybody with me?
-- ... user, Starnix is the Unix community for you.
Starnix: It don't matter if you're a Linux, OS X, *BSD, Solaris, AIX,
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
RMS.
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...
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.
dalamcd
moer liek CELtroid prime!!@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.)
Just wondering what was the last piece of code that RMS has actually written?
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.
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.
You're right. There are two schools of thoughts in this matter and sadly their differences will never be settled.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
interoperability. I agree with Knife_Edge that Apple is encouraging cross-platform interoperability.
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
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.
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.....
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."
- 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
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, ...
/. readers are intelligent enough to look beyond the box.
Come on people, I thought