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.
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.
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...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
MaggraX is located here.