Slashdot Mirror
Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other?
viewstyle writes "There is an interesting commentary on eWEEK discussing the 'synergies' between Apple and Linux after visiting LinuxWorld. It makes a good point that advancement of Linux is good for Mac OS X and vice versa, because of the ease of porting across the platforms (soon to get easier with the X11 on Mac OS X)." Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...
Not only Linux wins, but all platforms capable of running KDE win. Huzzah.
I'm waiting for Apple to get a version of Quicktime for Linux.
What happens when apple change their mind?
That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.
Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.
Well, but who cares? In the mean time, Apple cleans up KHTML, gives some credibility to Unix-on-the-desktop, and makes a bunch of pretty notebooks.
:)
What's the worst that could happen?
Imagine Jobs has a change of heart tomorrow and decides that open source sucks. So what then? They stop using KHTML. KDE will continue on without them, I guarantee it -- and they'll always have the work that Apple contributed. The xBSD crowd will probably be a little disappointed if Apple stops developing BSD stuff, but it's not going to shut them down or hurt them in any way. Maybe they won't get the benefit of some of Apple's work, if Apple chooses to keep it to themselves, but there's no real subtraction there. BSD software abounds in closed-source applications, yet BSD is still doing just fine (despite what the trolls will have you believe
See, that's the beauty of open source. Companies can -help- by improving the software, but they can't -hurt- by wrecking it for everyone. About the dirtiest trick they could pull would be to try a Microsoftian embrace-and-extend. We've dealt with those before, and they're not that big of a deal in the long run.
I dunno, I say we encourage Apple to do as much as they can with open source software. They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on. They take the best of what's out there, improve it, use it in their products, and contribute back to the community at large. It's win-win, as far as I can see.
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
Yeah, IBM is using Linux. However, we all know that IBM can't market it's way out of a wet paper bag. Apple, though.. Those guys *definitely* know a thing or two about making their products sexy. You're right, Apple contributes marketing. But I don't think they're going to seriously affect the way that the public thinks about OSS. That would be nice, and I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't think Apple cares. While IBM is using the popularity of Linux to boost itself, Apple isn't using the popularity of OSS and KHTML to boost itself. Yeah, they mention it I suppose, but it's more in passing than anything else.
They don't really care so much about OSS in principle, I'd say, as much as they care about having a robust product working very quickly. It happens to be a fact that OSS very often displays those features. It also happens to be a fact that a lot of OSS lacks polish and flair, "sexiness" -- to Joe Public. Very few people question the fact that Apple is very good at making things friendly, useable, and just all around sexy.
It's a perfect match, I'd say. Apple gets the robust code, and the value they add (and charge for) is the interface that they put on the front. The OSS community gets a few patches and bugfixes, and a bit of publicity. Everyone gets something out of it.
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
So few people understand this - if there were Mac clones there would, in short order, be nothing left of interest in the platform. The key to Apple's role in the industry is that they are the last vertically integrated, "make-the-whole-widget," software-plus-OS company around selling desktop machines. That enables them to do things and be things that give them the unique place in the marketplace. Without that unique place there'd be nothing left of them.
Of course, the vertical integration is at once the best thing and the worst thing about Apple. But clearly without it they'd be entirely forgettable and irrelevant.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Key parts of OS X are still proprietary. Until they are free (or at least open), I still consider Apple an enemy.
Ugh. Enough with the communist ideology, okay? Apple spends a fortune developing wonderful things. If they were to simply give those things away for free, they would be unable to stay in business. I, for one, like what Apple produces, and I like the way they influence the rest of the computer industry-- indeed, the entire consumer products industry. I don't want Apple to go away, so I don't want Apple to make any of their core products "free" or "open." I want them to stay as proprietary as possible, forever.
And so do you. You just may not realize it yet.
I write in my journal
This is a great example of the kind of attitude a lot of Linux users have. You want a machine that works as well as a Mac OS X machine? Install a GTK+ and E theme!
No matter how much lipstick you put on your grandma, her plumbing still doesn't work like it used to. Likewise, even with a shitty Aqua theme on a windowing system that can't even handle alpha without employing one of many hacks may give you those "pretty stoplight buttons," it sure as hell doesn't give you a clean or consistent interface. It's the same one you had before, exempting a different pixmap in your window decorations.
An interface is a lot more than the color your buttons are. It goes a lot deeper, into the way you interact with the computer.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
repeat after me: "apple is a hardware company". say over and over until you get it. apple is truly an innovative, technology company. apple makes it dollars selling its technology, its innovation. that is why it frequently upgrade their hardware. not like a 2.4GHZ to a golly gee, 2.6GHZ P4, but real upgrades. look at the new TiBooks. hell, they could've installed a MacLinux on every new mac if it's sold more boxen. they just don't make enough on software. in fact, they use their web site to market third party software, so you can see all that the mac can do. so you'll buy their hardware. open source has just been another avenue for them to sell hardware. they understand that all the OSS in the world doesn't cut into their bottom line. not one bit.
no, apple isn't approaching OSS from a philosophical standpoint, like many of us do, but rather from a practical standpoint. and if OSS makes good commercial sense, then it is good for OSS. pissing off the F/OSS community is a bad move on their part. apple knows it. even though office X is nice, m$ is the long run enemy of apple. m$ represents a different direction, different hardware. apple can't sell its os to run on intel. it needs to sell hardware. OSS is just one way to do that. they keep trying to prove they're good citizens, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt.
(writing this on my ibook, running mozilla, while i edit my php/perl files on gvim, and test on apache/mysql, and create graphics on GIMP)
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Friend, WebCore includes KHTML and KJS with tons of fixes and optimizations-- all of which have been submitted back to the project, as per the LGPL-- Kwq, the QT adapter library, and the Objective-C SPI. Apple improved the hell out of KHTML and KJS, sent their changes back to the project maintainers, and then released the whole shebang in an OS X-style package. What more do you want, exactly?
I write in my journal
Macs are expensive, given, but I have to say that it is my prefered platform, and somthing that I am going to be spending so much time using, I won't use somthing that I don't prefer. It really is as simple as that
...And then see them driving a $30,000 car they spend less than an hour in each day.
I find it rather interesting to see techs whose main criticism of a mac is its price, quoting the difference between a top G4 and a top PC they've built themselves, with price differences in the low few thousands...
It's priorities. Occasionally I spend upwards of 10-14 hours a day in front of my mac. It gets -used-, it affects me, and I want to be comfortable with it.
1. Harrassing Aqua-ish theme makers. As Apple should know, you can't patent "look and feel" -- as their failed case against MS demonstrated.
The "harassment" was due to people copying and pasting widgets directly out of Mac OS X and passing them off as their own. And no, that's not what the failed "look and feel" case demonstrates - that case was lost due to the slack language Apple used in the contract they signed with MS. They gave MS more rights than they thought they had, and when they went to court this came out - hence they lost.
You most certainly can sue over "look and feel", due to a concept known as "trade dress". If I set up a MacDonalds fast food chain with a couple of golden-Ms, you can be I'd have a suit slapped on me within minutes.
Refusing to release a Sorenson codec enabled player or library for Linux, effectively locking Linux users out of an increasing majority of all Internet video content and thus making Linux unviable to end users
Mod -1, Boo Fucking Hoo. Apple signed a contract with Sorenson. Sorenson signed a contract with Apple. Those two companies entered into a deal whereby you're not going to get Sorenson's code for free on your platform. Get over it.
Instead of whining about it, why don't you get off your ass and write a better codec? What's that, it's hard? Well that's why people can and do build businesses around it...
3. Undercutting development of established Open Source projects, like Mozilla and XFree86, by pushing less open alternatives and thus both cutting their mindshare and draining developer talent.
Apple doesn't owe Mozilla anything - you've as much right to demand they use Mozilla as I've got to demand the Mozilla developers come over and paint my house. If an Open Source project can't stand on its own merits, why should it succeed?
And before someone replies 'but now it supports X11', the point is that they aren't the 'default' systems under MacOS -- which means "native" GUI MacOS X applications are useless to Linux
Yeah, and your average Gnome/KDE app won't run out of the box on a Mac either - your point is what? What Apple choses to make their default is their business - face it, X11 caters for a minority, and it's just not that useful to Apple's target market.
It's definitely a prudent move for Apple to ensure it runs reasonably well, since they want to see if they can expand their target market into the Unix workstation market (or what's left of it), but it's by no means their main focus.
In short: Apple is not Linux's friend, and these articles that claim otherwise are stupid and tiresome.
Apple is absolutely Linux's "friend" (in so far as a large company can be friends with a bunch of source files). For god's sake, it's Unix. On The Desktop.
Nae bother
At the time that the BSD License was created universities and other government funded institutions were not allowed to profit from projects which were payed with tax money. (With the intent that publicly funded science has to stay in the public domain) This has changed in the last twenty years but the intent of the BSD License was and always will be to encourage the widespread use of ceratin technology.
Everybody may use BSD Licensed technology in the way they seem fit. The GPL is far more restricted in that matter (every change has to be made publicly available again) One might argue that the GPL might be the better license for the purpose stated above but it's not. The main reason being the restriction to publish the source code even if your software just uses a tiny fraction of GPLd code.
But many large software projects will not publish sourcecode, not because it might hurt their business but because licensing patented technology may restrict the ability to publish sourcecode.
So even if they wanted to use GPL licensed software legal mumbo jumbo might keep them from doing so.
To make a long story short. the GPL and The BSDL realize different philosophies:
The GPL forces the publication of sourcecode so that the original developer may profit the most (by making the changes publicly available even if contributing to the original project might not be the intent of the other party) This might discourage derivative works because every enhancement automatically benefits the original author and might make competing products less attractive.
The BSDL wants to encourage the adoption of technologies by not restricting the way people use it. So the BSDL wants to propagate technology and not the changes to it. It was never the intent of the BSDL to benefit the original Inventor of the code but everyone else so if a company doesnt want to contribute it is their right to do so and anybody who uses the BSDL must live with these consequences.
So if i want that everybody and their friends use my super duper new software (even if it is this mean old software company from redmond) i would go with the BSDL knowing exactly that the result might benefit others more than me.
If i want to enact more control over my software and the way it is used i would use the GPL knowing that every improvement will benefit my own project but might hinder adoption of my technology by other parties.
So both licenses have their strengths and weaknesses it all depends on what my personal goals are when choosing one over the other.
Regards Jeff