Slashdot Mirror


Apple Posts Their X11 Source

fdiv_bug writes "This happened a day or two ago, but it slipped my mind to report it. Looks like Apple has released the source code to their X11 implementation for Mac OS X." Also check out more downloads at OpenDarwin.org.

111 comments

  1. Damn Apple... by dirtmerchant · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish they'd make up their minds on whether or not they're evil. My head hurts.

    1. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're the one that can't make up your mind. And there's no good reason for it except for your own inadequacies.

    2. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I thought they are evil. And now they released their X11 source - but they won't fool me. I know they are only doing this, because they first want me to trust them, and then they'll crush me when there's no alternative left. ;)

      I think if Mac OS would be the most-used desktop OS instead of Windows, Apple wouldn't be any different than Microsoft now is.

    3. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's true enough that they're a company that's out to make a profit, but they've made large contributions to the open source movement over the past couple of years, such as KDE's HTML and Javascript components (Safari and Sherlock) and Darwin, and praising the open-source movement. At the same time, they haven't exactly had mercy on anyone who's violated a contract (see iCommune) or immitated their user-interface appearance too closely, and so on. Their behavior seems quite consistent. So the real problem is: "I wish that I could make up my mind whether or not they're evil."

    4. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I think if Mac OS would be the most-used desktop OS instead of Windows, Apple wouldn't be any different than Microsoft now is.
      Yes. However: they are not (the most-used desktop OS instead of Windows). Such is the difference between your ifs and practice.

      A situation where no one (proprietary) system holds Windows' current position will not be achieved unless people take reality into account.

    5. Re:Damn Apple... by mrpuffypants · · Score: 4, Funny

      if you've ever used an ipod you'd go with "not evil"

    6. Re:Damn Apple... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but I have a hunch if Apple was raping the consumers the way M$ does, most people wouldn't notice or care because most of the time, their products are worth using.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    7. Re:Damn Apple... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      business isn't INHERENTLY evil - ask the Quakers. Now, I'm not saying that Apple is run by Quakers, but they obviously aren't demons either. Microsoft, on the other hand...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    8. Re:Damn Apple... by capmilk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you've bought Mac OS X Server 1.0 and a G4 Server afterwards, you'd go for "Evil. Really evil".

      For those who don't know: Mac OS X Server cost around $600 (in Europe). If you wanted to use it on your new PowerMac G4, you had to buy the, er, "update" to 1.2. Which cost around $600, as did the retail version. If you bought a new dual processor G4 after that, you had to buy the update to 1.2.1. Which cost, you guessed it, $600.

      I bailed out before that and bought a Sun box instead. It runs Solaris 8 which will still be supported for another couple of years. No, there are no patches for Mac OS X Server versions older than a year.

      I don't know about the update path from Mac OS X Server 1.2.1 to 10.0, but I do know that the "update" from 10.1.x to 10.2 costs around $650.

      Evil. Clearly evil.

    9. Re:Damn Apple... by cehardin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, that's a lot of money. However, check this out:
      a 25 license version of windows 2000 Advanced Server cost $4000.
      That's only for 25 clients!
      http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/adv ancedserve r/howtobuy/pricing/default.asp

      Unlimited client license for Mac OS X Server (v10.2) is only $1000. So even if you pay for OS 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 you will still come out ahead if you had chosen microsoft's products.

    10. Re:Damn Apple... by henele · · Score: 3, Informative
      At The Apple Store when you buy an XServe (which comes with an unlimited user lincense for OS X) you can buy a $999 "Mac OS X Server Maintenance Program" which sounds like it would of solved your problem to some degree...

      "Mac OS X Server Maintenance is a 3 Year, non-cancelable agreement during which you will receive every major upgrade release to Mac OS X Server."

    11. Re:Damn Apple... by capmilk · · Score: 1

      That might be a benefit for a lot of users. But what if you do not have more than 25 clients and do not want to constantly buy new versions?

      What I want from a server OS is, that it is safe and easy to maintain. I don't want to buy a new version (that looks different and behaves differently) every year, I want support.

      Sun will be releasing Solaris 2.6 patches for at least another 2 years - and 2.6 was sold in the mid 90s. Apple is not even supporting their 10.1 releases anymore. If Apple kept up their good work *and* started delivering decent support, I'd stop complaining at once. But I don't see that happen...

    12. Re:Damn Apple... by frankie · · Score: 4, Funny
      make up their minds on whether or not they're evil.

      Well, you could always submit some photos to Am I Evil Or Not? Meanwhile, here is a handy reference chart:

      • Apple divisions:
      • Hardware: Not Evil. Sexy, generally support standards, but don't allow clones.
      • MacOS: Mostly Not Evil. Open source kernel, proprietary GUI, sometimes antagonistic to developers.
      • Software: Mostly Not Evil. Free stuff often made at the expense of loyal Mac developers (SoundJam, Watson, etc), but lots of open source as well.
      • Legal: Very Evil. Send cease&desist letters at the drop of a jellybean, and threaten the DMCA.
      • Steve Jobs: Chaotic Neutral. As an insane liberal genius, he disdains your quaint notions of human ethics.
      • Microsoft divisions:
      • Windows: Evil. Monopoly abuse, swiss cheese security, embrace/extend/extinguish.
      • Office: Necessary Evil. Would be much less evil as an independent company.
      • Explorer: Mostly Evil. Proprietary muscle to push Windows monopoly, but support web standards.
      • Legal: Evil. Submits fake evidence, colludes with DoJ.
      • Games: Partly Evil. Tool to maintain Windows monopoly, but decent products.
      • XBox: Partly Evil. Burning MS slush fund in attempt to capture a console monopoly, but it's a decent rig.
      • Hardware: Not Evil. MS Mouse & Keyboard are nice.
      • MSN: Mostly Evil. Plays abusive games to screw up MS competitors.
      • Hotmail: Partly Evil. Spies on your clicks in email links, but supports anti-spam filtering
      • Bill Gates: Lawful Evil. Very Exactly Lawful Evil.
      • IBM:
      • Not Evil. Formerly Big Brother, now #1 Linux advocate and possible savior of Apple.
    13. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Quakers were pretty damn brutal in the old days. Like when the Quakers ran Nantucket whaling. Maybe not the best example of benevolent business interests.

    14. Re:Damn Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant huh?
      Lucky you, ACs can't meta moderate.

    15. Re:Damn Apple... by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      frankie wrote:

      > Legal: Very Evil.

      Insert standard joke about lawyers being evil here.

      > Send cease&desist letters at the drop of a jellybean,

      Okay, how would you handle things better? Would you let everyone get by with breaking contracts with you (which are legally binding), no matter how much it hurt you? Would you let those that break NDAs (that they signed on their honor and by their free will) blab all your hard work to the world so Microsoft comes out with your products before you do?

      How about that very valuable brand that is one of the most recognized in the industry? Would you just toss that away so idiot kiddies with nothing better to do can create Apple themes? Keep in mind that if you don't defend that trademark, you loose it!

      It is difficult to have a legal department that does a good job of defending your contracts, NDAs and trademarks, and not come off as a bad guy. Perhaps a standard of legal goodness/evilness would be whether the legal department just does their job of defending the company, or whether they are offensive and attack other companies (patent lawsuits for fun and profit, C&D letters for things the recipient is legally entitled to do, etc.).

      > and threaten the DMCA.

      Prove it. I want to see a photocopy of the communication Apple supposedly sent Other World Computing. The word of OWC's president is not good enough, especially when it contradicts the story he gave three weeks prior to the DMCA claim, in which he said Apple asked NICELY, and he complied to keep good relations with Apple.

      Until such a time as I see proof, I am going to continue to presume Apple's innocence. I refuse to be used to blacken Apple's good name. And an accusation of DMCA use, without proof and constantly brought up by Slashdotters, blackens Apple's good name.

      Otherwise, I mostly agree with your very good posting.

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

    16. Re:Damn Apple... by frankie · · Score: 1
      Yikes, the wrath of Mothra is dangerous indeed. I need to research this topic.
      ...time passes...

      You're right; there is no verifiable evidence of a DMCA threat against OWC. And most of their trademark cases are not unreasonable. Revised ranking:

      • Apple Legal division: Partly Evil. Goes overboard about Themes, and face it, they're corporate lawyers.
  2. Nice by fateswarm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice to see some code spread on the net.

    It doesn't really matter to real programmers if it's gpl or fbsd or anything.

    Having the source and getting ideas from it is a good thing.

    1. Re:Nice by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It doesn't really matter to real programmers if it's gpl or fbsd or anything.

      Of course it bloody matters. Pretending that copyright laws don't exist is stupid and naive. Real programmers are not stupid nor naive. Or do you perhaps think that RMS, Linus, Alan, Hubbard, Gettys, Dawes, ..., aren't Real Programmers? They have all commented on licensing or made decisions based on licensing.

    2. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jebus Cripes, maybe you ought to chill.

      He didn't say to "pretend copyright laws don't exist"

      He said that having access to code is good for programmers. just like having access to books is good for people who want to be authors.

      He's also saying, I think, that minor license differences aren't as important as the big picture of free software, specifically being able to see source code.

    3. Re:Nice by nathanh · · Score: 2, Informative

      He didn't say to "pretend copyright laws don't exist"

      He said that having access to code is good for programmers. just like having access to books is good for people who want to be authors.

      He actually said:

      It doesn't really matter to real programmers if it's gpl or fbsd or anything.

      If it doesn't matter then why do so many "real programmers" spend so much time arguing about it? Or perhaps they aren't "real programmers"?

      He also said...

      Having the source and getting ideas from it is a good thing.

      Only if the license is appropriate. Try getting some "ideas" from Microsoft Shared Source and see how many lawsuits you get hit with. Or perhaps tell Phoenix that they didn't need to clean-room reverse engineer the IBM PC BIOS back in 1985, because they could have just read the published and easily accessible assembly source.

      The licensing ALWAYS matters. To pretend that it doesn't is simply naive. You can't simply "look at" source code just because you find it floating around the Internet; if you stupidly do so then anything you write afterwards is possibly tainted.

    4. Re:Nice by ihatewinXP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes let us not encourage this - its that rabid attitude that we are trying to talk you zealots out of. it is more important that the code is out there. "anything you write later will be tainted" - no seriously chill, in the long run (ie after the revolution and the we are rebuilding as a perfect communist......oh wait) well what im saying is the fact that the code is out and in some form however restrictive (in this case not very) that it gets people talking about open source. my mother (an Technology Specialist at a middle school) saw a X11 on OSX link one day looking at a link i had sent her. after explaining to her that no OSX 11 isnt out it prompted a discussion on "what is open source." now laugh if you will but she has only administered Macs and PCs, no one had ever explained to her the concept. and you know i didnt waste a minute explaining the diff between license x vs y....the greater good is more important, many keystrokes have died a painfull death beating these dead horses -

      --
      ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    5. Re:Nice by nathanh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      yes let us not encourage this - its that rabid attitude that we are trying to talk you zealots out of. it is more important that the code is out there. "anything you write later will be tainted" - no seriously chill,

      It has nothing to do with "chilling" or "zealotry" or "communism" or whatever stupid buzzword you want to use this week to ridicule people. It has everything to do with comprehending the reality of copyright law. It does affect you, whether you want it to or not. Hiding under a rock and pretending that all the "zealots" are trying to turn you into a communist is pure idiocy. I thought McCarthyism died out in the 60s. Isn't it nice to know it simply spread to the Internet.

      The reality of the situation - without your bullshit about communism and zealotry - is that you can't just stare at somebody else's source code without first comprehending the licensing terms. The license ALWAYS matter. You have to care about the license - not for the sake of zealotry or your "greater good" (not a view I share) - but because it's the law.

      The original comment that it doesn't "matter" whether it's GPL or FBSD [sic] is pure and utter nonsense. And you are guilty of supporting this nonsense whenever you casually dismiss people as "zealots" simply because they recognise the true danger of copyright; a danger you clearly do not comprehend.

    6. Re:Nice by jcr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try getting some "ideas" from Microsoft Shared Source and see how many lawsuits you get hit with.

      What, microsquish would sue you for selling bloated, buggy code?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If it doesn't matter then why do so many "real programmers" spend so much time arguing about it? Or perhaps they aren't "real programmers"?

      Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!

      Congratulations on finally figuring it out.

    8. Re:Nice by MacGod · · Score: 1
      What, microsquish would sue you for selling bloated, buggy code?

      Of course they would, if other companies started selling bloated, buggy code, people might stop buying theirs.

      Bloated, buggy code is their bread-and-butter business model!

      --
      "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
  3. Interaction with Open Office... by henele · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a mac user only really currently on the outside of the open source movement I mostly want to see how this links with the development of Open Office, which I am very interested in...

    1. Re:Interaction with Open Office... by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. X11 apps are going to behave the same regardless of the Xserver implementation.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    2. Re:Interaction with Open Office... by Junta · · Score: 1

      It kind of does. Behavior isn't quite the same, due to the hardware acceleration Apple's version takes advantage of. XFree prior to this had no 2D or 3D acceleration on Quartz. Also, the only Window Manager that came close to making X apps fit in better was OrborOSX, which did an admirable job, but still fell short a bit. quartz-wm does a much better job of making X apps fit in with other Aqua apps. Of course, it remains imperfect. I think the quartz-wm developers could take a cue from WindowMaker and more smoothly integrate X apps into the Dock. Granted a lot of X apps don't provide good icons to put in the dock, but the major ones do have an application icon that would work well in the Dock.

      You may say all this is silly trim, but in the world of Apple, a consistant UI is extremely important. You can bet OpenOffice was one of a few significant apps they wanted users to be able to use without slowdown. They may never be able to do anything about qt, gtk+, motif, etc. widgets and menus not matching the Mac style, but they can make the Window focus, interleave, and decoration fit in well, and have Dock entries for X applications.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Interaction with Open Office... by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      The important consistency to maintain is the Aqua appearance implying Aqua behavior. quartz-wm breaks this.

      widgets != human interface.

      quartz-wm would be FAR more usable if it didn't use Aqua window dressing.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
  4. finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, the world can see the source code to an X11 implementation! I've waited for this moment for decades.

  5. Re:Posted by pudge? by Green+Light · · Score: 1

    ummmmm, he's the only one around here who posts decent Apple stories...

    --
    "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
  6. This didn't happen a few days ago... by eyez · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know what the submitter has been smoking, but this did /NOT/ happen a few days ago.

    I remember downloading it a couple weeks ago. It's been available for download since they released their X11 betas.

    --
    get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
    1. Re:This didn't happen a few days ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      this is the source code not the binaries you downloaded. Apple released the X11 beta program before they released the source code.

  7. New Benchmark? by henele · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm fairly new to the mac dev scene, and haven't played around with this code yet, but at over 50MB, and it being easily accesable, could compiling this become a new benchmark to add to the huge list of those floating around the mac web today?

    1. Re:New Benchmark? by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      No.

      --Dan

    2. Re:New Benchmark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      --Dan

  8. Re:Hey Pudgefacker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Indeed. In this context, about means 'regarding' and not 'in the vicinity of'.

  9. Does it remind you of... by ewhenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lindows, only in reverse.

    Im not a MAC user, but darn, that is really nice to have the ability to run X apps on a MAC. I think this really enhances the appeal of a MAC to a serious user.

    Apple made a great move, adding *nix at its core with OS X.

    1. Re:Does it remind you of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know if you type MAC, Mac users will think you are an idiot. MAC is for MAC address, Mac is for Macintosh. Get it straight. Go to Apple's website and you not find anything that says MAC unless it refers to the MAC address of the wireless airport card or Ethernet. I'm not trying to be a troll, but it is like mispronouncing a common word to a Mac user. If I pronounced Windows as Winedoos you would probably think I was an idiot.

    2. Re:Does it remind you of... by Ponty · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, I try and be an optimistic fellow, but your post has absolutely no redeeming value. You've contributed nothing to anybody with it. Well done.

    3. Re:Does it remind you of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo-hoo! Mod point suck! MOD THIS POST DOWN RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

      If you need an excuse, let me give you several:

      "It makes me sad that we're wasting valuable time discussing this when babies are dying all over the world." (-1, Troll)

      "People who like tabbed browsing are mouth-breathing idiots who couldn't find their own assholes with both hands." (-1, Flamebait)

      "My cat's breath smells like cat food." (-1, Off-topic)

      Let the moderating begin, bitches!

  10. Re:APPLE IS DYING by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who's a year behind? Dell is finally starting to dump the floppy drive, they're five years behind! ;-) More, if you include the old legacy ports they still use.

    Oh, you mean CPU speed? My 3 year old iMac is fast enough for everything I do, save for recent 3D games, and I don't really need those anyway. That's one thing hurting Apple's 'marketshare', the quality and longevity of their products.

    --
    "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  11. does this include source for quartz-wm? by ubiquitin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's what we need access to!

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
    1. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by babbage · · Score: 4, Informative

      On Apple's X11 list, it has been stated that X11.app's QuartzWM is going to remain closed-source and proprietary. That's all their code and they're going to keep it to themselves, as is their right. On the other hand, the extensions made to the xfree86 codebase have been offered back to the community under the same licensing terms as the rest of that project.

    2. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Why? Just 'cuz?

    3. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It wouldn't do you any good.. quartz/aqua isn't a window manager, it's more analagous to X11 itself.. except it doens't look like crap.

      There's nothing to stop you or anyone making a Window manager that draws windows like OSX. But the minute you go to distribute it, Apple's lawyers will be, how you say.. on your ass :) It's not just the code, the Aqua interface is also a trademark.

    4. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by alangmead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, Quartz is analogus to an X server, but quartz-wm is a window manager Apple developed along with their X Server implementation that gives Aqua style window appearances to window borders. And it doesn't look like crap.

      It also seems to have better focus behavior than Orobor OSX a non-Apple attempt at making a window manager that works well within Aqua.

    5. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      and then writes the X11 windows with WM stuff to the quartz display layer, not to the X11 layer ;)

    6. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by grammar+nazi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On Apple's X11 list [apple.com], it has been stated that X11.app's QuartzWM is going to remain closed-source and proprietary. That's all their code and they're going to keep it to themselves, as is their right. On the other hand, the extensions made to the xfree86 codebase have been offered back to the community under the same licensing terms as the rest of that project.

      There's nothing wrong with this. Apple extended X11 under the terms of the X11 license and as a result is giving the code back to the community. Apple created a propiretary window manager (QuartzWM) and doesn't look like it is going to release this code to the community.

      It is within Apple's right to do both things. Please don't get mad at them for not releasing QuartzWM source to the public. Why should they release QuartzWM to the public?

      Poeple applaud apple for choosing Khtml and X11 to extend for their own uses. Apple obliges with the licenses, but then people get mad when they don't release source with their browser or WM.

      Please be happy that apple has chosen open source software and extended it. The GPL and many other licenses protect the right for businesses to extend the software and still use proprietary extensions in the same way that it protects your right to download the source. It is a good thing that the software allows Apple to do what it does, otherwise Apple would have never used the source code to begin with.

      Rather than being happy or sad with Apple for helping/hurting free software, why don't we all be happy with free software for allowing Apple to use it in commercial applications? I don't think that Babbage (the author) disagrees with me, I just wanted to clarify this point with other readers.

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    7. Re:does this include source for quartz-wm? by Webmonger · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not a clarification. It's mostly wrong.

      The GPL does not seek to protect the right for businesses to extend software without releasing the source to their extensions.

      There are situations where the GPL does not apply, however. If Apple didn't distribute their binaries, they wouldn't have to distribute their source either.

      All of this isn't really relevant, since XFree86 is under the X11 license, not the GPL.

  12. Re: in case you are wondering the answer is NO by ubiquitin · · Score: 2, Informative

    All they put in the source tarball is the default twm. Thanks Apple.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
  13. Complexity by gidds · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know you didn't mean this too seriously, but there's a serious point here. Why do we want to characterise an entire corporation, with hundreds (thousands?) of staff, as a single entity? Can't our minds cope with the idea that all those different people might not be having exactly the same thoughts?

    And even if they were, they might still do some things we think of as `good', and others we call `bad'. Corporations, like people, are complex things. Humans tend to think by simplifying, categorising, and labelling, but we must realise we're doing it, and avoid it when it loses too much information. The world is a complex place.

    As Anonymous Coward said above, Apple has done many good things, and some bad ones. That's all there is to it. Predictive value? Well, I predict that in future they'll do some more good things and a few more bad things. Wow, huh?

    (As it happens, I like a lot of the things Apple are currently doing, and I like their kit enough to own some. I'd like to see their stuff become more popular. But I've no illusions; I wouldn't like to see them have 90%+ share, just as I wouldn't like to see anyone have that sort of share. M$ may have an unusually immoral corporate ethos, but I doubt any company in their current position would be entirely altruistic for long. Power corrupts, and all that.)

    (Er, sorry, this post has turned out inappropriately serious for this place! Feel free to insert hackneyed one-mouse-button-sniping, lame puns, and unrelated whinges as appropriate...)

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:Complexity by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Can't our minds cope with the idea that all those different people might not be having exactly the same thoughts? "

      Of course, many people on /. can't even figure out that /. isn't a homogenous entity,

      For instance:

      "Wait, aren't we supposed to hate the MPAA and be boycotting movies?" (in response to the new release of a movie)

      Of course some people on /. hate the movie industry and are boycotting it, but others aren't. This isn't hypocritical, it is a consequence of having a lot of people.

      So, since we can't even recognize ourselves as a non-homogenous entity, then the probability of us recognizing Apple or Microsoft is slim.

      Wait, now I am doing it with the "we" ;-)

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    2. Re:Complexity by bedouin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, it's kind of like being a prisoner who was abused by guards and staff during a 15 year sentence -- you'll come out with a tendency to distrust authority. Or maybe kind of like a black who lived in segregationist South making a white friend -- it's a slow, difficult process.

      Likewise, after 10 years of Microsoft garbage flooding the market, people have developed a hatred of large computer corporations (at least here on /.) So, even when Apple does a few nice deeds it's only right that people feel a little awkward about it.

    3. Re:Complexity by CentrX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it's hypocritical when it's same editor writing about how horrible the MPAA is and also announcing/promoting movie releases and how much he wants to go see them.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Complexity by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No it's not. People who love movies are more likely to be concerned by the misbehavior of the MPAA, not less.

      Hypocracy is not writing about how horrible the MPAA is while writing good things about new movies. Hypocracy would be if they wrote about how horrible the MPAA is, told you not to go to any movies, and secretly went to them anyway.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I know you didn't mean this too seriously, but there's a serious point here. Why do we want to characterise an entire corporation, with hundreds (thousands?) of staff, as a single entity? Can't our minds cope with the idea that all those different people might not be having exactly the same thoughts?

      Using your own argument against you, I take offense to what you are saying. You can't just call our minds a single entity. Just because a few of my brain cells want to stab you over and over with a knife, that doesn't make my ENTITY a bad person, now does it?

    6. Re:Complexity by Arandir · · Score: 1

      "Wait, aren't we supposed to hate the MPAA and be boycotting movies?"

      So, how many Slashdot readers who hate the MPAA went to see TTT? How many of them saw it more than once?

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    7. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, maybe it's just not having any strength of conviction.

  14. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree

  15. Re:Posted by pudge? by Kalak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I know whining about not posted submissions is a no-no, but there are so many times I wish you could fend a submission to someone more likely to be following your subject matter, say Pudge for Apple stuff, Timothy for YRO, etc. Makes me want to learn more Perl just to get this into slashcode.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  16. Strange Stuff in the Source Code.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    /* Why can't people just use bloody Aqua */ // Damn GNU hippies - S. Jobs

  17. Sigh... by lvdrproject · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apple is the only entity that i know that can make ANYTHING pretty. I always regarded X as one of the ugliest, roughest, most uncivilised beasts of modern software. But look at this! Even the logo is pretty.

    To go even further, here's your typical implementation of AIM for Windows. And then there's Apple's implementation of AIM.

    And i don't even have to mention their hardware. Sigh... i hope you get paid handsomely, noble Apple design team. WE SALUTE YOU!

    1. Re:Sigh... by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      I personally think xfree86/kde/gtk+/gaim looks better. Simpler. No stupid pictures.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    2. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No stupid pictures."

      Or anti-aliasing.

    3. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can turn off the pictures in iChat if you like. It looks better than gaim both ways. I've never used gaim, but I sure know that it isn't as pretty as iChat (even if it may be a better product)...

    4. Re:Sigh... by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      And the beauty of Apple is, you can turn the pictures off if you don't like them.

      Customisation for the end user is key.

  18. Join us now and share the nostelga by ExEleven · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the perspective of a person who only owns a Macintosh Classic with 4mb of ram, "RELEASE THE SOURCE FOR OS 7!!!"

    1. Re:Join us now and share the nostelga by Golias · · Score: 3, Informative
      The source code would be nice, but at least they offer fully compiled binaries of MacOS 7.5.3 and older for free to anybody who wants to download it.

      (Actually, IIRC, they have bumped their free "abandonware" OS list to everything up to 8.1 now, but I could be mistaken about that.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Join us now and share the nostelga by Golias · · Score: 3, Informative
      Oh, by the way.... Once you've downloaded the compiled older version of MacOS, you can view and edit all of the system resources with ResEdit, and other free tools are out there for further hacking the MacOS.

      So, unless you are planning on writing a derived OS and calling it Linmac or something, there's really not a whole lot of reason why anybody would want the source of System 7.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Join us now and share the nostelga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes my pants hurt.

    4. Re:Join us now and share the nostelga by CableModemSniper · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, my TI-89 has a 68K proc...it would be really cool to get MacOS 7 on my calculator... :-P

      --
      Why not fork?
    5. Re:Join us now and share the nostelga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, Beavis!

  19. OT Re:Posted by pudge? by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 2, Informative

    IIRC, each editor is assigned an 'early day'. Apparently they get up early (as early as 6 AM, oh the horror!) to go through the queue and make sure our European Slashdotters have something to look at.

    Frankly, that would be the perfect job for me. It's 6:15 AM on a Sunday and I'm wide awake.

    It would be simple to figure out what day is Pudge's day and act accordingly.

    -----
    Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of being OffTopic: here's a X11-related hint. Use fink to install The GIMP in the usual location and make the following AppleScript:

    tell application "Finder"
    launch application "X11"
    end tell

    set results to do shell script "cd ~; DISPLAY=:0.0; export DISPLAY; PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin; export PATH ; /sw/bin/gimp > /dev/null 2>&1 &"

    That makes an AppleScript that opens X11 and the GIMP. Find an appropriate JPG of "Wilbur" the GIMP mascot, paste it into the "get info" icon box, and PRESTO! The GIMP in your dock!

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:OT Re:Posted by pudge? by nicksay · · Score: 1
      In the interest of efficiency, if you've installed Apple's X11, two lines will suffice:
      tell application "Finder" to launch application "X11"
      do shell script "open-x11 /sw/bin/gimp > /dev/null 2>&1 &"
      Nicksay
  20. X clients on the doc by alangmead · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking of designing something similar, but I was going to make something that worked a lot like DropScript. Drop an executable file onto it, and it will result in an OS X Application.

  21. copyrights-a danger i do not comprehend by ihatewinXP · · Score: 1

    and again let me say 'just chill'. life (your mindset your health) has _everything_ to do with chilling out and seeing things for what they are. if you had read my comment a tad closer (or maybe even twice) you would see my comment on communism was a positive one (ie "i hope one day after the revolution when we are communists this wont matter). i abhor mccarthy-ism and its present day incarnation. and yes i concede that the license _does_ matter in for every charachter of code out there when you get down to the logistics of using it and basing a program on it. but for this (Apple releases X11 source to public) thats not what the story is about. no one has to wrangle with the issues of using this code to design a X11 implentation on X because thats what it is, but for novice programmers like myself its an interesting chance to see how they linked it to the quartz engine, etc. i dont care about the license, im not going to incorporate any of this code in my commercial products, i merely want to see how it works (i guess my curiosity is jst a waste of time like that). the original post sees this, its about the greater good of having the code out period. - and thats all i can say, i feel like im beng drawn into an argument and not a discussion; its making feel dirty this early in the morning ;)

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
  22. Re:APPLE IS DYING by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

    As much as I agree that Apple often sets cool computer hardware trends, I think that PC makers got the floppy thing right. Dropping the floppy is only now becoming feasible, as CDRW drives have sped up immensely, Rainier (or whatever its called) is coming, and people have had some time to not need their floppy drives any more (though I still know some people who rely on them). Gradually, they will become obsolete, but I think Apple jumped the gun.

    Heck, when Apple first dropped the floppy drives they didn't even have burners in their boxes -- not exactly useful, if you ask me.

  23. Re:APPLE IS DYING by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I stopped using the floppy drive years before Apple dumped them, aside from reinstalling old games. I also haven't owned a burner since '99, and don't really have a use for one. I just have zero need of removable media, and nowadays I have DSL and a 100MB iDisk, so I can send some pretty big files to anyone in the world, and even let others upload to it. I've a 5GB iPod, too, so there's no reason to burn music CD's.

    I can't even recall the last time I booted off a CD. If the worst happens to my OS X partition, my OS 9 partition starts up instead, and I can do repairs from there. This happened to me once last year.

    --
    "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  24. Re:Gaim by Slur · · Score: 1

    Wow, I guess there's just no accounting for taste.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  25. Open Source Mac OS 9 ? by Slur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how long before Apple opens the source for Mac OS 9 - or at least the Mac OS 9 Finder? I'm sure there are plenty of APIs in there that were abandoned, from the TCP/IP stuff to the printing architecture. I'll bet there are a lot of geeks who would love to get their hands on Mac OS 9 and continue extending it, do some speed improvement, maybe bolt on a little pre-emptive MT, protected memory, and a real VM. I for one would love to hack the Finder into a standalone Carbon application to run under Mac OS X.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Open Source Mac OS 9 ? by Ponty · · Score: 2, Informative

      And a few geek hobbyists will be able to do what Apple failed to do after ten years of pumping millions of dollars into Copland? You'll recall that they tried to "bolt on a little pre-emptive MT, protected memory, and a real VM" and ended up scrapping the project and buying NeXT.

    2. Re:Open Source Mac OS 9 ? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Apart from the arguments of the other people that replied already, there's also the issue that Apple doesn't own the rights to all technologies used in Mac OS 9 (e.g. all powstscript-related stuff).

      --
      Donate free food here
  26. Don't hold your breath by dynayellow · · Score: 1

    In the first place, Apple still uses OS 9 in the Classic layer of X.

    In the second, they don't programmers to spend their time fiddling with a program that they're no longer trying to make money off of. They want you to work on X.

  27. Doesn't X Already have hardware acceleration... by frooyo · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that X 4.x already was using hardware acceleration. Question: 1) What does Apple use as the Desktop Enviroment - is it X with Aqua as the WindowManager? 2) Can X apps (like Evolution, etc) now run together with Mac apps like Office X at the same time on the same desktop 3) Are these improvements that Apple made to X or where they already in X and now Apple is taking advantage of those features (basically, will the linux community get ahold of these improvements if Apple made some).

    1. Re:Doesn't X Already have hardware acceleration... by frooyo · · Score: 1

      Does XDarwin serve the same purpuse that Quartz does?

      According to the layer image it appears the XDarwin cannot run Cocoa apps, is the true

    2. Re:Doesn't X Already have hardware acceleration... by andfarm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Answers to parent post:
      1. Apple uses a semi-proprietary desktop environment known as Quartz for most GUI apps. X11 is a compatibility environment that partially maps X11 calls to Quartz calls, as well as doing some stuff of its own.
      2. Yes, X11 apps now coexist with Cocoa (native OS X) applications on a single desktop. (However, there are still some focusing oddities. Oh well.)
      3. These are Apple extensions to X11, but they will unfortunately not benefit Linux users -- it's all bolted to Quartz, and that's where all the acceleration is taking place anyway. The XFree86 acceleration is just as good, if not perhaps better. What's so cool about this is the integration with the standard OS X interface.

      (Disclaimer: I've been using X11.app for a almost a month now. X11 for OS X (OS X11?) isn't new, and neither is this source. But that's what you get here... :)

      --

      TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

  28. I DO wish they would release it, though... by alispguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they released it, people in the open source community would get to see a big Quartz application, solving problems they are familiar with. If the code were unusually pretty or slick, it might encourage others to get to know Quartz better, and to write their applications in a way that could more easily take advantage of it when ported. They would also eventually get the bug-stomping benefits of lots of eyeballs caressing their code.

    The only reason I can see for them not to release the code would be that it uses uncommonly good generic window system algorithms that they don't want copied by others.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  29. Re:APPLE IS DYING by plastik55 · · Score: 1
    I just have zero need of removable media

    What on earth do you do for backups?

    --

    I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

  30. Re:APPLE IS DYING by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

    I haven't felt much need for backups, but .Mac offers a backup program, called Backup, appopriately enough, that backs up documents and a few other important files to my iDisk. Since I don't do much Office-type stuff, it doesn't take too much space.

    I used to do full backups to CD-RW when I had a SCSI burner on my Performa 6400(2.4GB drive), but I never had to use them. I did some floppy based backups in my DOS days, and used it on occasion, when I had a 32MB hard drive!

    --
    "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  31. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least you get updates for the same OS for free when you buy MS products, and they support OSes for typically over 5 years. They just dropped support for Windows 95 and NT.

    Even if they didn't, that has nothing to do with how evil Apple is.

    Your mentality is what keeps Democrats and Republicans in office - don't look at the bad stuff my guy did, some other guy from the other party did something worse!

  32. Re:APPLE IS DYING by tm2b · · Score: 1

    Personally, I use those 160 GB firewire drives.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  33. Re:grammer - a danger i do not comprehend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always funny to see a six-digit id moron with bad grammar challenge an educated four-digit.

    Learn to format your thoughts and your posts, you ignorant clod.

  34. Call me a radical for this idea... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    But why not buy a dual-CPU G4 box and use Linux on it. How much difference does Aqua make to a server?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Call me a radical for this idea... by capmilk · · Score: 1

      It's not about Aqua but about the admin tools. Setting up a customized QuickTime streaming server is just so much easier on X Server than on Linux.
      Note: I have not yet tried that setting up QTSS on Linux but tried on Solaris *once*. I won't try again. ;)

  35. 4 digits? ohhhhhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    User #1200? Impressive. You've wasted quite a bit of time in front of a screen arguing nuances for hours only to have them slowly drift off of the main page and into obscurity. My you must be proud. Now what does the number 1200 mean to me? Off the top of my head it is just about the number of times ive been laid in the last 4 years (shes so beautiful I secretly consider her out of my league). Wake up and get outside. - You hardcore nerds really do live up to your reputations: as arrogant in your little world as you are inept in the real one.

  36. Re:grammer - a danger i do not comprehend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh by the way, its "grammar" with an 'a' you pretentious fuck.