Slashdot Mirror


Apple Terminates Safari Seed Program

coolmacdude writes "This morning Safari beta v67 was leaked to the Internet. Because this is the third time it has happened (v62 and v64 were leaked), Apple has apparantly had enough and decided to terminate the seed program that provided unreleased beta verisons to selected developers. In a email sent to all developers and posted on Mike Wendland's blog, Apple says: 'Due to Safari 67 postings to the internet, we have closed the Safari Seed project. We know that the majority of you are not responsible for the leaks to the internet, and we sincerely appreciate your feedback, time and effort with this project.'"

126 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Damn Him! by disneyfan1313 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Apple Terminates Safari Seed Program


    Damn that Johnny Appleseed and his plan to propogate the Safari with Apple Trees... I knew it would never work!

    --
    -=SiGH=-
    1. Re:Damn Him! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, what Apple is not telling you is that they have simply outsourced all their seed programs to Burpee.

    2. Re:Damn Him! by Cloud+9 · · Score: 5, Funny
      That was easily the crappiest play on words I've ever seen.... Considering I've been reading /. comments for 4 years, that's saying a lot.

      You should be ashamed of yourself.

      --
      Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
  2. Why not just open the beta to everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More testers = more bugs found = better product.

    1. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by flagstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ummm....they did. There's a difference between beta and "nightly" releases (yeah, "seed" isn't really "nightly", but it's as close as Apple gets).

      --
      These people have looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    2. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by evand · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as I know, Apple has released all of the improvements to the GPL'd code that they've released. The code they've written from scratch, they're keeping closed, as is their right.

    3. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Apple makes a public beta release they release the new improvements to Webcore (KHTML) as well. So any and all contributions they make are released when the public binary appears. Just because you don't get it instantly doesn't mean they aren't releasing "all" of the improvements. This is fully in compliance with the LGPL that KHTML is licensed under.

      In addition to that, why don't we ask a KHTML developer about how much communication is going on between teams right now before you start complaining about the situation?

    4. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by feldsteins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These kinds of misunderstandings get blurted out here on slashdot time and time again. Listen, it's just wrong! Apple isn't just "using" open source code while breaking the oss licensing. They're doing everything just the way they're fucking supposed to. Christ, the way the OSS crowd badgers one of the highest profile companies to embrace large parts of it's philosophy you'd think they were fucking Microsoft. Jesus. Give a little credit already.

      Hey and think about this. Apple sells software. They have to take some kind of reasonable action when they see their unreleased development code go flying across the internet. Even if in that particular case it doesn't matter (as could be argued with safari). Because next it'll happen with say, Keynote, and then in court the defense will say "well you never bothered to prosecute/stop anyone from doing this in the past, so why now?" and the judge goes "hmm" the prosecution goes "damn" and Apple loses the case.

      It's like when your employer has a policy. If that policy is widely disregarded they damned well better not ever fire you for violating it, because if they do all you have to do to prove that there effectively IS no policy is show that they enforced it in a spotty way.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    5. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by DavidinAla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By this logic, you should have access to every developer's code from the moment he or she writes it. Heaven forbid that the people writing the code decide for themselves when it's good enough to be released. You'd better quit using Linux, too, because you don't have access to the code the moment it's written, either. :-)

    6. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple sells software

      Actually, they sell hardware, mostly and bundle software. Yes, they make money licensing their software, but most of their profit comes from hardware sales.

      This is, in part, one of the reasons Apple has taken well to opensource. They give a lot of their software away anyway (Free Beer), so why not take the extra step and give some source too?

    7. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by domeng24ph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i use mozilla all the time but sorry to burst your bubble, it ain't the best browser...

    8. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by questamor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a bit simplistic, and when placed in a world that has either hardware companies or software companies for the most part, it's understandable to put apple in the same boat.

      Apple is a solutions company. They do both, and they work together, neither working best without the other. It's always been touted as one of Apple's advantages, that the software works well because ALL of the base hardware is known. That isn't a side effect of apple being a hardware-company-that-releases-software-too, but it's the basis of the way they do business.

      (apart from the clone years, which thankfully ended. I've had to support hundreds of mac and mac compatible machines, and those clones just aren't holding up anywhere as well as Apple's own machines)

    9. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      By this logic, you should have access to every developer's code from the moment he or she writes it.

      But of course. Why not? The developer is well-placed to give an opinion on whether code is stable enough for production use but he cannot know the circumstances of every single user. You might desperately need a particular bug fix, for example. Or more importantly, if you are working on the same project yourself or reusing some of the code, you'd want to keep up-to-date with the latest developments so you don't duplicate work.

      For proprietary software there are reasons to keep development versions secret until an official release. You don't want competitors getting advance knowledge of what will be in the next version, you don't want users downloading new versions they have not paid for, and you'd rather arrange publicity through choreographed launches and press releases. Plus, you wouldn't want anyone to see that the promised new feature for next month is only half-implemented.

      For free software development none of these reasons really apply (with the possible exception of commercial free software such as Linux distributions where you do have competitors, launches, marketing departments and all that). By all means make official 'releases', but more and more projects are seeing it makes sense to provide read-only access to the source code repository so that if people need code that isn't in the latest release, they can get it without waiting. There are few projects now following a pure 'cathedral' model.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    10. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by feldsteins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would never for a moment deny that it's at least partly about Steve's Macworld keynotes. And I don't think that's wrong for him to do. Those are the two times a year his company gets a billion eyeballs on them. He wants it to have maximium impact. He doesn't want his competitors to know what he's got planned. He wants media to write about it. He wants Mac users to go "wow." These are legitimate things.

      Your point about PCI slots is an interesting one to me. I have always said that most 95% of people who buy computers don't know what a PCI slot is, and 95% of the people who do know never use the ones they have anyway. Therefore, religiously including them in every computer you make and having it limit you in terms of cost and form is ridiculous.

      Yes, my computer has PCI slots and yes I've used them. So have you. Not my point.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    11. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, they sell hardware, mostly and bundle software. Yes, they make money licensing their software, but most of their profit comes from hardware sales.

      I'd say they sell software and bundle hardware. I think there are a lot more people who buy Macs because they prefer Apple's operating system than because they prefer the PowerPC.

    12. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mostly to keep out the idiots.

      Most of you probably don't remember, but when Apple released OS X beta, they caught a lot of flak for releasing a buggy and incomplete product, despite the fact that it was listed as a BETA.

      If Apple's pre-offical betas get linked, and people think that these are official updates, people will be pissed as all hell when they don't work right, and that reflects badly on Apple

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    13. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by RoLi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Essentially you say that all PC-motherboard makers are ignoring the market needs by including PCI-slots and you have the one true insight that nobody needs them and Apple with it's 2% and shrinking marketshare is the only computer maker which really, truely adresses market needs.

      Sorry, but your hypothesis just doesn't match with reality.

      I would really like Apple to succeed, I even have a Powerbook myself. But if Apple's don't start listening to the market, their own arrogance and greed will be their downfall.

      Another example is their spare parts policy. I don't consider Apple for a desktop because I can't get a spare motherboard/CPU. Even if Apple were cheaper than comparable PCs, I wouldn't even consider them for desktops because of that. Now you can lie to yourself and claim that "the enduser market doesn't need spare parts", but you know as well as me that's it's only Apple's greed preventing PPC-CPUs and motherboards from appearing in stores at reasonable prices.

      (With notebooks, the situation is equally bad for all vendors, that's why I have a Powerbook)

    14. Re:Why not just open the beta to everyone? by feldsteins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you say that all PC-motherboard makers are ignoring the market needs

      No, I'm saying that their business heavily relies upon being as backward compatible as possible so that corporate types buy truckloads of their desktops. That means not doing anything radical like omitting ISA (heh) and making damned sure to have every other port created since time began. Apple doesn't do things this way. Their business relies heavily on innovation and most importantly, in providing a total software-hardware experience. THey can do things like omit the PCI slots that virtually no home user takes advantage of in order to experiment wildly with the form factor. The iMac sold very well. Therefore I think my remarks match very well with reality. Home users aren't buying Dells because they have PCI slots. They're buying them because they can get a deal on last years model and because their brother-in-law has one. Period. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's definetly not because they have PCI slots. That is reality.

      it's only Apple's greed preventing PPC-CPUs and motherboards from appearing in stores at reasonable prices.

      I really don't think you understand their business. If CPUs and motherboards were available in stores for consumers to buy then people would build their own Macintoshes. THis would instantly drive prices down and everyone would rejoice. In fact, Mac whitebox makers would spring up in every city and you'd be able to have one custom built for you out of off-the-shelf parts for half what Apple charges for a computer. And it would also be the end of Apple itself. Even if they survived the transition to essentially a software-only company, they would lose the very things that makes them attractive - innovation and vertical integration.

      Apple would no longer be in a position to control the entire software-hardware continuum of the platform. That means cheaper prices, yes, but it also means "iffy" compatibility and the loss of the "one company designed this experience" feel. Scoff if you must, but this is the heart of the platforms appeal. That and software-hardware innovation like the firewire/imovie deal. Someone in Apple decided it was a good idea to bring digital video editing to consumers. The port didn't exist. The applications didn't exist. Now they do. Hard to do that when you have to convince seventy other companies to get onboard, each with their own idea on how to do it.

      In short, the "make the whole widget" vertical integration Apple has in the Mac platform is both the worst and the best thing about them. It keeps prices high and marketshare low, but without it they'd dissapear in a sea of other boxmakers and software makers, with no means of distinguishing themselves.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
  3. Too bad by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thats too bad that a few had to ruin it for everyone else. Giving out software like that is a privage, not your God given right. People should respect Apple's wishes and wait until the full release, but no. Now its too late.

    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many "beta" releases of Windows have been on the net over the years? At least MS was smart enough that these types of leaks aren't that bad a thing. In fact, it is excellent viral marketing if anything.

    2. Re:Too bad by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Giving out software like that is a privage, not your God given right.

      You make it sound as if Apple is doing people a favor by giving out unfinished software. What they are really doing is off-loading testing to unpaid outsiders.

      Now its too late.

      Good. So maybe they'll hire testers, pay them, and have them come in. No leaks.

    3. Re:Too bad by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess you've never used Windows ME beta version.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    4. Re:Too bad by VistaBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait...you mean that the Microsoft software I buy at the store ISN'T beta software? I always figured it was from how much it crashes. Whoa...if that's NOT beta, I don't think I want to see beta.

    5. Re:Too bad by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Funny

      "a few had to ruin it for everyone else"

      Admit it. You were about to say "a few bad apples".

    6. Re:Too bad by fgodfrey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Every time there's a /. article on "so and so released a beta of product X", someone comes along and makes this "Oh, they're just offloading testing" argument. The truth is, they have to have tested the thing in house beforehand, but users somehow manage to find bugs that your testers never do no matter how much testing is done. Releasing a beta gives the company a chance to get the product into the hands of people who a) Will "test" it in ways nobody at the company ever thought of and b) realize that there may be some problems.


      I'll bet if you did a "study" of version 1.0 of product with public betas and without, you'd find that the ones with public betas have fewer bugs.


      As to whether they are doing anyone any favors, I suspect that corporate IT departments like public betas because it gives them the chance to test the product before some bozo in management demands it be installed immediately the day it's released or the world will come to an end.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    7. Re:Too bad by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      end up hurting MS in the long in the run

      You think rampant Windows piracy hurts Microsoft? If anything, it only serves to further their monopoly lock-in, thus forcing everybody else to use Windows just to be compatible with the pirates.

      In the long run, piracy keeps the market saturated with Windows. If everybody had to actually pay for it, you'd see a ton of people switch to something cheaper (Linux, or whatever else, really), which would hurt MS, big time.

    8. Re:Too bad by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it does *now* - but at the beginning, it helped them lock in the Desktop market. I bet two "illegal" copies of Windows 95 were installed for every copy sold. And I think Windows 3.1 was even more so.

      They don't need more market share now though. Now, they can start doing things like they do with Windows XP's activation to make it more difficult for everyone to install a single copy. Sure, you can crack it fairly easily, but maybe the next version of Windows won't be.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    9. Re:Too bad by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At first it was a hacked XP with the activation stuff disabled or worked-around.

      Unfortunately, many of these installs of XP were rendered unusable when SP1 was applied, forcing a switch to the "Corporate" (or as you say, VLK) edition.

      Either way, I'm sure MS is cooking up some way to have VLK in businesses without compromising the "security" of the product. Perhaps you'll be able to set up your own license authentication server/proxy in shop.

      Who knows, but if they are going to keep trying to enforce the product protection they won't stop at Windows XP that you buy at the store.

      As it's been stated before, MS needs new sources of revenue to continue functioning. It's the way the company is set up. This is one way to keep money coming in.

      I for one would never buy Windows, but there's other people out there that would if they couldn't easily get a copy from a friend, online, or from work.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    10. Re:Too bad by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe next time you could liven it up with some reference to 'Buffy'...

      Ok.

      Microsoft used to have "beta" code, but it was all demonic living-dead code and Buffy always destroyed it. So now Microsoft goes dirctly from alpha code (completely dead) directly to release code (mostly alive and only partially satanic). Chuckle :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  4. Who woulda thunk it by jbellis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    given apple's history of siccing lawyers on sites that dare to post pics of the latest & greatest before they're officially unveiled, the only surprising thing is that it lasted this long...

    1. Re:Who woulda thunk it by Lewisham · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, Apple has a pretty good past record of "leaking" pre-release code. The Register has gotton pretty blaise about it all. You only know if something shouldn't have happenend if heads publically roll, like the time the mirror face PowerMac designs were released to eWeek.

    2. Re:Who woulda thunk it by jmt9581 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually surprised that they didn't use steganography to uniquely identify each copy of the browser that they release to their individual, "select" developers. That way they could release the dogs of war on that poor soul.

      On another note, it's sad to see something like this ruined by what is probably a small number of bad seeds. :)

      --

      My blog

  5. Re:License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If they're not distributing it they don't have to release the code.

  6. I'm Confused... by terraformer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't it make more sense for them to have as many testers as possible on pre-release builds? This way they find potential issues missed through the undoubtedly small QA team on the project.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    1. Re:I'm Confused... by disneyfan1313 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It does and that's why there are public betas. Once the software gets out there in the open apple becomes liable (not from a legal but from a public relations standpoint) from any damage or drama the software causes. Would you like your software to be labled instable or buggy simply because someone in corprate wanted more testers out there?

      --
      -=SiGH=-
    2. Re:I'm Confused... by iabervon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But why would Apple be liable (even from a PR standpoint) for problems with a beta leaked by somebody else? If it's being distributed by somebody else, the problems you have with it could just as easily come from the intermediary rather than Apple. It makes sense for them to limit who they actually give the software directly to, but they shouldn't care who ends up with what purports to be an unreleased version, whether or not it matches an intermediate Apple code base.

    3. Re:I'm Confused... by bluGill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, someone must go through every bug report, and eliminate the ones that are for already known problems (with a public beta you potentially could end up with thousands of people thinking they are the first to find some problem that seems obscure). Then you have to eliminate the ones that aren't really problems (the copy and paste shortcuts are confusing by design since those who use them will use them often enough for the pain of memorizing strange key combinations is less than the pain of having to easy to remember short cuts that are harder to use on the keyboard). Next deal with the miscolanious problems (user didn't plug computer in, got a corupted download, has no net connection, and other problems that are either stupid user, or other stupid problem not related to the program).

      Really what it needed is a few QA testers who can test everything, but that isn't possiable. Not even Apple with control of all supported platforms can do it. A public beta might seem like a hope that the gain is less than the costs. In reality a public beta is generally a way for marketing to get a almost working version out before it is ready for release, and the bug reports that might come in are worth much less than the hype.

    4. Re:I'm Confused... by ydlman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another main reason that Apple may not want all these beta builds out is that they may contain features that may or may not make it into a 1.0 release. Perhaps they wanted to try out feature X (say tabs) and find that it doesn't work the way that they had planned and they don't want it in a 1.0 release. But now if they release 1.0 without a feature that has been in the seeds the public uproar will be incredible.

    5. Re:I'm Confused... by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just go on the Apple support forums and look at how many people are compaining about the bugs in leaked builds. If people actually had the level of common sense you're giving thhem credit for, this wouldn't be a problem, but sadly they don't.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    6. Re:I'm Confused... by constantnormal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrast the way Apple has "managed" the Safari development with the way the mozorg folks have done with Camino and Mozilla.

      Apple releases a couple of "beta" releases, fires up interest and demand, and then nothing happens (from a public perspective) for a relatively long time. Given that it is beta software, there are a lot of things that need fixing -- the more people liked the initial rollout, the more demand there is for improved releases. But only frustration is available.

      OTOH, look at the Mozilla camp. There are milestone builds on a frequency on months wherein an attempt is made to level-set at a certain level of stability, and nightly builds that are expected to be fraught with bugs, but steadily progress towards the next milestone build. This method serves the people who want stability and predictability above all else, the bleeding edge lunatics who want the newest thing out, bugs and all, and the developers, who benefit from having the largest group of testers that is practical.

      How many people sent in bugs or suggestions for Safari? How many have seen even one of their personal hot buttons addressed? Virtually zilch, because Apple has been so stingy with new releases. OTOH, I personally have had several bugs looked at in Mozilla/Chimera(Camino), and feel a much stronger involvement with those products as a direct result of this.

      I think Apple is missing the point about Open Source software -- it's not just that it's cheap, it also has closer ties to the user community, and as a result, probably better fits the needs of that community. You can take Open Source, develop in behind closed doors with an army of people, and still release it as an open source product -- but it's the dumb way to do it. It's how Microsoft would do Open Source.

    7. Re:I'm Confused... by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I remember in the pre 0.9.x days, when they were still called Milestone X, the releases were multiple months apart. And with the last beta release of it coming out about a month ago, I don't really thing you have anything to complain about.

      I remember those days also, but I also recognize that Mozilla is targeting a very broad spectrum of hardware platforms and operating systems, whereas Safari has an exceedingly narrow focus. And the KDE code base Safari uses was supposedly selected because it has an order of magnitude fewer lines of code to deal with. Given the hoopla with with Apple has rolled it out, and dangled their "public beta" in front of me, I expect pretty frequent updates. The last one was 2-18-2003, and "about a month ago" happened at the beginning of the week just ended. It looks as if it will be some weeks/months before we see another one released to the public.

      Mozilla has thousands of developers, whereas Safari has what, a couple dozen if that?

      I wish (at least, I think I wish -- I'm not sure that having so many developers wouldn't make the whole thing dissolve into unmanageable slop) it were true that Mozilla had thousands of developers. The reality is that there are a handful (probably fewer than Apple commits to Safari, but one cannot know, as that is Apple's business and not the public's) of full-time developers and on the order of hundreds (not thousands) who have contributed on a part-time basis over the years.

      The real advantage the Mozilla development methodology brings has little to do with the product being Open Source, Shared Source, or Closed Source -- although I believe that those in the Open Source camp will have a mindset that finds it easier to adopt this style... The Mozilla folks seem to care a whole lot more about the product they produce than those who mindlessly manufacture lines of code for a living. I have only rarely had a software provider respond to a bug report within hours of filing it with suggestions of things to try or requests for additional information -- except for the Mozilla and Camino(Chimera) development teams, who regularly respond within hours.

      There's a concept in software engineering called egoless programming.

      There have been a lot of programming concepts rolled out over the years. Personally, I think things called pride of craftsmanship or pride of ownership are going to stand the test of time a lot better than egoless programming. Yes, it's true that code has a very short useful lifetime, given the rate of change in the environment it operates in. And a fixation to one's work in such an environment is not a Good Thing. But I don't believe that people who are not somewhat emotionally involved in what they do are very good at it. It's part of a thing called Motivation. I'll take professional pride over egoless programming every time.

      Apple would rather release their browser on their terms, and fix the bugs on their terms. I'm content knowing that the engine of it is open source. Why isn't that enough? It's their code after all.

      This is from the Apple Safari page:

      As with Mac OS X itself, Safari uses open source software at its core. For its Web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project. And of course, being a good open source citizen, Apple

      shares its enhancements with the open source community.

      Certainly sounds to me like they're trying to convey the notion that Safari is open source. But it's pretty clear that it's a closed development process.

      To summarize my feelings on this -- no, a software provider does not have to be responsive to me as a user of their software. But if they do, I like it better. If they roll out a "public beta" of a product that they also advertise as "open source", and then slam the development

  7. Poor marketing by deadgoon42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that Apple probably has good reason not to make the various beta releases of Safari available to the public, but I think they are missing out on a good marketing opportunity here. These Safari releases are keeping everyone interested, or they're keeping me interested anyway. Plus, people can see the new features as they are implemented and maybe once a favorite feature is added, emails about getting that feature will reduce.

    --

    Smeghead every day of the week.
    1. Re:Poor marketing by krel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The seeds get spread so quickly, it's simple for any joe-shmoe to get a copy. And the point of releasing a seed in the first place is to test it for bugs, you can expect that every version of safari not offically released is buggy in some way or another... and apple doesn't want just anyone running buggy apple code (because apple cares ;-).

      --
      karma: ouch!
  8. What's there to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares? It's just a browser that's going to be released for free in the future anyways. And it's based off of Free software at any rate.

  9. Breach of ethics by Theovon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I consider this to be a small ethical violation on the part of the individual who leaked the beta, at least compared to many other things. Nevertheless, Apple had placed their trust in a group of developers, and some jerk decided to violate that trust. However small of a violation that this may be, as compared to, say, murder, I would still like to see that individual publically flogged.

  10. License Irrelevant by Eravau · · Score: 5, Informative

    Part of the core rendering is based on Konqueror and is open source (and they do release the enhancements they make to that part back to the community). Everything else that is wrapped around it is not open source. So they have no requirement to let everybody see every little change they make there...and won't.

    1. Re:License Irrelevant by Luke-Jr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last I checked, GPL'd code cannot link to or be linked to from a non-compatible licensed program. Though it might be the case anyway since I'm pretty sure KDE is LGPL, not GPL.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    2. Re:License Irrelevant by fault0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Someone tell me how this post got +3 informative, just by saying "yep"??

      yep.

  11. Post Milestones with Talkback by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not just post the thing with a Talkback-like client and get feedback/bug reports from everybody? I know it is closed source but why not develop a Safari fan base by letting a community build around it. This is what Apple is best known for, right?

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Post Milestones with Talkback by tjohns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they already do. By default, Safari has a toolbar button that sends a bug report, along with an optional screenshot/code snapshot, to Apple. In fact, this is one of the reasons why they choose to release the beta, so they could iron out all the bugs without having to the test all of the pages out there.

      However, there is no need to get bug reports for a product that they know is unstable or incomplete (the post-v60 builds). If they posted one of those publicly, not only would they get a backlash for releasing an extreemly unstable build of their product, such as the first beta, which had a nice "feature" that would automatically delete ~/ for you, but all of their bug reports would be for a build which is still incomplete. Instead, they could just post their more complete, milestone builds, and get feedback which is much more beneficial to the developers.

  12. Forget Safari seeds by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you want to be on the bleeding edge use Camino nightly builds :)

    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/camino/nightly/latest /

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    1. Re:Forget Safari seeds by Chmarr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Using the Camino nightly build is hardly a good way of testing Safari.

  13. Not everyone distributes that way by siskbc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    More testers = more bugs found = better product.

    Surprisingly, not everyone follows the open source mantra. There are legitimate reasons for not wanting to provide constant releases. One is confusion among a less educated (some might also say intelligent) user base - people getting what is effectively a beta and don't know it end up bitching at Apple. This makes them look incompetent, and can cause problems for their image.

    Apple has good reasons for wanting to keep their stuff under wraps until they ship. This doesn't make them wrong, unenlightened, or the enemy.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> What is the point of having a closed source browser? I mean what are you going to gain?

      For starters, control of your company's products.

      Then there's the notion of adding unique features and other goodies so you can attract more customers.

      Apple's business is to sell Apple computers. I'm guessing that every move they make has that objective in mind.

      Works for me.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    2. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by tjohns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, Safari itself is closed source. However, the heart of the browser, WebCore, is released under the APSL, which is open source. So what if they want to make their browser closed source, it's just a wrapper. If you don't like it, you could always write your own interface and have it tie into WebCore.

      As for Internet Explorer, once Apple ships a 1.0 release of Safari, you can bet that they will start to use it on new systems instead of IE. The "far less knowledgable" don't flock to IE because they want to use IE, they just use it because it's already there and don't see a need to get anything else.

    3. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's more likely that OS X will continue to ship with IE, but Safari will be the default browser. As it is, if you install Classic, your Mac ships with three browsers: IE 5.2, IE 5.0, and Netscape 4.7. What's one more?

    4. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > One is confusion among a less educated (some might
      > also say intelligent)

      I wont jump for your "Mac users are stupid" trollbait, but let me me use my words to describe your theory:

      "the average mac user runs in danger downloading sources and binaries from a nearly secret cvs-like structure aside of the official updatemanager without noticing his wrongdoing"

      Only the paranoid survives .-)

      --
      "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
    5. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by Ratso+Baggins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair enough in principle, but what unique features & goodies are there in safari? Is it not "just a wrapper" to WebCore?

      --

      --
      "we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.

    6. Re:Not everyone distributes that way by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well I just downloaded it, and the APSL doesn't even come with the distribution. There are two copies of the LGPL that do, plus a "LICENCE.APPLE" file that reads:

      Copyright (C) 2003 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE COMPUTER, INC. ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE COMPUTER, INC. OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
      That's an "X11 style licence", not a CopyLeft or OpenSourceButNotFree licence (APSL, NPL, etc), and it's definitely not the APSL.

      I mention this to quell the "+5 Insightful" (are the mods on crack today?) flamewar that's broken out over your message.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  14. Re:License by frankie · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is not violating any kind of license, like GPL? After all, Safari is Konqueror based.

    Safari's back-end (parser, script engine, etc) is based on KHTML, and that code is available here. Safari's front-end (lickability, bookmarking, etc) remains proprietary, and that is allowed by LGPL.

  15. Why not release it on ADC? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How hard would it be for them to put in the developer builds a little code to pop up a splash screen everytime that safari loads that reminds the user that it is a developer, not end-user build unless they disable that in the preferences?

  16. Perhaps they should look at Mozilla's approach by gusnz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the KHTML engine still undergoing internal tweaking for better DOM/CSS/etc support, I think Apple should look to the Mozilla project for their approach to browser development. Why not publicly release nightly betas, so users can post feedback on development as with BugZilla? Users don't expect the nightlies to be perfect, but it would keep the tweakers (and web designers like me) happy, and the developers would get a lot more feedback on their progress, whereas most casual users can happily download milestone releases.

    Otherwise, the standards compliance of the browser will possibly be delayed (all the esoteric little implementation issues, especially with CSS and DHTML). After all, many eyeballs results in better code, especially with something as complex as a web browser.

  17. you don't want to be that bleeding edge by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're pulling to the 1.3 mozilla trunk for the version of geko they embed in camino right now, and they introduced a whole slew of bugs when they did so. You might want to stick to the .7 release for a month or so unless you're a real masochist.

    I used to use the Chimera nightly builds almost exclusively, but these days I stick to the .7 release or safari, and just check the nightlies when something I'm interested in gets mentioned on bugzilla.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    1. Re:you don't want to be that bleeding edge by mikedaisey · · Score: 2, Informative


      I'm posting this from the most recent nightly that compiled, and it isn't unstable in use...everything after 3-14-03 seems to be solid. YMMV.

  18. A few bad seeds... by psoriac · · Score: 5, Funny

    So one could literally say that a few bad seeds ruined it for everyone else...

    --
    I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
    1. Re:A few bad seeds... by Suppafly · · Score: 4, Funny

      or one bad apple depending how you look at it.

  19. Leaked builds probably helped Safari by RedX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without getting into the neverending "tabbed browsing" argument, I'll go out on a limb and say that these leaked builds will probably help Safari's marketshare in the long run. In browsing various Mac messageboards before and after v60 was leaked, I can tell you that many people dumped Camino the moment that tabs were discovered in Safari's debug menu. Had Safari's tabs been kept under wraps until the next public beta, Camino would have only matured and captured more users, which in the long run could've decreased the number of users using Safari. Of course this is all speculation. And I won't even get into the benefit that Apple realized by having a larger user base testing these builds.

    1. Re:Leaked builds probably helped Safari by Ivan+Karamazov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, v60 is the most recent public beta--it does not have tabs and was never leaked. It's v62 that was the first to include tabs and was leaked, supposedly unintentionally.

      --
      "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Albert Camus,
  20. Uh-oh by tulare · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the interest of full or false disclosure (you decide), I should let you all know that I'm not using v64, which I did not find at macrumors, and it does not have tabbed browsing, which I donot find to be the final feature which makes Safari not kick ass on the mac.

    Had I known that these were seeds that Apple didn't want released, I would of course have downloaded them and used them. I would, after all, want to spoil a good thing

    Move the nots around to make the above true.

    --
    political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
  21. It's out? by krray · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's out? Thanks. Quick Google search. Got it. Love it.

    Should I notify Apple that when you leave the tabs on all the time and "Open in tabs" a docked bookmark that the first tab always looks "active" (though the windowing for the tabs works fine)?

    It's too bad Apple is taking this stance. They should understand, realize, and if they were smart: CAPITALIZE on that fact that there _is_ a reason why us lowly end users are clamoring for the latest builds of Safari.

    It works. Like most Apple software it works very well -- even at the beta level. Yes, this is too bad...

    1. Re:It's out? by bnenning · · Score: 4, Funny
      Should I notify Apple that when you leave the tabs on all the time and "Open in tabs" a docked bookmark that the first tab always looks "active" (though the windowing for the tabs works fine)?


      Sure. Dave Hyatt has been known to possibly fix hypothetical bugs that may or may not occur in Safari versions that may or may not exist.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:It's out? by UberLord · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lemmie get this straight

      Dave Hyatt fixes bugs that may or may not exist in a product version that may or may not exist?

      Damn - some of us have to fix real bugs in real products for a living! Is his company hiring atm?

  22. easter eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


    They should have done that trick where each developer gets a slightly different copy, possibly each having a different easter egg embedded inside. All they then have to do is download the version from the internet and trigger the easter egg to find out which copy was leaked and cut that developer off.

    --
    Dreamweaver Templates

    1. Re:easter eggs by troc · · Score: 2, Funny

      That just means everyone leaked their copy :)

      Troc

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    2. Re:easter eggs by SlashdotLemming · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should have done that trick where each developer gets a slightly different copy

      You've just volunteered to be the configuration manager for THAT project

  23. Pathetically uncool by mariox19 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's up with these developers? It's like they're desparately trying to be one of the "cool kids," leaking the code to the Internet. "Yippee!"

    So, in an attempt at trying to upgrade their status to being picked only second to last in gym class, all the legitimate developers who respect agreements they've made have to suffer.

    Nice going!

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Pathetically uncool by MO! · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Umm if they work at Apple and are caught releasing stuff like this they are FIRED! In today's job market, there's an even bigger incentive to avoid doing things known to get yourself fired. As much of a flogging the individual developer (if identified) would face, losing their job would not likely be an issue.

      --
      I AM, therefore I THINK!
  24. Re:So what? by tulare · · Score: 4, Informative
    " I'd like to play with their unix too, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a whole new computer to do it."
    If it's just the Unix you want to play with, and don't give a hoot about the windowmanager, you can.
    --
    political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
  25. Re:So what? by iso · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you don't like Apple, that's all well and good, but why then do you feel the need to post or even click on an Apple story? I suppose you just couldn't let an Apple story go by without adding your insults. It's called trolling, and we don't need any more of it. Your opinion is valid, but posting this in an Apple story is just childish and counter-productive. Grow up, please.

    - j

  26. Say it brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thou dost preach the true gospel of Cupertino! The infidels who lack vision shall falter and Saint Jobs shall change the world! Blessed is the one true computer and blessed are the followers of the Church of Cupertino. Dammed are those who do not see the light and are left to dwell in the outer darkness of PeeCee use for all eternity! I'm proud to say that I first saw the light back in year 2 (1986 for the infidels) and have been a loyal follower ever since. Never have I been tempted to use the devil's instrument. I know that when my frail body fails I shall dwell in the house of Jobs forever.

  27. Forced into it by ShadowMind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a big trade-off between getting a decent sized community to test a product and allowing a not-yet-debugged product out into the wild.

    As a developer is it very valuable to have a willing group of people willing to test and feedback on not-yet-ready-for-market products. Unfortunately if these releases then get a wider distribution to people who don't understand that the app us a work in progress (as has happened with safari), any problems (which would be solved before an official release) reflect badly on both the product and the developer.

    Given that the betas are being leaked, and Apple's reputation for quality of its products, I don't think they had any option but to cancel to program. I also welcome their move for other reasons:

    As a web developer, one of the major issues I face is not just making a site compatible with the major browser releases (which in itself is a problem), but also with all the betas that are still being used. Many beta releases (or should have been betas) have quite significant bugs which are *very* difficult to work around. For example, I still see hits from people using betas of Netscape 4.

    Once a pre-release product makes it into the wild, many of the initial users will continue it use it since 'it works for me'. Of course, if this browser doesn't work with a site due to bugs or incompatibilities in the browser, its the sites fault - from the users perspective - and my clients if the user complains. These almost-right products seem to persist almost forever.

  28. I disagree with the crowd on this by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) They should have known that it would be available for download on the net as soon as they handed it out. If they didn't take that into account before starting the program they're idiots.

    2) A lot of people justify Apple here by posting the standard shit about it being terrible for the public to see an unfinished product. This is wrong and silly. Most people who come across this type of thing and are willing to install a beta are a) warez people who aren't gonna buy it anyway, or b) early adopters who are itching to try it out and are going to buy it no matter what.

    3) And finally some people are going to whine about the humanity of programmers having to see their beautiful program that they love like a child being stolen by the masses. Tell them to stop whining. The programmers are wage slaves. If the company earns more money because of massive warezing (that should be 'When the company inevitably earn more...') the programmers should shut up about the hurt to their souls and get back to fulfilling their contracts.

    Software companies act like this because they are run by idiots. You have no clue of the true magnitude of the crass stupidity they are capable of.

    And Apple just likes to throw temper tantrums. They probably lost more customers by canceling this program and making a stink than they would have lost by having betas escape into the wild.

    1. Re:I disagree with the crowd on this by JohnG · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "And Apple just likes to throw temper tantrums. They probably lost more customers by canceling this program and making a stink than they would have lost by having betas escape into the wild."

      Considering Safari is a free download I don't think they are complaining much about lost customers.

    2. Re:I disagree with the crowd on this by hmccabe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously dude, the average person on the street isn't like us. They talk about the war, and reality TV, and 401ks and the like. They don't care when a developer's beta release program gets cancelled. For God's sake, I just read this whole message board and I could care less.

    3. Re:I disagree with the crowd on this by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see that I need to explain how the world works. It's all about customers. Apple is a company. It therefore has to make this thing called money.

      The entire reason for developing Safari is to get more customers for Apple. Safari is 'free' but it also convinces people that they need a Mac.

      As I said in the original post, they've cancelled this program because they're worried about people seeing betas and then losing them as customers. I also pointed out why that reasoning is flawed.

    4. Re:I disagree with the crowd on this by inkswamp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They probably lost more customers by canceling

      I swear to freakin' God, the geek crowd on the Internet has the most impenetrable tunnel-vision I've ever seen. How on earth could Apple lose customers by cancelling a beta testing program? Most customers know nothing of it, much less the "controversy" surrounding it being cancelled.

      Get out a little more often.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  29. Popcorn, Peanuts, Safari! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Get it while it's hot:

    http://www.ewetel.net/~wolfgang.eichner/public/s af ariv67.dmg

  30. Re:License by BJH · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you look at the KDE WebCVS depository for kdelibs (where khtml resides), you'll see that it's licensed under the LGPL, and thus Apple are obliged only to release the source to the changes they make to khtml itself.

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Re:So what? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'll admit that I don't even know what Safari is

    This made me laugh.

    Dude, you preface your statement with a literal 'I'm about to talk out of my ass', and then of course you do so.

    Apple is a failed monopoly

    Every company but Microsoft is a failed monopoly. What is your point? Or, are monopolies good on Saturdays? I forget.

    Your mightily aged Mac trolls are telling, too. Listen, you don't like it, that's fine. But you don't even know what the hell you're talking about by your own admission. So, seriously, why are you posting? You're nothing but noise in here. Karma-to-burn norwithstanding.

    Blah blah blah, you love your PCs. Wonderful. Run along now.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  33. Um, why not just fix the problem? by clambake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be trivial to add an embedded key to every copy that goes out, then you can trace the exact guy hwo is giving them out!

    1. Re:Um, why not just fix the problem? by spanky1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft did exactly this during the Windows 2000 betas. When you'd download an ISO, the special download app would inject your obfuscated IP address and beta ID into the header. Some beta tester discovered this and was able to decode the obfuscation. MS wasn't too happy when this tester reported it to the beta newsgroup. Once people found out about it, it was trivial to remove or alter the injected information.

  34. Watermarks? by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe instead of discontinuing this program, Apple should have quietly started watermarking the private builds of Safari. A different watermark for each developer they give a sneak peak too. Then when it's leaked, they'll know who did it.

    Of course, they may do this already, and just decide not to divulge that information... Just a thought anyway.

    --
    "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
    -- Ryan Stiles
    1. Re:Watermarks? by Lynn+Benfield · · Score: 2, Informative

      Downloading seeds from Apple typically requires you to have an account in their developer program, and to log in to their seed server - you then get a randomly generated user name/password combo for an ftp server that expires in a couple of hours. It would be quite possible to hook into this and to watermark binaries so that you could tell which seed account was used to leak the app.

      Or have the app watermark itself on first launch, after prompting for a unique key which gets mailed out to each person in the seed program. Lots of ways you could do it, and I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing some of them in the future.

      We had to introduce a similar scheme for betas of our software, after a leak just before release - which has resulting in end-users mailing support asking for help when their ripped off copy fails to function with the latest data (wasting our time and slowing down support for our customers).

  35. Reason for Private Seeds. by itistoday · · Score: 5, Informative

    I tested v67 out and I think there was a reason Apple didn't want it out: Bugs. This thing has so many bugs... it freezes, you can't click/select anything sometimes (but you can still load pages), among other things...

    So perhaps they simply didn't want to give a bad impression out, and don't want to be berraged by a million emails all pointing bugs out that they are most definitely aware of.

  36. One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch? by Speare · · Score: 2, Funny

    When the apple is ripe, it will fall. --Irish proverb

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  37. Can't by TheInternet · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why not publicly release nightly betas, so users can post feedback on development as with BugZilla?

    Quality expectations are different for Apple than from many other developers. I suspect this is at least part of the reason. Not to mention all the journalists that would descend upon such a thing to pick apart every release.

    Users don't expect the nightlies to be perfect

    Normal users don't, Mac users do. They take it personally if there's a bug in a piece of software -- like Apple is after them specifically.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  38. Apple still doesn't "get it." by dameron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This the the equivalent of Jesus bitch smacking all the disciples 'cause Peter was a little to loud in his preaching. Hopefully one day Apple will realize fanatics who leak information about their products should be encouraged. After all, any press is good press, especially if you have a demonstrably inferior product.

    -dameron

  39. Poor understanding by stewby18 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know that Apple probably has good reason not to make the various beta releases of Safari available to the public

    But they are still making beta's available to the public, just not every single beta. I imagine that their public beta releases (which seem to be based on more or less completing a new feature) will stay steady, just like they have been so far, and just like the X11 betas.

    Far too many people here are confusing the seeding program with the public betas, and blowing this way out of proportion.

  40. Why didnt they (Apple) take the same approach as.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    many game developers take when using a seed program.

    All seeds are digitally signed in one or more ways, so that when the seed is found on the internet, the guilty party can be identified and removed from the program.

    Another case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  41. v65 and v66 leaked out too by giaguara · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only the v62, 64 and 67 leaked out.
    I saw v65 too.

  42. Just give out the nightlies like Chimera / Camino by giaguara · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are many Safari users who use those v62-v67. Why? Because they believe the new versions will resolve some issues.

    Just give out the nightly builds like Chimera / Camino does. Those Safari users using the unreleased versions will enjoy the nightly builds and help fixing and finding the things that need still adjusting in Safari.

  43. "Open Source" ? by giaguara · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone remembers Steve releasing Safari in MWSF? "Open source" ...

    1. Re:"Open Source" ? by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Safari's rendering engine is open source. You will have to supply your own shiny buttons.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Re:So what? by oingoboingo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nowadays the only people using them are die-hards and people who got them in order to play with their version of Unix. I'd like to play with their unix too, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a whole new computer to do it.

    Interesting comment...I just bought an old PowerMac 7600/120 from eBay for exactly that purpose (ie: to play around with OS X). A few bucks on upgrades (a 500MHz G3 card from Sonnet and an additional 256MB of RAM, plus a 18GB Seagate Barracuda I had lying around, and an old Sony SCSI CD-RW drive), and the thing runs OS X pretty well. Of course I would have never paid the prices Apple wants to buy their equipment new. If Apple does OS X on Intel, Windows and Linux better watch out...

  46. Re:License by fault0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    khtml is LGPL'd

  47. Re:GPL protections by fault0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Because of the viral licensing in the LGPL, they have to have a compatible license for their browser components.

    This is not true at all for the LGPL. Things that wrap around the LGPL code do NOT have to be under a compatable license (unlike the GPL)

  48. Actually, you're just wrong by FredFnord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may or may not conform to GNU's idea of 'free'... and we can argue back and forth about whether that's basically because GNU has always been determined to hate Apple, from day one, and will always be, no matter what Apple does.

    But it doesn't matter, because he didn't say 'free'. Not as in beer, not as in speech, not as in political prisoners.

    No, he said 'open source'. And, why lookie here... Apple's license is on the official list of 'open source licenses'.

    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

    So stop with the trashing already. He said it was open source, it is open source.

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    1. Re:Actually, you're just wrong by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The FSF has had arguments in the past with Apple (not GNU, which is software and is therefore neutral on these issues, that's like saying "The Macintosh has been determined to hate Stallman", "What Internet Explorer wanted to do was kick Netscape's butt", etc) because Apple has spent a lot of time suing over software IP, and in particular was the most dramatically damaging participant in the Look and Feel lawsuits of the 1980s and early nineties. The FSF did call a boycott while that was on, as I understand it the boycott no longer applies.

      Going from there to the FSF "has always been determined to hate Apple" is a little absurd, especially when your basis for this is that ONE Apple licence has been determined to be non-free. What, exactly, do you expect the FSF to say when a licence doesn't fit the FSF's criteria for "being free"? That "Oh, we had disagreements with this company in the past, but now they're gone and they're releasing a bit of source, we'll claim, falsely, that this stuff is free?"

      The FSF has also similarly rejected licences with similar issues from IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Netscape. Has the FSF been running some sort of hate campaign against these two too? If so, why has the FSF also approved other licences from the same organizations?

      FWIW, the WebCore stuff is not licenced under the APSL anyway. The major part is licenced under the LGPLs, with a choice of two versions, and Apple's changes are licenced under a simple X11 style licence. You can actually read the licences (the latter is in a file called "LICENCE.APPLE") by downloading the source code from Apple's website.

      I hate to see a "+5 Insightful" post that fighting windmills: the FSF is an extremely ideological organization, most people see that as a bad thing though I see it as a mark of integrity even if I don't always see eye to eye and feel there's room for being practical. It's a little ludicrous to suggest that the FSF would throw its ideological concerns out the window because it doesn't like the business practices of someone a decade before.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  49. Is Apple Stupid? by xant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A little knowledge of human nature and a smattering of statistics should tell you that this was almost guaranteed to happen, no matter what precautions (statutory or technological) were set against it.

    Is Apple stupid for thinking this wouldn't happen, or did they plan on it?

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  50. Weird "beta" anyhow by yroJJory · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For a beta that's really alpha or dev (I thought the definition of beta was "All features in, bug fixes only"), I don't really understand why only certain "beta" releases are acceptable for the general public to use.

    Either it's a public "beta" or it's not. Which is it?

    --
    Jory
  51. Where'd tabs go? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, a copy of the first tab-enabled seed magically found its way to my computer, and I played with it for awhile, but finally decided to stick with the official beta for my main browsing. Then, of course, I hear about this one, and it finds its way to my computer (amazing, really, its like my Mac reads my mind and downloads things I want without my permission!) But the Debug menu doesn't list tabbed browsing anymore!

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:Where'd tabs go? by z-kungfu · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's because tabbed browsing is always on in this one, no need to turn it on....

  52. Re:I call. Bull. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Home users get their copy of Windows for all but free(tm) with the purchase of their PC.

    If they buy a new computer whenever the next "must have" windows comes out they do.

    Most of the ones I've installed for friends and family tends to live quite a lot longer, most ordinary home users aren't on the bleeding edge. You can usually run the next two "releases" (e.g. win95-98-me) until it gets impossible even for the unsavy home user.

    I'd say the lock in at home is a major factor in the continued lock in at work. Not unlike how Nokia played their cards right by marketing to teen-agers, when Ericsson stayed with the corporate demographic. The sons and daugheters of the captains of industry ran around with cooler mobiles than their dads, a situation that ultimately couldn't (and didn't) last long.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  53. Must be LGPL by jeti · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If KHTML would be distributed exclusively under the GPL license, Apple would have to provide any code for released software that links against KHTML.

    KHTML must be using LGPL (or at least something similar).

    1. Re:Must be LGPL by dfaure · · Score: 4, Informative

      KHTML is LGPL indeed.

  54. Watermarking, unique copies, etc. by isj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it is quite interesting that people recommend that Apple should have embedded watmermarks, unique identifcation, steganography and other stuff in the beta download to identify who leaked the copy.

    Isn't this the same posters that normally oppose DRM? :-)

  55. Lickability by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Safari's front-end (lickability, bookmarking, etc)

    You enjoy licking brushed metal? Oh, man...

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  56. Re:Isn't Safari GPL? by GauteL · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. Safari is AFAIK not GPL. This is possible because KHTML (The Konqueror rendering engine) is LGPL-licensed, and this allows for it being dynamically linked into a closed source application.

    Personally I'd say that they SHOULD release it as GPL.

  57. Why does this seem like a really negitive thing? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The problem with code leaks of betas from Apple is the fact that they are realeasing code with the Apple name on it. With the Apple name on the product means that should meet standards that apple wants to put on it product. So is unstable betas are released it could hurt the company because the unstable betas will seem like the product is not being improved from the stable betas. (which developers can understat that fact, some time to fix a problem you may have to break some code and refix it later). But unlike the *nix people. The Apple Comunity is a wider range of people and a lot of them understand what a beta is but if they keep getting newer betas and each newer beta has more bugs in it and not less. They will feel turned off from the product and when it is released they would probably not get it becuase they would be fed up with all the bugs in the beta version.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  58. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd be very disallusioned if I was the guy who went to the plate and tried to convince management that the seed program could work.

    I can imagine going to my management and saying "let's make nightly builds available". Management, whose job is to protect the company, would be (naturally) cautious. But with convicing, perhaps a limited "seed" build to select developers would be an excellent first step.

    "These are people who believe in Open Source and Apple", I'd argue.

    But after this fiasco, clearly I'd be wrong. And my management would walk away with the idea that open source developers cannot be trusted in this fashion.

  59. Re:LGPL is viral by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Informative
    Anything that is statically linked to LGPL code has to have a compatible distribution license. Idiots like you aren't allowed to stop the distribution of binaries generated from LGPL code. The same applies to any dynamically linked binaries that are packaged atomically. Just so it's clear, I mean atomically in the sense of indivisible, not some stupid mutation nonsense such as produced you.

    You're either trolling, or you're simply ignorant. The restrictions you describe apply to GPL code, not LGPL. This is precisely why the LGPL exists. From the text of the LGPL:
    When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  60. Re:LGPL is viral by fault0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    /me thinks you need to releive your repressed sexual energy somewhere. And please wipe off your keyboard afterwards, thanks.

    Anyhoo, replace "LGPL" with "GPL" in your post, and you're going in the right step.

  61. Nerr, duh? by DAQ42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I think some of you need a little education on how Apple operates.
    First off, the whole beta program fro Safari is/was managed by a small team. Second, that team has a goal to release either the next public beta or the full 1.0 release by June 30th, 2003. You can verify this by opening up the terminal and navigating to /Applications/Safari.app/Content/MacOS/ and typing in the command 'strings Safari | grep June'. You will see two line in the binary that read "Safari Beta will expire on June 30, 2003.
    Safari Beta expired on June 30, 2003."
    This means that they are on a deadline and have a lot of work to do. A lot of people who have posted here are suggesting that they should do MORE work and add easter eggs/stenographics/blah-blah/security tracking to the seeded releases. Now you tell me, does that sound like a good way to reach a deadline? Especially one that is hard coded into the binary of the public beta? Now you could argue that putting in an arbitrary deadline is a "bad idea" or whatever, but I think it's a great way to keep a project both on track and managable. Pressure to perform and all that rot.
    The other thing a lot of people are apparently misguided in thinking is that Apple was naive about releasing these developer seeds. For this you have to understand a little bit about Apple's corporate culture and social philosophy. While you may not agree with it, I and a lot of others, think it's a great experiment and helps move our culture along. To understand thier philosophy, just look at Apple's public stance on music piracy. They have put in place some very basic and easily defeatable mechanisms with the iPod that prevents users from sharing music freely with thier iPod. They have not completely crippled your ability to share music, however they do put s little sticker on the iPod's that says "Don't steal music." They have also publicly stated in many debates about music piracy that it is a social problem, not a technological one, and that technology will not solve the issue. So in that statement, they have made reasonably clear that they don't really want to spend a lot of time working on something that they see as inevitable.
    They also want to trust those that they sign up for the seed programs. If you can't trust your testers to give you good reliable feedback, you are wasting your time and effort and you won't get your project completed or your bug fixed.
    Now the thing with the Safari seeds is that they gave the seed users 3 chances, basically 3 strikes, your out. After the 3rd strike, they pulled the program because they saw it as more detrimental that useful. I'm sure they started getting an unmanagable amount of negative feedback or duplicate bug reports, or even worse, useless ones because all these people that downloaded the seeds that were not part of the seed program probably started sending in incomplete bug reports or even worse, stupid things like "the thingy with the buttons, doesn't work on my puter, fix it now assholes", or something to that effect. This means that those managing the bug database and trying to glean useful information or even just track any real bugs now have to sift through thousands of shit reports. Needle in haystack time.
    Any of this sound reasonable.
    And finally, the most telling thing would be the reports on rumor sites. Apple hates rumor sites. They are counter productive to thier business (believe it or now, they are). If someone reads on a rumor site that such and such feature is missing/broken/doesn't work or whatever on a rumor site, and bases thier judgement on that rumor sites word (I know, stupid people, but it does happen, I have plenty of ad hom proof), they end up loosing a potential customer, or thier market image gets tarnished.
    I don't know about most of you, but these are the reasons that I see Apple's decision to pull the plug as both necessary and smart on Apple's part. Argue all you want about "the way it should be" or whatever, but these are the realities of this business. If you

    --
    Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
  62. Re:is there anything interesting about it? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Netinfo is probably worth checking out - it's one of those things you'll either love or hate. It replaces most of the critical files in /etc/ with a centrally, network accessable, database, a sort of cleaner version of what NIS/Yellow Pages is designed to do.

    Darwin is orientated around Apple's HFS+ file system, which is a "modern" (ie only 15 years old ;-) FS that supports features like file forks and meta data (albiet in a "What we needed 15 years ago" sense.) That said, there's very little if anything in Darwin proper that actually uses these features, all of these are really for Mac OS's use.

    Darwin is based on a microkernel-like kernel. It has a hacked version of Mach underneath, which has been changed to break some microkernel tenets in favour of better performance. The result is an extremely modular system which fits together very well.

    And that brings me onto the final point: Some OSes have clearly been thrown together, others have been put together. Darwin is much closer to the latter than the former, there's a clear sense in every aspect of "This has been done this way because..." as opposed to many distributions of Linux where, quite honestly, the overall impression one gets is that a file is in a particular place, or an INIT script works they way it does, because that's where some hacker put it 5 years ago when they were just trying to get it to run, and nobody's ever thought of moving it since. Another OS, other than Darwin, that always gives me that warm fuzzy feeling is OpenBSD - I assume FreeBSD is similar but haven't successfully installed it. Darwin just seems to make sense.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.