Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Software Roundup
zpok writes "The Register runs an interview with the two only Mac OS X coders on the OpenOffice Project. In short: no, OO.org for Mac OS X won't be delayed until 2005, but they could really really use some help."
jeblucas writes "There are new versions of Macromedia's media suite: Macromedia Studio MX 2004 with new versions of Dreamweaver, Flash and Fireworks. There's also a professional version of Flash (for PDA, phone, and video authoring with direct links to Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premier, and Avid Express) to be had for $700."
A user writes, "Cricket Media has released a Mac OS X application for hardcore Netflix users who want to manage their accounts without using the website. The app is an interesting example of what can be done with WebKit."
lordDallan writes "Opera had recently released Opera 6.03 for Mac OS X. Purchase of this version includes a free upgrade to 7.0 when it becomes available."
With everyone crying about Apple ripping off Watson, pushing out Adobe Premeire, and basicaly running over a number of smaller developers, its easy to forget what they have been giving back in recent months. Lost in hardware rumors Apple is innovating in the developer scene as much as anywhere.
Developing and then giving away Webkit instantly gets a thousand projects off the ground which were previously only musings and ideas (read: netflix manager). The best of open source is when it facilitates truly independent innovative ideas that would be shot down by 'the corporate machine' and never see the light of day (read: SubEthaEdit). Dont forget Apple saw this long ago with Hypercard and have been listening to users wail about its death. Not just of the product but of the idea and philosophy of "I own an Apple, therefore I innovate."
Xcode, Applescript Studio, WebKit, Services, Java, Cocoa..... It looks like taking 5 years to plan a new OS from scratch is _finally_ paying off.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
And moral issues are always relevent to moral people.
But not all morals are the same. I, for instance, think that the GPL is a terrible license. I have no problem with BSD or propietary licenses though. Why?
I see the GPL as being very hypocritical. Preaching some twisted form of freedom while imposing restrictions on software. At least proprietary licenses are very clear in that sense.
Don't let the FSF delude you. We are talking about software here. There are much much much more important issues in the world than software licenses. Your energies would be far better spent on those problems (think world poverty, environmental concerns, the increasing aggressiveness of the USA, etc).
KHTML is LGPL.
Could you restate your point?
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
The parent is wrong. Despite all his typos, and Lussarn has it right: LGPL is a recursive license for derived works (e.g. forks). The only difference between LGPL and GPL is for other projects which depend on the licensed one -- if khtml were GPL, then Safari would have to be GPL as well; as it is, Apple only has to release Webkit open source.
However, the big question is -- and this is much bigger than Lussarn gives it credit for! -- why did Apple choose to use khtml at all? They could have written their own rendering engine and kept it completely proprietary. They also could have used Gecko and kept it completely proprietary, since the Mozilla license is, IIRC, a BSD-style non-recursive license. (Anybody know for sure on that one?) Apple had plenty of choices resulting in a completely proprietary Webkit, and they didn't take them.
So saying that "Apple is as much about open source as Microsoft" is just plain wrong. When was the last time Microsoft open sourced anything? Sure, they used open source code in their products -- but they've actively avoided any and all recursive open source licenses.
Apple may not be an angel -- they're a corporation, for heaven's sake, and they're beholden to their shareholders and not to the moral compasses of Slashdot readers -- but they've consciously decided to participate some in the take & give back process of open source when they could very well have just stayed out completely.
And don't try to tell me that hasn't done anything useful for anyone. Or has BSD never pulled a patch from Darwin? Has khtml not examined the optimizations Apple made?