Slashdot Mirror
Safari And KHTML May Never Meet
diegocgteleline.es writes "Announcing that Safari passes the Acid2 test has raised some voices in the KDE world. Apple, they say, isn't playing friendly. They don't provide a CVS history, just the modified files where nobody can understand how and when things have changed. It's quite likely that KHTML developers will have to write their own code to pass the acid2 test. Zack Rusin writes: 'All I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There's absolutely nothing great about it. In fact "it" doesn't exist.'"
Take as much as you can and only give back what's legally required? I'm sorta glad they didn't use Mozilla code now.
Can't they be sued for GPL infrigement ?
That would be great really !
Looking at Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog it looks like he's provided some patches. I'm sure it will take some work to get those into KHTML, but that seems to be a pretty good start to me.
They should check their servers too. After the first post they were already down.
When are people gonna understand that companies like Apple are not in the market coz they like it ???
The code is there. Perhaps they can make use of the super-advanced tool called "diff" to see where things have changed?
Apple has abided by Safari's license and released their changes. This is what is required and expected. I don't remember reading anywhere that they have to hand-hold you through understanding their code.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
There's more to being a good open source citizen than just providing source. While that may be all that's required by the license, being a good OS citizen goes beyond just doing the bare minimum.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
I give up, no more computers for me.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
not that they are making things easy on themselves the past few weeks with nasty lawsuits and sneaky business practices, but damn when did they become the evil empire? next thing you know they fall into a pool of molten lava and get some cool head gear.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
No, it seems like they're doing everything they're legally bound to do.
And that only, nothing more at all, which is the part that annoys the KHTML team.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Because of Apple's adoption: "KHTML's penetration on Web designer's workstations will increate by some 5000 % (in words: over five thousand percent!). In the future, almost every serious web designer will have a KHTML-based browser on (or under) his/her desk.
" - dot.kde.org
Dont you think Apple has already done enough for KHTML?
fuvoo: watch something
... they're duping comments.
Hey, that gives me an idea - find a nice little comment somewhere a week or so back and submit it as news... yeah...
We Build Beautiful Websites
In a shocking and unsuspected announcement, Apple will change their name to 'KApple' in an effort to patch relations with other Kommunities.
When an open source project says thay cant understand whats happening when they are given the code.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Can't they just do a diff on the files in question and get a pretty good idea of what has changed?
Have you ever worked on a large project?
Without the revision history, it can be very difficult to track what effect particular changes actually have. Intermediate code cleanups, reorganizations, additional features, etc. can combine to make the code look much different in a fairly short amount of time.
Looking at "what has been changed" makes it much easier to figure out "what does the changed code do".
Dave Hyatt seems fairly responsive to emails. He's replied to one's I've sent in the past asking questions about Safari. He's a Free Software guy, I'm sure he can appreciate the frustrations here, and might be able to help - afterall, I don't believe he, or Apple really want to 'screw over' the KHTML people - it might just be that communications haven't been really made.
Email him - ask?
Join the Free Software Foundation
This might be a good time to remind everyone that the patch has not yet been released to the public. The patch might make the browser unstable - further testing will be required. Depending on how long it takes before the patch makes it into the public version, Safari might not be the first browser to support Acid 2.
From yesterday's summary:
The patched Safari is not yet avaliable for public consumption. It is unknown when the patches will appear in a public version of Safari.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Copying (parts of)code is pointless.
You have to understand what has been changed, and how it may affect other parts of the application. It may have worked for Safari, but it may break on KDE.
All they're asking is for some help from the Safari developers.
What do you expect from Apple. They are used to taking free software and not contributing back changes or only contributing back enough to please the original developers. After all, it was they who made feeBSD great and it is they who makes KHTML great. You souldn't expect the hacks at apple to really care, or expect them to contribute back in an appropriate manner. The KDE guys should just accept the bone apple threw them, cuz that is all it is...
So the KHTML guys have never heard of diff?
Look, I'm not gonna defend Apple's total lack of commitment to real open source development principles (typified by their use of the APSL for Apple-developed code rather than a BSD license), but this post comes off as whining, and, as such, is not helpful to the cause, which is to get Apple's executive management clued in.
Apple provided the source. There is no violation. How stupid can you get you shit for brains.
Apple have follwed the GPL! Nowhere does it say that people are obligated to explain their changes -- just make them available.
Nice idea, except they're not violating the GPL!.
a) it's the LGPL
2) they're doing everything they have to
d) the ACID2 patches have been released to KHTML developers before Apple have actually released them, themselves.
Sure, Apple could be doing more, but they're not violating anything.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I think that website would prefer to hear about an actual GPL violation.
-mkb
When the diff is 6MB yes its damn hard.
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
Uh, just how is this a GPL violation? They're providing the modified source code. The GPL doesn't require you to explain how you wrote your code or how you got from the old code to the new.
This post isn't flaimbait, it's humour. Sheeshkabab!
Where in the GPL does it say you have to provide a CVS history? Heck, all they really have to do is make the source code available to their customers upon request.
If they got _all_ the changes, then they should be able to keep stuff from breaking. That is, unless Apple re-wrote most of the app. The summary didn't say how many changes there were.
If a large portion of the app changed, well that tough to merge no matter what.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
If you've got the modified files you most certainly can tell how they've changed. You do a diff.
Now that diff can't tell you why they've changed, but for Pete's sake, you're a developer. You've got the code. You've got the standard. You've got the changes in the code. You've got the old code. You can see how behaviour changes in each. You've (hopefully) got an reasonable general understanding of the codebase.
Given that some developers reverse engineer protocols by sniffing TCP packets, your task really doesn't sound that difficult...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I would agree. Nowhere does the GPL require you maintain and distribute CVS logs so everyone can see what changes have been made. Nor does it require you detail what has been changed from the original source. It's good enough to say "Here is the code after we made it do x y and z". If the original developer wants to see how they did x y and z, then he can diff the code.
Well then, the KHTML team can let the safari people hang. I personally would hang up the phone right after the "It's $125 per hour, $180 after 5 pm, $250 on weekends. Send me a signed PO."
There's nothing in Open Source that forces the KHTML people to work with the Safari people. Apple wants to play that game but they forget that slighted geeks are the most difficult people in the world to turn back to your side.
As far as the KHTML people: Are you that naive that you expected cooperation beyond the minimum from the minions of a for-profit?
"Piter, too, is dead."
Isn't there a utility out that takes to documents, compares them, and show which lines are the same and which are different?
Just run that on Safari source and the Konqueror it was forked from.
So is GPL v3 going to fix this issue?
Or will any attempt to do so put too much burden on the users/modifiers of code?
badness 10000
LOL. Apple abides by the law, and people get pissy over it. Grow up people, this is the real world.
The code for the Acid2 test fixes was all given to you in a nice list of small easily applied patches (which was posted on /. no less), and you still can't manage to integrate it without having full logs of Apple's interval versioning system? Come on.
I'm getting really sick of the anti-corporate bullshit that gets thrown around so copiously by a certain faction of the OSS community. And it's not just Apple being treated this way either.
No matter how much a big corporation gives to the community in terms of money, code, paid personnel, free advertising, etc..., there's always some crank complaining that they're not giving enough, and they'll eventually turn on us.
Well, given the way we treat them, I wouldn't blame them for turning on us.
Every change in khtml has to be run through a regression suite to make sure it doesn't break anything. Now if you fix something a new regression test is added for that.
If you get fixes with no log of what they fix you will end up with bunch of code which you have no idea how to test for regressions. This is just one of the reasons why diffing codebase doesn't cut it.
Another good reason is damned diff is ~6mb because Apple guys never send small patches but only dump WebCore tarballs.
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
Is that so hard?
Obviously you're not a developer.
This isn't true. They are legally bound to include a notice telling their customers that they are entitled to source, and they are legally bound to supply it to a customer of theirs, should they ask for it, for the price of shipping. They don't even have to send patches back to the KHTML team.
They are doing more than the license forces them to. They are just getting criticised because some developer wants them to do more.
Also, everybody whining about suing them for GPL infringement? You are clueless. Not only are they abiding by the license, it's LGPL, not GPL. You haven't even bothered to read the license and you are advocating suing them? Typical American attitude.
It seems they got all the modified files, but aren't aware of what has been changed. The OP suggested using diff, but that's entirely unhelpful in making KHTML better.
Regardless of what people may think, there is no reason for Apple not to provide the CVS history. Until and unless further information about this is made available, Apple, IMO, are just being asinine about it.
It's strange, where should we draw the line for what we expect from private companies?
That they allow fair-use and backup?
That they make file-formats public?
That they go open-source?
That they make all their software free?
That they not make any money?
hmmn...
The way I see it is: if they don't understand how this code got written, then they won't be able to extend it. It's a little like code without comments.
They had basically been trying to forget about that it seems, until everyone (and I admit i was one of them before i read rusin's post) started singing that K-Linux users would benefit from Dave's work...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Well, I'd be annoyed if they did the same thing to me. Then again, I don't know if the KDE team asked Apple for the CVS/etc either. Either way, I hope that the new KHTML code makes it into Konq... I'd love to not use Mozilla anymore. (Great browser, but no KDE integration ;) )
Sure, Apple could be doing more, but they're not violating anything.
The thing is free software is all about freedom. freedom to make and change and do all that. if apple are purposely making it hard to understand the source which they are, by making changes and not posting revisions, then they are impingeing upon the freedoms of the original authors and anybody else who wants to look at the code.
Its all about freedom not just sticking to the letter of a license.
And they'll rename Tiger to KTiger (or Kiger) to get around the lawsuit from TigerDirect.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I can't access kdedevelopers.org, so here's the blog entry:
/. about Safari supporting the all crack Acid2 test and people raving how great it is for KHTML. The truth is that KHTML will probably never get those patches. Whats most probably going to happen is that one of us will simply reimplement it from scratch (and at the moment the reality is that if its not going to be Allan or Germain its not going to happen).
/. or some other equally stupid site will be praising Apple.
You cant even imagine how I hate that question. The truth is most probably never. I just read the article on
Code in Safari is hugely inconsistent and changes are always interdependent. Theres basically no way of merging in one change without bringing a whole bunch of others in. And you know what? Dont even tell me about merging stuff like render_canvasimage.h,cpp. It outright uses OS X apis. Well never be able to merge that in - someone will have to implement it. And whats going to happen when someone does? Some jackass on
In the past when someone spent long hours implementing something in KHTML, they at least got a thank you from people using Konqueror. Now its well finally! It was working in Safari. khtml developers are lazy. Wheres the fun in that?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to be merging between two totally different trees when one of them doesnt have any history? Thats the situation KDE is in. We created the khtml-cvs list for Apple, they got CVS accounts for KDE CVS. What did we get? We get periodical code bombs in the form of them releasing WebCore. Many of us wanted to even sign NDAs with Apple to at least get access to the history of their internal vcs and be able to be merging the changes incrementally, the way they can right now. Nothing came out of it. They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL.
And you know what? Thats their right. They made a conscious decision about not working with KDE developers. All Im asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. Theres absolutely nothing great about it. In fact it doesnt exist. Maybe for Apple - at the very least for their marketing people. Clear?
it seems like they're doing everything they're legally bound to do. And that only, nothing more at all, which is the part that annoys the KHTML team.
Not even that: it's *other people's* attitude that the KHTML devs dislike - from TFA:
This is where the serious fun begins.
...they forget that slighted geeks are the most difficult people in the world to turn back to your side.
You've obviously never sufficiently angered a woman. "Hell hath no such fury" as is said.
whats wrong with taking apples code, doing a diff, and spending a few hours or so, for a few days, comparing notes on a new tree? i really don't understand the fuss, so please someone enlighten me
seems to me this is just a matter of bad apples. safari gets the cool-hits for passing the acid2 test, the khtml guys are just pissed coz theirs are the giants shoulders apple stood on
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
So, when will KHTML merge all the WebCore changes?
You can't even imagine how I hate that question. The truth is "most probably never". I just read the article on /. about Safari supporting the "all crack Acid2 test and people raving how great it is for KHTML. The truth is that KHTML will probably never get those patches. What's most probably going to happen is that one of us will simply reimplement it from scratch (and at the moment the reality is that if it's not going to be Allan or Germain it's not going to happen).
Code in Safari is hugely inconsistent and changes are always interdependent. There's basically no way of merging in one change without bringing a whole bunch of others in. And you know what? Don't even tell me about merging stuff like render_canvasimage.h,cpp. It outright uses OS X api's. We'll never be able to merge that in - someone will have to implement it. And what's going to happen when someone does? Some jackass on /. or some other equally stupid site will be praising Apple.
In the past when someone spent long hours implementing something in KHTML, they at least got a "thank you" from people using Konqueror. Now it's "well finally! It was working in Safari. khtml developers are lazy". Where's the fun in that?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to be merging between two totally different trees when one of them doesn't have any history? That's the situation KDE is in. We created the khtml-cvs list for Apple, they got CVS accounts for KDE CVS. What did we get? We get periodical code bombs in the form of them releasing WebCore. Many of us wanted to even sign NDA's with Apple to at least get access to the history of their internal vcs and be able to be merging the changes incrementally, the way they can right now. Nothing came out of it. They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL.
And you know what? That's their right. They made a conscious decision about not working with KDE developers. All I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There's absolutely nothing great about it. In fact "it" doesn't exist. Maybe for Apple - at the very least for their marketing people. Clear?
1993 called, they want their flamewar back.
Woe! Disaster! JWZ's changes to the Emacs codebase can't be easily folded back into GNU/Emacs. It's full of things that are XEmacs specific!
It's called a fork, folks. It's very possible, albeit not very common, with Open Source software. You've given your code to people to use how *they* want, not how *you* want them to. Deal with it.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
If that's the problem, then let them complain "this code has no comments" rather than "this code has no revision history". Sure, it would be easier if they had the revision history, but, well, so what? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
From the article:
"All I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There's absolutely nothing great about it. In fact "it" doesn't exist.'"
Apple is just another Mirosoft, only with a tiny market share. If I had to choose between Apple and Mirosoft, I'd pick Linux any day.
This has me wondering. I understand some basics of GPL licenses, but afaik with them (including the LGPL)
if apple do internal-only builds with *GPL licensed code, they don't have to release anything to the public, do they?
if that's true, then it's possible there are many things they've put into their version of the KHTML codebase that later on they either don't want to release as *GPL (as they don't have to, being non public released code) or find later infringes on someone else's license (say, patent encumbered code) so they then revise that problematic code out.
On a project the size of Safari i imagine that would have already happened a few times, if not many. That may be part of their reasoning behind not releasing the history.
It's really simple. If you're going to release your code under a license that makes it easy for them to fork your codebase, you'd better be setting the pace.
If KHTML was a strong, vibrant project that was making steady advances, there would be a motivation for Apple to fold their changes back into the trunk so they can continue to reap the benefits of other peoples improvements. If Apple aren't making an effort to fold their changes back in, it indicates that they don't feel having easy access to future KHTML improvements is worth the trouble.
Improve the KHTML code enough that Apple is losing out by not being able to easily fold changes into the next version Safari and see their stance change. Complaining isn't going to get respect from Apple or from anyone else.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
That is hardly surprising. Not to imply that BSD isn't good, but the main reason that Apple went with BSD rather than Linux is the license. You don't need to give anything back to the community. They are basically vampires. No better than Microsoft, in their monopolistic attitudes. It's just that they didn't manage to get the monopoly in the first place (but it would have suited them just right).
They do have better products, and have always managed to make trendy products for the snobs out there, but they never were able to play nice with others, particularly their clients (just see how we are supposed to think that RealNetworks is EVIL for making something that can play iPod files... thus giving customers choice and bargaining power).
Actually the biggest problem right now is that Apple are not keeping up with code-cleanup. We constantly try to develop more elegant easier to maintain code, where as Apple wants the right features - right now.
Safari is basically still KHTML from KDE 3.1 with a ton of bug fixes and features. Many of the features takes time to port because they do not live up to our coding standards.
Does Apple even use CVS internally? If they forked the codebase, they are probably using the same system they use on other Mac OS components. It would actually be the responsible thing to do, because CVS is really limited and slow for that size codebase.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Is it me, or can they just take the Safari_Khtml and work from that? Seems easier to me...
So all the Mac fans might want to change their mind about Apple being a much nicer company than Microsoft?
They're just as keen to annoy people when they're doing well, if they don't look after those who are in effect saving them a lot of development time then these people will find ways to hamper Apple.
No, the part that annoys them is that everyone thinks Apple is doing so much more than that.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
It's like called courtesy?
Someone spends years writing some code which X company uses to give their OS a severe boost in the browser department. An OS with a poor browser is a poor internet desktop, you would think Apple would be grateful for the groundwork done by the KDE team.
What we expect is for them to contribute back to the community, in the terms previously agreed, so that the community may benefit from the improvements, the same way as the company previously bennefited from the community work.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I must have missed that GPL change where it requires people to explain their modifications to others.
do they have to hold the other developers hand while crossing the street too?
much different
Now I understand why all those English teachers were made at Apple when they rolled out their new ad campaign a few years ago.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Perhaps they don't, which is fine too. But they aren't even providing a revision history of any sort.
While I realize that they do not need to, it would be nice if they did, as any changes made by either party would be beneficial to both. For example, if they helped out, the KHTML developers could port the differences quicker, find bugs and/or move on to do other things.
Apple has stayed true to the letter of the LGPL, but not to its spirit.
Apple's samba patches have also never made it into the main code because they break samba on windows.
Anyone can create a patch. The hard part is working with others.
Again, it's the "Power of open source. The Stupidity of Apple."
I imagine the root of this conflict is a difference in culture.
Being part of a business, I imagine that the Safari team's modus operandi is to not let anything leave their shop until they are sure that it is working and ready for release, including incremental changes. In turn, this way of releasing things is just not conducive to providing the changes to the KHTML team along with a list of what is different and why. I'm sure that from Apple's point of view, maintaining such a list would just be a waste of time and money.
Unlike Apple's own GCC team you mean who works side by side with other gcc hackers and even some of them takes care of gcc bugzilla.
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
English teachers were made at Apple*
That's where English teachers go to die.
English teachers are made elsewhere.
* Making fun of my own grammar errors is the height of Grammar Nazism.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
This story really separates the actual coders on the site from the wannabe's.
Nothing like someone without a clue saying "just diff it" to help illustrate that most slashdotters can code "hello world" but would crumble if ever given a real program to write.
Apple, they say, isn't playing friendly. They don't provide a CVS history, just the modified files where nobody can understand how and when things have changed.
First of all, anytime you fork off a large project like KHTML the source code bases will start to grow apart. When the new fork has a dedicated group of engineers updating it for their needs then it will quickly diverge to the point where it makes little sense to attempt to keep patches in lock step. In my career I can recall several times where this has happened, and it always seems to come as a surprise to the people maintaining the less active fork.
Apple doesn't use CVS as their normal source control system. To provide CVS documentation, Apple engineers would have to maintain a CVS database as well as maintain their patches in their standard internal SCS. This used to be perforce, I believe, and probably still is as switch a SCS is generally a royal PITA.
Because the sources have been diverging for several years, it's unrealistic to expect that the Safari patches will be directly applicable to KHTML, and I frankly doubt that even having the Safari patch documentation would help very much after several years of Apple patches. This probably isn't anything underhanded on Apple's part. It's just the way engineers work - they change the code to fit their needs, and rarely consider the impact on the old fork that they started from in the absence of an explicit mandate to stay compatible with the old fork. That level of compatibility would require the Apple folks to always have the current KHTML sources and be familiar with that source and particularly to understand the differences between the KHTML code and the Safari code.
Apple does provide the modified files, and usually this is a huge improvement on starting from scratch in implementing a new feature or fixing bugs. It does require the KHTML engineers to be able to read and understand the Safari code. To say that nobody can do that sounds a little strange.
It's quite likely that KHTML developers will have to write their own code to pass the acid2 test.
Well, yes. Should Apple engineers be expected to maintain the KHTML engine also? Apple's engineers are probably focused on their code base exclusively. The KHTML engineers are the right people to modify their own code base. Does anyone expect Apple engineers to be responsible for maintaining compatibility between Safari and KHTML? Apple makes changes, and they provide the changes files to the KHTML team. The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
I'm with the other people on the "wait and see" attitude.
The MAC developers may be very friendly. This may be the result of an oversight or the decision of one dweeb manager for all anybody knows.
The last thing the situation needs is for a bunch of venom to poured out on slashdot...possibly alienating away future cooperation...before the story is known.
It isn't because the KHTML developers want them to do more. That isn't the complaint. The complaint is that all the Slashbots read the Acid2 article and assume that those changes will quickly make it into Konq thanks to Apple's good will. That isn't the case. It is the misperception that is being complained about.
Lasers Controlled Games!
"Apple has stayed true to the letter of the LGPL, but not to its spirit."
This coming form a man who defends the right of sites like supernova and thepiratesbay because they adhere to the letter of the law.
KDE should stop whining. Apple is not doing anything different than they have for many many years. I personally worked for two companies who got screwed by Apple in much the same way and I know of many other companies.
Apple may have another color than M$ but they are still a very big company and the bigger they get, the more they emphasize that the need of the company outweighs the need of anything else.
Nowhere does the GPL require you maintain and distribute CVS logs so everyone can see what changes have been made.
Or it does? GPL requires to release "source code", but this is defined as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". That might include the CVS logs, if they're necessary to make further changes, as it seems to be the case.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Scrolling in Firefox on Mac OS X is such a fucking abortion its not funny. Unless you like dead baby jokes...
Looks like Apple Safari has won this year's International Obfuscated C Code Contest.
Unfortunately, we have to inform you that you are simply not welcome here in the free software community. Obviously, you are just being a parasite by commercially supporting the use, maintenance and extension the KHTML library. Not only are you making bug fixes and amplifying the usefulness of the code, but you're also sending them back to upstream for them to integrate. This burden you are placing on us is clearly unacceptable.
Happily, we don't care for or need your help - as you know the use of free software amongst large and recognizable corporations is incredibly commonplace, and all those companies have no problem at all helping out the community and contributing back in the way we desire.
Although you're new and unexperienced in the free software community, you'll understand if we have no patience for your assistance. Still, I'm sure you found working with us to be a great experience, and we hope that you consider us in the future when you're developing other projects. Clearly, nobody else will see this situation as any sort of reason not to bother dealing with free software in the future.
Thanks again!
http://www.talknerdy.org
I was a borderline "fanboy" when I switched to the Mac a couple of years ago, but once I got past the "ooooh, shiny!" stage, I realized that Apple was no beter than Microsoft or Dell or Intel. Okay, maybe a _little_ better, but still. So, yes, at least one of us changed our minds.
I guess I'm more accepting of Apple's "evil" behavior because their stuff works better than Wintel. The hardware's (mostly) great, the OS is vastly superior, the apps I use work and look better, etc.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Safari is based on KHTML 3.1 so it is based on some older branch. Taking it as the starting point means abondoning KHTML 3.2 in favour of a code base that some people thing is not up to the quality standards of the rest of the project.
The parent may seem like a Troll, but I've worked on Darin Adler's code before, and it's "messy."
That said, the problem for KHTML is that they're working with Rolling Thunder. I mean come on, these dudes are cranking the stuff out. They're not going to take the time to go through Radar and pull their changelists.
If you can't keep up, stay home.
Doing stuff like this isn't going to win you any friends either.
Where in the GPL does it say you have to provide a CVS history?
Here: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Pretty code is much easier to extend and maintain than hacked together 'the browser fucking works' code.
so you can merge it all in?
If the original developer wants to see how they did x y and z, then he can diff the code.
You don't know what you're talking about. That wouldn't help at all.
Nowhere does the GPL require you maintain and distribute CVS logs so everyone can see what changes have been made. Nor does it require you detail what has been changed from the original source.
You also didn't read the article. If you did, you'd know that he says "They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL. And you know what? That's their right."
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Seems rather ignorant to assume that they are all American, don't you think? Typical slashdot... ;-)
When Apple first announced they were going to base their products on open source software, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and praised them for it. Now that it is becoming clear that they will leverage their power in the nerd market to actively hurt BSD and Linux users, people are starting to realize why letting apple get away with calling a closed source OS "open" was not a good idea. Oh well, we made our bed and now we have to lie in it.
Did you read the bit about "the normal method of using the code". Refer back to the recent article that stated that Comments in code is more valuable than the code itself.
So Apple, comment your changes
It's like called courtesy?
Like, wow.
Oh. My. God. Look at her butt.
No it's not the BSD mentality that gives us qyuality software, its the CLOSED SOURCE mentality that does. OS X is faster, more stable and more secure than ANY OTHER VERSION OF BSD or Linux out there. PERIOD. This isn't because of the BSD attitude, this is because Apple pays professional american coders good wages to create intellectual property that they then sell commercially. This is the model that WORKS, and has worked for decades. Open sores software like the GPL and BSD are leeches on the productivity of the commerical software industry. You guys simply can't hack it so you copy everything Apple and Microsoft do.
They are doing more than the license forces them to.
Yeah, they're putting the all the source - get this - in a tarball. And then they're putting that tarball on their fucking website. Oh man, and they also post a message on the khtml mailing list. Christ, giving all this work away for free must be killing them.
Thank you Steve Jobs, you've gone really above and beyond the requirements of the license there because you're just a genuinely cool bloke.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Only if you have OSX installed...
(see article, those patches actually require MacOs functions)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I demand to have my post from the previous story modded up!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
If I remember correctly.
:-(
When Apple forked there code, they used a 1.x version of khtml, while the KDE people were already working on the (not yet stable) 2.x version.
I'm sure it's really 'easy' to merge them now.
New things are always on the horizon
The misperception is on the part of those KHTML developers. "Waaah, I didn't get what I wanted!"
Besides, Apple is one of those evil proprietary companies, right? RMS will revoke their license to program if they accept something from Apple.
Actually I expect shit like this to get modded up when something's posted under the Apple section.
1: Didn't read the article
2: Completely missed the point
This is just a developer in their poersonal blog saying 'Man, this is a pain in the arse. If Apple did things this way it would make things so much easier for both of us in the long run..'
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
I can't tell... are you being ironic here?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Not a full log, but it does require you to state which files have changed and when.
Actually, as has been proved many many times in previous threads, most Slashdoters can't write Hello World and get it right. I'm not even talking 100% C&V ISO C99 standards compliance, I'm talking basic just plain compiles. I'd be surprised if more than 40% of Slashdoters even know what "Hello World" is.
They are just getting criticised because some developer wants them to do more.
Read this, as I don't feel like typing it again.
You are clueless... You haven't even bothered to read the article...? Typical Slashdot attitude.
vimdiff their asses then. Its hard but not impossible. Certainly easier than writing it yourself.
As I write from my iBook G4 wishing I hadn't spent the money on this thing, or that I could get Airport support for ppc linux.
:)
I read this stuff and think Hey since I got this thing I have been complaining about Safari and Mail since I first booted OSX. I got this computer on the recommendation from some very serious Linux Guru friends and kind of thought less of them ever since.
the fact that Apple is being a parasite on the GPL just adds insult to injury for me. As soon as the warranty is over in December I plan on loading a ppc linux distro on this thing and I potty mouth Apple to everyone including going into the apple store where I bought it. I'll go in and ask questions that they can't answer about X11 support and "Why dose Safari and Mail SUCK so much?" in the loudest voice I can manage w/o screaming or being considered thretting with my 3 year old son in tow whose mantra is "Hey That's Yucky Window$ when he sees a Window$ Logo
I hear that OSX is so helpful in productivity HOW? an OS dose nothing except pass instruction to the processor it's the apps that make the difference. Browsers, and mail clients are important APPS!
I use FireFox and ThunderBird on this Mac.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
The cooperation is one way, Apple takes khtml and modifies it and makes it better, releases changes and its up to the khtml team to figure out what they did. That's what diff was for I though.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Yeah, do it the microsoft way!
1. Use FREE source code from BSD & Darwin.
2. Get lots of FREE BSD & GPL Unix utilities.
3. Use FREE browser source code from KHTML.
4. Beg & plead with MS to continue making Office for Mac.
5. Write the GUI in house and a few other cool apps.
6. Bundle it up and sell it for lots and lots of money and take credit for it all.
You know, this is a really stupid comment, and only possible to make if you have never read the GPL or LGPL.
If they did "all that is legally required and nothing more", it would be like this. A KHTML developer could call Apple and ask for the code, but they would tell him to go fly a kite. If Apple sent someone their derivative work (Safari), it wouldn't come with the code either. All the law requires Apple to do is to make their source available to those who have received Safari from Apple.
And they certainly don't have to use CVS -- they could send it out in the mail on a CD, and they could charge a small fee for the trouble.
Apple may not be an active member of the KHTML team, and lots of people would like them to, but they do a lot more than the license requires.
And what annoys the KHTML developers is not what Apple does per se, but what clueless Slashdotters spout about how great it is that the projects are working together.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
They're not going to take the time to go through Radar and pull their changelists.
---
Click... click... click.
[Commit] click.
"Fixed left eye in acid2 test".
click... click.
(CVS operation succesful)
---
Like it's that hard?
Hint: NO
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
Says an AC who probably knows fuck all about coding.
I now ask you...are you programmers or what??
You make it clear that you most certainly are not.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
It's a problem but it's not one that Apple should be blamed for.
Basically the Apple and KHTML camps are working for different motives. Apple being a corporation works to deadlines in order to sell product and profit. KHTML developers are not, so they have the luxury of rewriting an already working function in order to 'clean it up'.
Uh, what is this "Hello World" you speak of?
Find Nearby Indie Events
Am I missing something? if they are giving complete copies of the changed files.... is it not possible just to run Diff to see what the changes were between versions? Thats what you would have had to have done in the days before CVS... Not ideal... but you can hardly blame apple for doing the absolute minimum they are obliged to! Perhaps instead of whining and complaining they should accept the fact apple is going to do the least it can, and work with/around it... I do hope I'm missing something
Yeah, but it doesn't make the browser work.
What was the point of writing a browser again?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
So why are you all bitching then? If Apple wants to stay on the older base of KHTML and improve that, it's their choice. People bitching that their acid2 mods (haha sounds like some ircii script) don't merge well with their new codebase are asking too much.
Are you not a programmer, or just a really bad one?
Clearly you have absolutely no idea how much code a 6MB file (which may well be zipped) actually is. 6MB worth of source code is probably hundreds of files that have 250 - 500 lines of code (average) per file (if it's only text).
I'm f#$king magic!
Being grateful is a choice entirely up to Apple. If they choose not to, they shouldn't be blamed.
When you shop at a store that is having a bankruptcy sale, and you buy that item for below cost because they need to close shop. You are getting an amazing deal. Do you walk back to the store to show how grateful you are by giving the owner some more money? No. Does the owner bitch and moan that you are some ungrateful SOB getting a great deal at his expense? No.
If you put a price tag on something, then don't cry if it sells for that price. The LGPL is the price tag the KHTML team chose. When someone uses it, you don't complain. If it's enough to cause you grief, then change the terms of the licence.
users DO NOT CARE if your code is 'elegant' and 'easier to mantain', users WANT THINGS TO WORK whether or not they are 'elegant' or 'adequate'.
I stopped using Konqueror ages ago because it just had way too many incompatibilities with sites I visited, I know the sites were non-standard, likely poorly written or written with IE in mind, but if I need them to do my work, I'll find a web browser that renders them properly.
It's really easy for an OSS project to get caught up in 'elegance' and just keep rewriting and rewriting and rewriting things to make it 'clean' or 'modular' code-wise, while the users get fed up with the glacial features development pace and move on to OS/X or Win32 because they actually need to USE the product rather than look at the pretty code.
-- the cake is a lie
Let me start out by saying IANAL. I am basing all the information here on the faq's and lawyers info within our company.
if apple do internal-only builds with *GPL licensed code, they don't have to release anything to the public, do they?
No! The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute. You are allowed to do whatever you want internally.
if that's true, then it's possible there are many things they've put into their version of the KHTML codebase that later on they either don't want to release as *GPL (as they don't have to, being non public released code
That they can NOT do, they must release any code to any GPL licensed software when they distribute the binaries. Of course the GPL only requires that the source be given to the recipients of the binary if they ask. So Apple releasing code to all is actually a sign of good faith.
or find later infringes on someone else's license (say, patent encumbered code) so they then revise that problematic code out.
If Apple licensed a patent, they would have to specify to the licenser that it's going into GPL code and Apple is required to distribute the source to anyone they distribute binaries to.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Proudly, not a programmer.
Pretty code is great. Pretty code that doesn't result in functional software is useless.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
When Stephen Job announced his "I-Minor" McIntosh, it caught my eye. Wanting to buy or build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found cost more than the humble US$499 of the "I-Minor", often much more. To match price with MAC I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.
So here's my question. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my woman asks for the "cute little I-Minor McIntosh with dotMax Tigger OS® that MAC just invented", what real computer can I buy instead?
Safari And KHTML would meet if only they would use an internet dating service. They just have to tell what they are compatible with, and how they can meet in real life.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Mm, but one thing everyone seems to be missing is that they have to offer the source to anyone they've distributed binaries to in the preferred form for making modifications. The article says apple wanted an NDA to view the cvs history, which though it may not seem like it is a part of the source - it's used for understanding and making modifications to the program, developers wouldn't work as well without it. So they have no right to insist on this to people who have a (legit) copy of safari. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one apple customer willing to insist on it.
I am trolling
You have to provide the source in the preferred form for making modifications. If the cvs log is something you'd use when modifying the code - and it seems like it would be, since you need it to do regression tests - then it's part of the source and needs to be distributed.
I am trolling
What does Apple stand to gain from having a better HTML renderer than Linux (or even Windows for that matter)?
Either HTML is portable or it's not, and Apple does not have the market power to succeed with a non-portable version.
The larger the pool of standards-compliant web browsers (whether on Macs, Linux or Windows boxes), the better chance Apple has to complete on a level playing field. As it is, Apple's still in a position to be screwed by websitest supporting non-standard ie-only extension.
So when it comes to KHTML, I ask, why *not* give back.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
What we expect is for them to contribute back to the community,
They have given their patches to the KDE team.
in the terms previously agreed,
They have given their patches to the KDE team in accordance with the LGPL. If the KDE team believes otherwise, then they need to call a lawyer.
so that the community may benefit from the improvements, the same way as the company previously bennefited from the community work.
The KDE team has gotten patches from Apple. How many times does this need to be said?
The LGPL does not mandate that the code be given out in the form of easy-to-use patches, or be accompanied by CVS server logs, or that the developer be required to hold the hand of anyone who wants to fiddle with their code. Apple could just squat out a big tarball of WebCore source with no pointers as to what's been changed. The LGPL doesn't require that code be given out a specific intervals, only "on demand".
Are Apple being assholes about this? Quite possibly. Are they being bad neighbors in the OSS community? Sounds like it.
But Apple is honoring their commitment to the LGPL. You're entitled to the code, and Apple is giving it to you. All of this talk about (L)GPL violations and breaking commitments is just hot air.
Jay (=
the bottom line though is that the code is open, apple is free to use it, and apple is not obligated to hold anyones hand on changes made.
Someone spends years writing some code which X company
Except that should read "Someone spends years writing code and releases it under a licence which allows anybody to modify and distribute said code, given that any modifications are returned to the original author..."
of wasting time on K-whatever?
diff -u khtml_file apple_file
Just how hard is that???
Granted maybe I'm misunderstanding since the article is Slashdotted but it really sounds to me like this is 'not invented here' syndrome more than Apple doing anything nefarious.
The Anti-Blog
Hmm, the normal method of using code is a file with code yes? Sure it makes things easier if there are comments and extra meta data associated with the code, but it isn't nessesary nor is it required. It's possible the changes were never commented to begin with, especially given that these patches aren't finalized yet. Furthermore, extraneous commenting and help that the internal devs don't need is more work overall for Apple. Just as I don't expect the KHTML guys to sit down with me and go through their code line by line when I want to make something, we shouldn't expect that of Apple.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
>>Where in the GPL does it say you have to provide a CVS history?
>Here: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but the "preferred form" wording in the (L)GPL is an anti-obfuscation clause. It means that I have to give you the code in the form that I actually use for development -- no stripping out all the whitespace and comments, changing function names and variables to random strings, etc.
It does not mean that I have to give you the code in whatever form you want.
Besides, CVS server logs are not source code anyways. Or maybe you'd like copies of their email and IM conversations, too?
Jay (=
preferred by who? Preferred for making modifications? Sounds like an editable file to me as opposed to say a PDF or a JPEG.
Should it also be localized in other languages? What if I want it in the assembly?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Apple abides by the law, and people get pissy over it
Apple may have complied with the law requirements. But the law was really weak in this sense. The point of releasing the code is to HELP OTHERS understand the changes you've done.
If you don't do that, it's a dead law. It's like if you obfuscate some code that you found in a GPL project, and release the obfuscated changes. Is that a good thing?
It's like if someone took the Linux kernel (1.0) and made so many changes that it doesn't look like linux anymore. Among those changes there is a bugfix. Can you just distribute the code for the *FINAL* version and expect the Linux contributors to understand it?
I'll put this in 3 words to help others understand Apple's attitude towards Safari and KHTML.
"So long, suckers!!!"
cout "hello worl"d;
Doh!
Revision history is indeed helpful but what you really need is the ability to easily tag all the files with a single version number and be able recreate any version of the project. For that kind of functionality you need a better tool than CVS.
It's a legitimate point. Look at Safari vs. Konqueror, and see which one is better for an end user. Safari has been for a while and continues to pull further ahead. It appears that where the rubber meets the road, Apple is doing things right
I am pretty sure that butt apples are bad.
Understandable. However, if the Konqueror people really want CVS history, perhaps their license should reflect this.
given that any modifications are returned to the original author...
Given to their users, not to the original author. Read the GPL.
Je ne parle pas francais.
All this talk is about the rendering engine used in Safari/Konqueror, both are based upon KHTML.
I dont see why it would not be "relatively" easy to take the Apple KHTML engine and use it instead of the KDE KHTML engine in Konqueror.
I dont see any reason that Konqueror could not run with either KHTML engine compiled/linked in.
If the KDE team wants to be standards compliant now they can take advantage of the Apple code, it they are too attached to their on KHTML code then they can be standards compliant a year or more from now. The latter really does not make much sense.
If your point is that bad programmers favor functionality over refactoring, I disagree.
Your attitude reminds me of the old joke:
Q: "How do you finish a project?"
A: "You shoot the engineers"
Very often I have the impression that the people working on certain projects never actually use their program. /.)
One giveaway is when screenshots contain dummy examples.
There are two sides - a program that is perfect for the programer, and one that is perfect for the user. The right balance is not the "perfect for the programer" side. But - the people working on such projects do it because they like programming - and I can't really complain. All I can do is contribute myself (and bitch on
Safari is Satan's browser, as far as I'm concerned. It's hell to develop DHTML for once you get past intermediate DHTML and into more advanced stuff.
I see nothing good about this browser:
- It is bound to OS version (like MSIE on Windows) so if you want to do comprehensive QA testing on all versions you need a dedicated box running now-obsolete OS's just to test.
- Its "performance" optimization have resulted in some DHTML oddities surrounding when and how things get loaded on the page which differ greatly from MSIE, Mozilla, ECMA and W3C.
- It has the most god-awful script error messaging system I've seen since Netscape 2. Not joking about this, it's literally as bad as Netscape 2 in this area, just ten years newer.
- And for fuck's sake, why does the world need yet another browser? Why not just re-skin Mozilla and be done with it?
At work I refer to this piece of shit as "Satan's Browser" and everybody knows what I'm talking about. Go ahead and flame me if you want, but if you defend this thing, you're either bought and paid for by the Apple propaganda machine or you're not a client-side developer and don't know the pain I'm talking about.Thats exactly what MS tried to do with java. They licensed a version and never really updated it, just changed it here and there, so it eventualy went out of date and incompatable with Sun's up to date java. Unfortunatly for Sun MS's old version was already installed on every desktop computer because it came with windows. Sun took 'em to court and won, which is why MS doesn't include any version of java with windows anymore.
Classic embrace and extend.
At some point it seems like they have to do a re-synch to get more in line with what you are doing, or they're not going to be able to patch in changes you make either - is that in the works at some point?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One is a web browser, one is a programming language. So yeah, this is EXACTLY like that.
There is no flamebait in the comment, and there is no way it could have been overrated.
Please quit knee-jerk modding things down just because you disagree!
I don't test against Safari. Firefox is cross-platform. I write my stuff to run on Firefox and test it against IE. Using Firefox as the base guarantees it will display the same on more than one platform.
Actually, I RTFA when somebody linked to it in the last Slashdot story. Since a lot of the KDE websites fall over when anybody gives them a second glance, TFA is inaccessible.
I was going on memory, sure, but as I recall, TFA was very dismissive of Apple in tone, and while it might not have said that Apple were in the wrong explicitly, the opinion of the author was quite apparent.
Few reasons.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I choose settings X,Y,Z in KDE, I will then have to configure them again in Mozilla. Some settings may not even be available.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I want to use an HTML rendering engine inside of a KDE app, I'd have to devise a hacked up way to connect it to Mozilla.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. I'd have to load yet another 70 MB on my system. Not only is it wasteful, but it also takes more time to start up. And if I'm lucky, I may even get to deal with dependency issues.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. Have you ever tried to use it as a file manager? If not, consider yourself lucky.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. The Konq sidebar allows the application to be much more flexible than mozilla... such as the ability to browse my media (amaroK module), folder heirarchy, etc. not just my history.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. All of the widgets rendered flow nicely with the rest of KDE, and perform the same way. For instance, all of my text boxes are spell-checked by default.
And then there are a few other things that don't matter quite as much (Like integrationNot that you have to like it. I, however, do.
I wasn't assuming they were American, I was saying that sue first, think later is a typical American attitude.
The article says apple wanted an NDA to view the cvs history, which though it may not seem like it is a part of the source - it's used for understanding and making modifications to the program, developers wouldn't work as well without it.
It doesn't seem like part of the source because it isn't. Developers would probably work better if they used the same IDE as the Apple developers too, but the LGPL can't be used to get free IDEs.
"Preferred form" does not mean "accompanying material that can help in development".
Your attitude reminds me of the old joke:
Q: "How do you finish a project?"
A: "You shoot the PHB"
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
What Microsoft did was take a programming language that was supposed to be truly cross-platform, and change it so that programs written to run on their interpreter wouldn't run on any non-Microsoft JVMs. Allowing this to happen would make Java completely worthless, or at least would make Sun's implementation worthless after Microsoft used its OS monopoly to make its form of what it called "Java" the de facto standard.
KHTML just renders web pages. If Apple was making changes such that pages written to look good in Safari stopped working in Konqueror, your analogy might hold water. And in that case, Apple truly would be doing exactly what MS did, but what they did with IE, not with their Java implementation. Quite frankly, though, I don't think anyone at Apple is dumb enough to think web designers are going to start coding specifically for Safari, with its tiny market share, the way they did for IE. And I'd hope they're not dumb enough to want to break the web even more than it is by trying to move people away from standards even if they could.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Okay, I'll keep it simple for you. Since you comment against something you proudly know nothing about, I keep it at the lowest level. Imagine a checkbook register with hastily entered dollar amounts that you couldn't read what you wrote a day after writing it. At the time you wrote those numbers they worked for you. But later when you tried to add the deposits and debits you couldn't read it correctly and so you bounced checks. That's what happens when the code ain't pretty, after awhile it becomes unmaintainable. Like the before mentioned checkb ook.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Or even read just the Slashdot summary. You will find this quote:
'All I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There's absolutely nothing great about it. In fact "it" doesn't exist.'
This KDE developer is frustrated because people misunderstand the contribution (or absence thereof) Apple is making to KHTML; he's not flaming Apple or suggesting Apple's duty is to be more helpful to the KHTML people.
what he meant was let's say apple forked KHTML. Added text-to-speech code, and updated their CVS tree, so it's now at version 2. later found out that their method they developed internally infringed on patents, so in version 3 it was gone again. Releasing the 'history' of that would release code that is patent encumbered under the GPL and would NOT be good. It was never in a binary that was released to public, so it has no requirements to be under the GPL.
From the bottom of my heart, screw you! Ass.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
It is a shame that people interpret that a license defines not only a minimal committment, but it defines the only committment. Why isn't the relationship instead judged by people's sense of whether Apple is taking advantage of open-source for their own corporate greed? Sure, Apple doesn't have a legal obligation, but maybe we should all believe they have a social obligation. Because when we benefit from the hard work of others, we should return the karma.
C'mon Apple, you can do better. Otherwise, you look just like an MS clone. But even then, MS has the decency to invest in their own browser, instead of poaching on open-source for one. What was the last positive contribution you have made to the community?
Why is everybody missing this KHTML developer's point? It's right there in the short Slashdot summary. He acknowledges that Apple is fulfilling their legal obligations by providing the modified files. But they're not providing any help at all in making their changes useful to the KHTML team. So, there's no "collaboration" at all from Apple's side. That's all. He's not even flaming Apple. If anyone, he's flaming people who misunderstand this situation.
yes yes, but I invoke the same cynical appeal to the obvious to say... of course a FORK is going to generate complaints, especially in the case of the forker being a corporate forker.
forking forkers!
(xemacs is still better)
-pyrrho
Not quite - the highlighted bit should read "on request, to anybody who asks", or "to the customer, when they receive the binary".
The GPL requires:
Okay exact was the wrong word. What I meant was if Apple makes big improvements to khtml and is being as uncooperative as possible on purpose then they are attempting the same kind of thing(embrace and extend).
Hey, I resemble that!
Many times I have scratched my head looking at the simple, stupid program I wrote just a week ago and wondered: 20 bugs in 10 lines of code? How is that even possible?
Example:
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
Sorry, gotta call BS on that.
For one thing, KHTML is saving them money, since it gave Apple a great basis for a browser by which they could (at least partially) unhitch themselves from their direct competitor, who otherwise had them by the nuts on browsing.
Secondly, many computer science projects rely on academia for fundamental algorithms etc., and that generally works just fine.
In IT, just as in science, cooperation works, and competition harms not only the wider IT culture, but the individuals who try to go proprietary. And no, MS didn't get where they by going proprietary, they did that by monopolistic practices which have been ruled illegal in courts of law.
Well, you must have a different definition of "old" then I do. The term PHB is fairly new.
In any case, I think most PHB's have the opposite problem; they want to ship the product too soon.
Theyre NOT trying to make it hard. They're just not expending additional effort to explain they're changes.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Quote from article:
Within four days (and before the end of the marathon) the two had a working port: Gecko running on Qt.
http://dot.kde.org/1094924433/
assholes!
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
God, I hope you don't write software for a living. Making "pretty code," as you say, is a large part of what a good software developer does. Would you tell an engineer designing a bridge: "Maybe instead of making straightforward, easy to understand designs, you should just go ahead an build the fucking bridge"?
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Because they didn't fly a babysitter tech lead over to walk the KHTML team through the changes, you're trying to make them look like the aforementioned.
Nobody is asking them to do this. In fact, nobody is even bitching at apple here. The article simply posts about how people (with attitudes such as yours) everywhere are claiming apple is doing all this good work on KHTML. The reality however proves they aren't.
Nobody wants apple to fly in a babysitter. They just want to be included in their project. Something they aren't currently allowed to do. They just want to see the cvs logs. They just want to work with apple on a solution rather than forking the code base.
If you are fine with the fork, more power to you. But don't claim it isn't a fork. It is. And that is what the article is about. Any discussion outside of talking about the fork and how to improve it is not related to this article and thus should be modded off topic.
Therefore, your post is off topic. Not to mention it is completely insulting to everyone who has worked on or supported KHTML.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Well, confusion on this point is probably the result of Apple using open source as a marketing gimmick:
While it is doubtlessly good for Apple customers that Apple uses standard and high-quality open source components, they seem to have forgotten about the "contributing useful stuff back to the community" part that goes along with it. Oh, they put out a lot of code, but it's usually not useful: their gcc hacks haven't been useful, their KHTML hacks haven't been, Darwin isn't used much or very useful, etc.
So, we people understand that Apple is a business and doesn't want to help other companies. Now, if only they could be more honest about it in their marketing materials.
Preferred by Apple developers in this case.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Actually, Sun first sued MS before MS stopped updating Java.
Sun decided that allowing Windows programmers to create non-portable Java applications optimized for Windows was more onerous than losing the opportunity to have Java be a significant development language for Windows. IMHO that was a strategic error.
Stop me if you've heard this one before. A group of developers is having a hard time working with another group of developers because while they are getting code changes, they aren't getting metadata from the source code system that would give some context to those changes. Wait, did I hear someone in the crowd say the word? Yes, there is is. Bitkeeper.
So Linux developers were having hard(er) time working on Linux because they couldn't get the metadata from Bitkeeper. KTHML developers are having a hard(er) time because they can't get the metadata from CVS. Sounds like a pretty similar story to me. I ask, to open the discussion: Is it time to start considering metadata to really be "a part" of the code, something that should be considered when releasing code?
And yes, I RTFA, I know that's not his complaint, but it's come up a lot here anyway by people who didn't understand that he wasn't complaining about that, so obviously it's something people care about. And it came up because though it wasn't the point of his complaint, he did mention it, so it's obviously something he cares about too.
I'm not sure about that. From what I understand, open source doesn't mean you have to give other people everything verbatim, and explain the changes. You have to make available the source you based your code on.
False. You don't even have to make the sources available under many open source licenses. For example, Apple is under no obligation to make any of the BSD-licensed code that they ship available, but they do (but for KHTML, which is LGPL, they are required to).
Apple seems to make very few generally useful contributions to open source projects as far as I can tell. Most of the stuff they put out open source is stuff that enhances the value of their platform and only their platform. That's self-serving and doesn't make Apple "the good guys".
That would be fine, but Apple is trying to present itself as a contributor and supporter of open source, not just a user. And that seems like a misrepresentation. And it's not just that, Apple actively tries to market OS X against Linux, claiming (incorrectly) things like that OS X is "the better Linux".
people suck. work sucks. computers suck.
what do you think happens when people work on/with/for computers?
The suckitude is cubed!!!
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
Flamebait and Overrated? Oh come on, I can make far worse comments about Mother Teresa on slashdot and get modded as funny.
"Are we supposed to bow before their nobility and thank them profusely for the quarter they tossed into our collection bowl from the window of their limo?"
So you're saying that people who willingly put their time into developing free software knowing full well that they aren't going to be paid for their effort deserve more than they actually asked for in the license agreement, and that somehow makes Apple evil?
Yes, Safari is not KHTML, it's a fork based on a common code base (which is a rather obvious result of Safari using native OS X APIs I would have thought), and although Rusin has a good point about the impenatrability of large slabs of code (and the grandparent poster is indeed an idiot for not understanding this), Apple are nonetheless fulfilling their legal obligations as Rusin himself mentions. Its just shows why you need to be careful what you ask for and how you ask for it; assuming you're going to get anything more is simply naive.
And I think you have missed a critical point: Apple do not exist to advertise other people's wares. The fact that they advertise an association with KHTML is not really an advantage for Apple, since Apple users tend to care less (a lot less) about proprietary software than Linux users, and will tend to stick with what is most convenient. OSS benefits more: its an example to business that open source code is of considerable quality and can be used to add value to a commercial product without necessarily sacrificing a competitive advantage (and I'd point out the LGPL is written to allow this). This advantage for the wider OSS community will be lost if the message is drowned out by whining about how companies adopting OSS as a code base don't do more than the license specifies: those companies will be reluctant to adopt OSS if they fear a backlash that isn't based on any written condition (and therefore isn't predictable). You have to remember that the bulk of people who make the critical decisions are more aware of politics than they are of coding...
I'm not saying that Rasin's view isn't justified, or that he isn't completely right about Apple's lack of meningful reciprocity, just that over-reacting to these things is potentially very damaging politically (in other words, it really does make OSS advocates look like a bunch of inconsistant cranks). So rather than blaming Apple for abiding by the terms of the license (albeit minimally), perhaps it might be better to blame the wording of the license as not being specific enough about making source code usable?
Blank until
a flying fuck what apple does. What pisses him off are clueless assholes who keep spouting how great Apple is for making KHTML better, and how the KHTML Devs are so lazy because Safari had x feature yesterday and why the hell isn't it in KHTML already, cause Apple works so well with the KHTML team.
He's setting the record straight that the Apple Safari team ISN'T working well with them, they just drop huge batches of changes in a single diff, with no rhyme or reason. It's more work for the KHTML guys to figure out these patch bombs, than it would be to reimplement them from scratch.
He wants clueless asshats to quit talking about how great Apple is for releasing all their wicked cool Safari features back to the KHTML team.
to me it looks as if that devs beef is actually with most here who comment about how Apple is cool about what is going on while the khtml guys suck for complaining. rtfa, guys :)
Parent really is *informative*. And despite other posts asking mods to mod parent up, I'm seeing the post being modded *down*. Apple zealots are really amazing.
It is really cool to see apple fanatics go up against linux fanatics. Maybe I should throw a 'this is all M$' fault' into the discussion...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
I have no use for iMovie, iPhoto, or iDVD sory.
Then WHY did you buy a Mac?? One of Apple's strongest selling points is the iLife suite. If you just wanted a Unix-like OS with X11, why didn't you just buy a cheap Dell laptop and install FreeBSD or a Linux distro? You can't tell me that Apple bamboozled you in that regard. Apple might bash Wintel, but they've never claimed to be better / "more-unixy" than BSD or Linux.
I personally use a PowerBook with 10.3.9 and I love it. I use the bundled iLife apps all the time, they let me quickly and easily handle my digital music, photos, and videos. Sure beats having to wrangle with the free alternatives or buying extra software for a Windows system.
I also use X11 and CLI applications, but I could have done that on Windows with Services For Unix and Exceed.
Maybe you should have posted some questions before you bought your computer. Or at least worked with it first. I spent several hours over several months playing with the PowerBooks in the store before I bought mine. I bought it because it exactly met my many needs.
And as a side note, of the 10 or so computer recommendations I've made to friends and family over the past few years, only three have been for Macintosh systems. Use the right tool for the job.
Overview
1. Let NeXT take over Apple.
2. Profit!
Detail
1a Give up on weird and delayed Copland OS.
1b Spend $400M to buy NeXT for their NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP OS, engineers, and Steve Jobs.
1c Make a cheap Mac and keep updating classic Mac OS to keep users and developers happy.
1d Slowly phase out traditional Apple style and software in favor of the NeXT way.
You've probably seen the box art for Tiger. It's only a matter of time before they zoom out the view to show you the rest of the logo.
Agreed. If there were some sort of KHTML based browser for Windows, I'd test with that, but there's not so, things start in Firefox, then get tested in IE and Opera and "fixed" appropriately. (Since fixed generally means broken for IE.)
"...if apple are purposely making it hard to understand the source which they are, by making changes and not posting revisions..."
e /
Which is totally incorrect (RTFA), they are posting revisions, just as large wads of code that the KHTML maintainers find difficult to examine. That's annoying, but it's a far cry from impinging on anyone's freedom, and certainly isn't a violation of the LGPL. But just don't take my word for it, you might want to start looking here http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcor
"Its all about freedom not just sticking to the letter of a license."
It might be for you, but I'm guessing you're not a multi-billion dollar company with a legal obligation to avoid decisions that are detrimental to its shareholders. For a company (which unlike an individual has no inherent moral values or beliefs), it is the letter of the license that matters since not only can the philosophy of management change, but the management themselves can be replaced. Under those circumstances you don't try to double-guess what someone was thinking when a license was accepted, you have to go by what is actually written down because that's the part that is legally enforcable.
The whole point of the written LGPL is to specify exactly the restrictions and obligations for using certain software. Apple are meeting those obligations. If this doesn't suit you then don't advocate the LGPL, and don't bitch that the license doesn't meet your expectations; you are perfectly free to write a license that does suit your philosophy and spells it out exactly so there is no mistake about intent.
Blank until
When someone bases a commercial product on an open source project, they are usually obligated to release the source code to any modifications they make back to the community. This is perhaps a slight flaw in the license as there's no stipulation of *how* the source code is to be released. Apple could perhaps legally release patches as highly obfuscated -- but perfectly functional -- text files. Hell, they could split them up all over the place, strip out the comments and do all sorts of things to make the patches essentially useless to the project whilst still remaining true to the conditions of the license.
IMHO there should be an agreement of conduct in the license somewhere. Patches are to be released back to the project developers for one, not just to the public arena. The patches should be committed to or at least be compatible with the revision control system used by the project developers. They should also be commented, or there should be a prior agreement between the contributor and the project development team that all patches are to be thorougly described so that the team fully understands the workings of the code.
At the moment it looks like Apple is being at best ungracious and at worse an outright thief, looking to benefit from the very hard work of the KDE team and without any intention of adding to the general momentum of the project. Perhaps because ultimately open source desktop environments represent Apple's most dangerous threat on the software front (Microsoft sure as hell don't!).
I made it up, point is why are you making a point with "an old joke"?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Hey, you're one of those guys who when someone gives you an inch you take a mile, right?
Dear KDE dev team,
If we could help you LESS we would, but ITS AGAINST THA LAW.
Yours Truely,
Apple Development Team
PS. thank you for the great, FREE code, we will make large sums of money from it. just look at the buzz around dashboard.
-- this post inspired by the great Chris Rock
thats pretty much my best post ever. I spent like 3 hours typing it.
Apple just wants to take and take and gives shit back. Fuck Apple!
It takes a fair amount of ignorance to say "screw you programmers, I want my quick and dirty feature slapped on with duct tape *now*".
I for one am glad that the KHTML developers are looking out for quality and the long-term health of the project over jumping for every disrespectful whiner with no respect for the process and volunteerism that gave them a choice to begin with.
"Not a full log, but it does require you to state which files have changed and when."
;)
And this information is available through the Apple developer website.
Wait a minute...does this mean the KHTML developers are incapable of actually using a browser?
Blank until
Apple is proving to be as big a bunch of dicks as M$,
only people keep thinking that they are some sort of "higher ground" company. no such thing, steve jobs is just as much of a scumbag as bill gates he just has more flair and knows how to make a computer look pretty. I mean come on! the whole quicktime thing, apple saying that they could not make a Linux version because sorenson wouldn't allow them to? and then sorenson stating that they don't know what apple is talking about! they play games with and crap on the OSS community and like zombies the community glazes it's eyes over talks about how great they are. bah! a pox on apple!
I considered the possibility that you made it up, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
As to why make a point with a joke, well, why not? The fact that it's an old joke implies that people have thought about this issue for a long time.
It might be as made up as mine for one, the other thing is that jokes are funny, but not allways all that insightful, the joke works both ways as you see.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The fact that this is currently modded as -1 is also a big problem for the FOSS crowd. Can't possibly hear a different opinion other than FOSS is good! Apple and MS is bad! Slashdot is open just like Pravda was open.
Typical GPL asswipe...
Nothing satisfies you guys.
Since its so easy to merge patches from safari into khtml, why don't you stfu and do it? Clearly you are so much smarter than the konq developers since you find this such a trivial task, so go ahead and do it. Prove how smart you are. Its open source, you are welcome to help. Or are you really only capable of critisizing others anonymously when you don't even understand what you are talking about?
6. Bundle it up and sell it for lots and lots of money and take credit for it all.
Apple goes out of their way publicly and even explicitly in their marketing to give credit where their base came from. They've contributed back to projects and have released many of their own. Go visit their pages and read. Go visit their open source dev site. Open source projects, specifically those that they've used and like to mention benefit from all this free PR/marketing from a major company. Sometimes they benefit from code sharing too.
Apple started with base of open software that uses open standards. They are still by and large leveraging and promoting open standards (probably the most important thing) and open software even 4 major releases later. Not that we need to be sycophantic or anything, but isn't this something to encourage in a corporate industry of closed everything so one can work toward patenting novel ways to scratch your butt?
Sheesh.
How about you go ahead and do a diff on those, and see the HUGE PILE OF CRAP that you get from it. Diffing two totally seperate codebases with tons of massive incompatabilities does not work. Its easy to post on slashdot and feel 1337 because you figured out diff, but its harder to actually contribute something. This is open source software, if you think its so simple, go fix it and everyone will love you.
Nah. All I expect is for them to stop lying. Nobody has a beef with what apple did. They took some code, forked it and are now not contributing. It's legal, and actually it's the fault of KHTML team for not going with the GPL to begin with. After all GPL would have prevented this.
So all Apple has to do is to stop lying and saying they are helping the KHTML group. Stop lying. Your mom probably taught you that when you were a kid.
evil is as evil does
Are you pissed off at someone, or are you just a salty salty human being?
But they're not providing any help at all in making their changes useful to the KHTML team. So, there's no "collaboration" at all from Apple's side.
:)
So, let me see if I've got this straight.
The KHTML team wrote a bunch of code. It worked, for the most part, but there were numerous areas in which it could be improved regarding standards support and whatever else.
Apple got the code, improved it, and gave the improved version back.
The KHTML team (or at least this particular member of it) is now whining because they can't understand their own code after someone else has made (presumably minor) improvements to it?
WTF? Are we dealing with C-happy Linux hackers here, or first-year CS students? The tone I'm getting is one of "please have your programmer, who you're paying, go over these changes you made, with us, one by one, and explain what you did and how you did it, since it's suddenly all Greek to us."
Personally, I have no expectation of KHTML somehow magically feature-matching Safari, given that Safari developers are paid to work on it full-time, don't have to worry about cross-platform compatibility, and so on. I don't personally know anybody who expects every feature that appears in Safari to quickly make its way into KHTML, but then again, I try to associate with non-delusional sorts.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
One mans "Doing the bare minimum to comply" is another mans "Doing everything requierd of them". .Your problem is not with Apple ,it is with the LGPL license.
If you have a problem with how apple is handling the code releases
Personaly i belive perhaps they could make it a little easier on the KHTML Devs , though they are under no obligation to do this
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Actually I've seen similar complaints on the gcc mailing list about Apple's gcc work, though to a much lesser degree -- it's not that the Apple team is really being unfriendly or trying to hide anything, it's just that they're focused on their own immediate goals (making a release, satisfying the demands of customers [largely other software makers in the case of gcc]). The Apple gcc team does seem to have tried mightily to make things right, but there's still clearly something of an impedance mismatch present.
... and users and deadlines never give you much break.
This is fairly typical of commercial use of FOSS, in my experience: they often want to "cooperate" (in the long run, it's usually to their benefit), but the ugly reality of deadlines and users can interfere greatly, and the longer the code-bases remain out of sync, the harder it is to make things nice again
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Why is it lying? They are implementing features, just not in the context preferred by the KHTML group. I'm sure the apple developers really do feel that they are contributing their source to the ocmmunity. They are probably not using CVS for code management. I wouldn't expect them to do anything but use the apple libraries, and work however they feel is best, seeing as that's their dev. platform.
Look, guys, you've got the source. Doesn't matter what you call it, the source is there. The software is Open and Free in all possible meanings, yet you are still not happy? Complying with GPL is no longer enough for FOSS advocates?
as a developer that has worked with open source projects and developers (from the contributing and organizing sides both), this kind of 'requirement' would be absolutely impossible to enforce.
as an open source developer, you either take what you can get (ie spend the time integrating the changes into the primary build) or you don't.
having patches that are 'compatible with the rcs system used by the original developers' is absolutely ridiculous. this is what diff is for.
trying to enforce things like specific commenting types and 'descriptions of the code' is just ludicrous - you should be happy people provide you with code, period - if it's too difficult to integrate, perhaps the original developers need a better revision control system that has a diff that works?
i can't count the number of days that i have spent integrating code from random developers around the world into our own open source project - could i have developed said features from scratch?
possibly, depending on what is being submitted.
could i have better spent the time doing new development for the project? potentially...
this kind of 'take what you can get' system is the foundation of open-source. you either take the contributions, or you don't.
whining about it because you have a big company that happens to have adopted your program is ridiculous.
there are hundreds of thousands of open source projects out there that would kill for a company like apple to donate code to them.
open source simply requires that they post their changes, not that they provide you with a 1-step integration of their forked code into your who-knows-what-has-changed 'primary' branch.
trying to force people to specifically donate their changes to the specific developer that happened to have posted the original code completely breaks the open-source model as well.
our current generation open-source game engine has gone through multiple lead developers - several of which just 'disappeared' off the face of the earth. being open source, other developers picked up the ball and continued the development of the engine.
in our case, the underlying graphics engine is owned by a company that has zero interest in supporting the open-source community (they bought the technology after it was open sourced) so this kind of forced submission process just will not work in the real world.
not only will it not work, but if the 'official' development team decides not to implement the code changes, who knows - perhaps there is another team out there that WILL integrate the changes...
this is the world of open-source. not every project has a linus at the top with the override of every step of the process.
Gekido's Lair
You're saying that if you can't integrate a 6Mb diff, containing changes for many unrelated purposes, none of which are explained, and many of which you know you don't want to apply (e.g. because they're OSX-specific), you are suddenly a bad programmer?
Non-delusional you say?
No, nothing here makes apple evil. Nobody said they are. The point is that the KDE guys want morons to stop claiming that apple is wonderful and open source friendly and helps them, when it is completely and totally not true. They don't want anything from apple, they want morons to stop spreading lies.
Users don't keep open source projects which depend on code contributions alive so they are unimportant. His Konqueror bashing thus is off topic.
Actually, I think the article cleverly obfuscates the fact that K will not be Acid2 compliant anytime soon. He complains that Apples code sharing is worthless to them as to be non-existant... but what he is really saying is "shut-up" to people saying how K should soon be able to follow Safari with being Acid2 capable...
Which I think he missed what most people were really saying... and that is they hoped Apple would be sharing the code (albeit with the implication that it actually was useful) with the K team and the K team would in turn be able to improve K. He should have just said we can't use Apples stuff as it is too complicated for us to merge back and K won't be Acid2 compliant until someone on our team has time to work on it... which is not likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Which leads me to my last conclusion and that is, it probably isn't much fun to work with this guy... and does nothing to motivate Apples devs to do anything more. It sounds like even if Apple does more... anything short of sharing their cvs files... is still useless to the K team... to which I think Apple has as much right to say "stuff you" back to them. There is no reason for Apple to have to offer access to cvs... I don't see IBM allowing Linus to use their cvs... or Novell opening up their cvs... maybe somebody can point one out... and I may be wrong about Novell... but I am sure it would have been news... if their is a big player out their sharing cvs with an OSS team then maybe Apple could create a special cvs instance for the K team to use... but as everyone has pointed out they don't have too... and in the end this guys complaint is pointed more at slashdotters and really only serves the purpose of saying we ain't gonna do no Acid2.
Let's be frank, folks.
- A bunch of developers finds a bunch of bugs and fix it in their source base.
- They hand you their source base, along with loads of information on where the bugs are, and patches that you can't integrate into CVS HEAD.
And the KHTML team is sitting around bitching about the fact that KHTML != WebCore anymore, and how none of the patches can be run against HEAD...
Ok, I was *at* Netscape at the time. I have no doubt that he and his team continue to bust their asses to ship good code, and they're passionate about doing so.
That is not to say that they:
1) Should feel restricted to KHTML's API. That's not in Apple's best interest, and they're not doing this *for the KDE team or organisation*. It's also not fun - they don't run Linux desktops, or KDE, and don't feel like re-entering Netscape's cross-platform hell.
2) Is KHTML nice and segregated? The whole reason WebCore happened was that KHTML was littered with KDE calls. Now the KHTML team is complaining that the WebCore code is littered with Mac API? Imagine my shock. Really.
3) A bunch of people just gave you a ton of information, bug reports, and example code you can *LIFT OUT AND REWRITE*.
Lazy? You're damn right you are. Disillusioned? Yeah, I'll bet. Apple didn't add developers to the KDE project - they added them to Safari. Any idiot can tell *from the starting point* that the only way the browser would happen was to do in WebCore what the KDE team did in KHTML; utterly fail to abstract platform-specifics from the rendering engine.
Personally? I could wish that some big commercial development house would take an open source product I was on, commercialise the development, submit its source code quarterly for me to scavenge for ideas and code where possible, and for it to remain legal to do so.
Is it "ideal"? What's "ideal"? A bunch of other people bend over backwards to make your codebase a nicer place to live in, so they can throw away their deadlines, fix the fact that you didn't separate out the platform dependency in the first place, and burn money on things in the codebase that don't have *any* outward impact except to make it easier for someone else to suck up the code into their tree?
I'll bet you're frustrated. All those damn clouds keep getting in the way of your panoramic view.
It may not be perfect - but it's more than just a little better than nothing; it's actually a hell of a lot of time and effort spent to give back to the community. Even if, in this specific instance, what's given back isn't instantly reusable by that community.
Meanwhile, you can go back to KDE. Not a bad product, but strangely enough, it's hard to run KDE applications without running KDE. It's hard to develop a KDE application that would/could. If anyone has experience with writing applications in an environment that has to cross APIs with fundamental differences in how they perform simple actions, it's the person you're accusing of... of what? Of not being "helpful enough"? Of not being a KHTML team member? Of not being an Apple employee paid to work on a KDE-specific project?
I'm having a really hard time imagining what the fuck is going on in your head, and I'm just not sure it's worth bothering; I suggest you start a rock band and burn off some of that angst on teenagers who are more likely to think that every word that comes out of your mouth is gospel, rather than the drivel it sounds like to those of us of older generations.
-- A mind is a terrible thing.
Did you miss the part that says LGPL not GPL??
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Didn't someone forsee this and use KHTML licensing to try and avoid this?
Or is this a complaint on technical grounds--Apple is diverging too far in its KHTML fork for the original KHTML fork to use it?
Or something else?
Digital Citizen
It's quite likely that KHTML developers will have to write their own code to pass the acid2 test.
God forbid an open source project will have to reimplement functionality from a commercial developer, in order to ensure compatibility.
(It's a joke, guys.)
...is often more important than code elegance: if you have LOTS of users looking at your product (because it has the features they need) it's going to be very likely that you'll be noticed by more developers, which will bring more features, that will bring more users and so on.
If you try to have a 'perfect' 1.0 you'll never make it, software, by its own nature, is never really 'perfect', there's ALWAYS a better way to do things, especially when new developers come onboard with new ideas and so on. The key is to know when to push for features and when to push for elegance.
I doubt that the kernel would be where it's at today if 'elegance' was the only driver. Of course as time goes by and the software matures it becomes more and more elegant usually (if the design was good in the first place), but you can't expect things to be that way from the beginning if you want anybody to actually get work done with it.
It really drives me nuts when I see open source projects get bogged down in years of 'refactoring' because 'this will enable us to give you the features you really need' only to re-release basically the same product (with very small user visible changes) after 3 years and then go on another cycle of 'refactoring' because in the meantime 'ohhh shiny!!!' new ideas of how to do things 'really' right came up.
Also, again, please stop telling me to 'if you don't like it, code it yourself': I code at work already all day, and like to do other things with my spare time, I'd rather give $70 to Adobe for Photoshop Elements 3.0 than suffer with the Gimp's limitations, it's just way more cost effective for me, and I assume for tons of others giving how much money Adobe is making.
It's also quite sad how a cheap (in $$$) program like Elements is SO much more leaps and bounds better than something that the FOSS community has been working on for so many years.
Although the reverse is usually true for server apps (Apache, PostgreSQL, perl, php, etc. etc.) when it comes to applications the average user actually is exposed to, the FOSS community doesn't fare that well in general (Firefox is a notable exception).
-- the cake is a lie
this looks pretty easy to understand to me it's all laid out in nice small txt files and the link to each txt says exactly what the patch does. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005 _04.html#008042
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
I just grabbed the WebCore source code and in short, no, they aren't. So technically Apple is in violation of the LGPL (section 2b) and as such their license to distribute, link with, etc.... KHTML is automatically terminated (section 8).
Please do not post any further comments referring to "butt apples." The GNAA was bad enough.
Well, this is hardly news. Apple, of course, is in the business of selling software (and hardware). Seems to me they'll take what they can get away with, and give away as little as they can get away with.
For those of us who hail Apple as the saviours of the world, we have certainly gained from the ability to run open source software on OS X, but the record doesn't show many instances (or any that I personally know of) where Apple has reciprocated by putting significant efforts into the public domain.
FireFox may be the best browser available for Windows, but it's more on the low end for *nix platforms.
Luke-Jr
So Safari is a fork of KHTML then? Fine. Again, I don't want to hear anyone talk about how great Apple is because they give back so much to the open source community.
Since when is doing a fork not "giving back"?
The whole point of open source is that anybody can do anything they pleases with the code. I.e., the license not aimed to protect the rights of the original developers, but to protect the freedom of the subsequent users/developers to do what they want with the code, including making a fork.
If the KHTML developers don't like the changes Apple made, they are free to not put them back into their project, and let Safari branch out on its own. What's the big deal? Oh, turns out they want the functions added, but didn't like the way it is done? Tough luck, I say, life is not always how you want it to be.
If the KHTML developers don't like that, then they better not use an OSS license in the first place and then complain when people actually use the rights granted by the license!
OTOH, if Apple refuses to release the source of Safari when they distribute the binary then we have a valid complain. As long as the binary isn't distributed, we don't even have grounds to tell Apple to give us the source code! Much less give it in a way we like.
Oliver.
They are making empty gestures. They are giving back useless code.
evil is as evil does
True, but at least it isn't Safari or OSX! Now scrolling with them really sucks ass.
What you should be asking yourself is "why not read the article?"
Apple has given back the changes. Apple has even built a new framework around KHTML. What Apple hasn't done is do all the integration work for the KHTML people. Who are now whining about how hard the changes are to work back in.
The KHTML team doesn't seem to be working very hard, so a fork happens. Forks happen. They rarely stop at one, either. I expect sooner or later we'll see another fork of KHTML that will try to bring the Apple changes onboard, and will thus leap over the existing KHTML project.
But in the meantime, we get to hear the lamentations opf the lazy.
Sure are a lot of apple apologists in this article, and a majority of them missing the point.
Guess they get so worked up in writing their long winded rants and blind praises of apple that they don't have the time to RTF summary!
While I wish him luck on fixing the problems apple dumped on him with no help at all, I also want to thank Zack Rusin for tying to open the eyes of these fanboys and inform them that things are not that lovely between apple and the open source community.
Too bad they will be missing the point, won't read the summery, and due to this being perceived as an attack against the holy apple, they will just launch into attack mode. All ready there are a bunch of posts saying that this is all KHTML's fault, and that apple is always right.
This is a valid concern but it hardly applies to the KDE project, which is consistently releasing quality software at a rate matched by no other open-source project that I know of. KHTML improves noticably with every release. I'm sorry the rate isn't fast enough for you, but accusing the KHTML developers of becoming bogged down in refactoring is just silly. The only thing slowing KHTML development is a lack of qualified and interested coders, which is a problem many projects face. If you don't want to help, then stop your backseat software engineering.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Easily merged? Key word is "Suitable back-end graphics library"
A friend of mine is working on a data analysis tool that connects to various databases, Oracle, DB2, and he needs to support some complex features that not all the databases support. So now he needs to implement them himself. This I think is similar to how Eclipse SWT works - if there is native support use that, else write your own.
Not so easy.
But it either way, seems like Apple could be doing a better job than dumping off a diff tar ball. Talk about merge hell. And uncommented code? Certainly does not show Apple in a positive light here, and it's curious whether they approach FreeBSD in the same way.
Forked code bases are hard to keep in sync. Duh. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are problems keeping Safari and KHTML synced up.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
And from this Apple e-mail, you can see the expectations set by Apple were more than doing just enough to fulfill their LGPL obligations. Are they really committed to open source (GCC, FreeBSD, KHTML, ...), or is it more of a one-way street?
whats wrong with taking gay code, doing a diff, and spending a few hours or so, for a few days, comparing notes on a new man? i really don't understand the puss, so please someone enlighten me
seems to me this is just a matter of bad buttlove. my man gets the cool-hits for passing the condomless test, the straight guys are just pissed coz theirs are the giants buttcheeks gays stood on
"the joke works both ways as you see."
Well you can certainly reverse some jokes as you did the one I told, but if the punch line doesn't ring true (as was the case with your reversal IMHO) the result is neither funny or insightful.
The KDE specific code was useless, Apple made it useful to them. There's a lot of useful code that's sending back, it's just not in a cute little package for them. So much whining and wankery.
- oZ
// i am here.
You Mactard!
...you fuckin' Maczealot!
...you Mactard!
...civility costs nothing, and it helps generate the impression that you are a thinking human being.
"No, nothing here makes apple evil. Nobody said they are."
So the "quarter from the limo" line was really a compliment then? That sounded like a standard corporation bashing cliche to me, and I honestly don't think it was warranted under the circumstances given that the dev's gripe isn't with Apple as such.
"The point is that the KDE guys want morons to stop claiming that apple is wonderful and open source friendly..."
I for one made no such claim (that's one), and thank you, I did RTFBlog. However, I wasn't responding directly to the blog: the point that I was making is that if noisy members of the OSS community are going to respond with sarcastic rants (as the AC I was responding to did) when a company does meet it's obligations under the LGPL, then all OSS supporters are going to be tarred with the same lunatic brush and ignored. Frankly, I don't see irrational over-reactions being in any way productive or helpful to the wider acceptance of OSS; they certainly doesn't reflect well on the intellect or maturity of the person making the comments.
If you had read past my first paragraph rather than irrationally over-reacting, you'd find I actually agree with Rusin: that's what I meant when I (mis)typed "meaningful reciprocity". Apologies if my polysyllabism resulted in a lack of comprehension on your part, or my verbosity exceeded your capacity for concentration (I don't wish to cause offence, hence the need for obscurity).
"They don't want anything from apple..."
I never said they did (that's two. Who needs to learn to read, and who's a what now?). The AC's implication was that Apple have added nothing of value to KHTML beyond "a handful of press releases", or should be doing more than they're obliged to under the LGPL. Considering Apple's reputation for being industry leaders (deserved or not), I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the benefit to the credibility in business for KHTML (and OSS in general) of being chosen as their code base. You may not think credibility is as important as technical superiority (I don't), but a world of Windows users obviously disagree; when a multi-billion dollar company adopts a piece of software not just for internal use but as the basis of a highly publicized product, other companies tend to sit up and take notice. I'm not claiming Apple are the first to adopt OSS (far from it), I'm just saying they are the most visible consumer machine supplier, and as such really are a showcase of ways of using OSS in a multitude of business roles.
"...they want morons to stop spreading lies."
The difference between a moron and a liar is that the moron is genuinely misinformed, while being a liar takes real cunning. Choose one.
BTW, did you know your subject line helped proved a theory? http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19
Blank until
It is nice you use Firefox and you care about how things look on the majority of browsers, but you are going about this all wrong. The way you are doing things is no better than the jackasses that test against IE and go "oooh, it works in IE, it's perfect", and then leave broken-ass shitty markup lying around the web. How about your write to the standards, and then test against Firefox, then against IE, (and Opera too), instead of writing with Firefox in mind then fixing things for IE. Remember, Gecko is not perfect, KHTML is not perfect, Opera is not perfect, and as we all know, IE definitely is not perfect. Using browsers as a basis for the validity and workability of your markup is a Bad Idea (TM) in /any/ situation. With the tone of my reply, I don't think I need to say that you should validate your markup.
You obviously work on a grand total of a couple thousand lines of code at work, if at all, and aren't working in a source control managed environment.
Jesus christ, this shit gets modded up?
c'mon, stop whining. It is how it is:
Apple took a lot of code and gives back nothing useful. That's their right and Zack is not complaining about that. He don't care and apparently other khtml devs don't care too. All they want is spreading truth:
Safari is fork and khtml is on its own.
Apple is not "being constantly publicly badmouthed". If they are not helping khtml why should we lie that they do? If Apple think it is "bad press" let them do otherwise.
Robert
So the "quarter from the limo" line was really a compliment then?
No, it is just close to the facts. Apple did nothing to help khtml, just forked their project. Is it that good for khtml devs? I doubt it.
It is like your very rich neighbour borrowing sugar from Yuo from time to time, but when You came to him and ask for some salt, he sais "no". Do he has any obligation to help You? No. Is it evil to not help You? No.
But is it nice? certainly not.
Robert
The quarter from the limo line is pretty accurate isn't it? Apple is a wealthy corporation, and we should not kiss their ass or claim they are heros because they meet their obligations as minimally as they can. Why are you so desperate to not only defend big corporations who do nothing for you, but also to be insulted for them by proxy?
You're wrong: they do make the browser work. With messy and unmaintainable code, you may have 2 new features today, but adding 10 more features tomorrow may be difficult to impossible. With clean maintainable code, you might have 1 more feature today, but tomorrow you can have 5 more and the day after tomorrow 20 more, because you can maintain it without too much trouble. In the long term, clean and maintainable benefit users a lot more.
Are you unable to grasp this, or are you are you just an elitist anti-programmer zealot? My guess is you're the latter. You show disrepect towards programmers only because they are programmers. This will ultimately destroy you. I can already see it now:
You: *ring*
Company X: "Hello, Company X customer service. How can we help you?"
You: "You bunch of fscking morons! I'm gonna shoot all your developers!!!! DEVELOPER = NAZI!!!"
Company X: *hangs up*, *revokes your license*, *calls police*
So, finally, we learn the ugly truth about GPL, Open Source and Free Software. All the theory about how nice it was to read the code is bull, Not even progammers can read the code and understand what it does!. With that comment all open source/free software development should stop and the geeks should go home and think it over...
It pretty much does. It means any derivative of the original gpl work that is used when modifying the program. You can't use it to get IDEs because the IDE is not derived from the original khtml code apple took, but their cvs log is - it's completely based on that source and would make no sense without it. Things like comments and even specifications are part of the source - if you distribute gpled source with the comments stipped or without some accompanying function spec sheet you're violating your license. If it's something derived (legally, which means anything that depends on it) from the program that their developers use to modify the program, it's something they need to distribute
I am trolling
Dude, Firefox is not standards-compliant. I don't care if it works in FireFox, if it's not a bug in Safari and it breaks on it, it's your fault (and responsibility to fix).
Postscript: I'm sure someone's going to say that FireFox is among the most standards-compliant browsers, and that's true. It will, however, render bad code that other browsers might not.
Whoa whoa whoa! Settle down, Beavis! "Elitist anti-programmer zealot"? Wow. What a silly thing to be "anti" about.
I'm NOT an anti-programmer zealot. I'm also glad I'm not a programmer: It's a job that I would be bad at. I don't have the mindset for it, and I'm glad that there are other people that do.
"Ultimately destroy me"? You need to take a deep breath.
I was, however, pointing out an important distinction. Pretty code does not yield usable applications. If you are a programmer, and your goal is to make pretty code, not usable applications, you are masturbating.
Which is, of course, just fine: Jack off all you want.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
>No cooperation that deserves that name and a clear sign
>that Apple still hasn't understood how Open Source works.
>They could have done better.
As a Mac devotee since I ordered my first one in 1984, I'm sad to say that I'm afraid that Apple is straying from the path of the righteous in too many areas lately. Those lawsuits, and now this failure to cooperate with open source, are both symptomatic of thinking diametrically opposed to the spirit that nurtured the cult of the Mac in the first place.
Sad.
the IDE is not derived from the original khtml code apple took, but their cvs log is - it's completely based on that source and would make no sense without it.
Their CVS log is not a derivative work any more than a film review is a derivative work of the film it reviews. A CVS log is mere commentary.
if you distribute gpled source
Please be at least marginally informed about the topic. We are not talking about GPLed source.
If it's something derived (legally, which means anything that depends on it)
What is your basis for stating that the legal definition of derivation is "anything that depends on it"? Omniweb, for example, depends on KHTML code, and is entirely proprietary.
My goal is to make pretty code *and* usable applications. They're not mutually exclusive you know. In the long term, they're even interrelated.
Its also a huge difference in goals. For KDE KHTML used QT libraries to become a library for Konquerer which is a browser / file manage for a cross platform app. For Apple KHTML is a library component of another library set (Webcore) which is an platform specific library for designing web enabled applications Safari being an example. Apple's KHTML uses a mini-QT clone not even QT itself.
I don't find it hard to believe they have trouble working together even if they had the same culture. The only way this would have worked well is if Apple and KDE had worked together very closely on designing and implementing joint KHTML goals.
"Apple did nothing to help khtml, just forked their project. Is it that good for khtml devs? I doubt it."
/. is going to be more effective at convincing business that open source is viable than a billion dollar company adopting it as the basis of a heavily publicized product? Dream on. Remember, Windows is only as popular as it is because it's what people use at work, it's what they know, so they use it at home. If you want wider adoption of OSS it has to make inroads into the business world so end users can actually see for themselves that it really is better; there are more factors to consider than just technical superiority (hence my sig).
So you think a few thousand ACs spewing vitriol on
"Is it evil to not help You? No. But is it nice? certainly not."
I didn't say Apple were being nice, just that they were doing what was required under the LGPL (echoing Rusin, in other words). Is that Apple's fault, or is the LGPL at fault for not being specific enough? Corporations have never done anything simply to be "nice", and Apple is no exception; what mental deficiency is causing people to think this has suddenly changed?
Blank until
No I am not a programmer, but I have CONTINUALLY as of late started to see this if you don't play my way it's the highway crap in FOSS projects. Whining because so and so does not do things the way you want them. It has to stop at some point. Obviously Apple Developers have something here. It seems, to me, you should go with the ones who are making the most progress. The guys who manage the KHTML project need to seriously look at the things that Apple has done. May be even go to the point of just examining thier stuffand not workin on your own? I don't know. Time after time I have seen X project complaining about the way X company is submitting patches and diffs. Cooperation is a two way street.
Gorkman
I am not strongly opposed to corporations, I am strongly opposed to people praising them for no reason, and sticking up for them when they don't need or deserve it.
I've made it as clear as humanely possible: I am not complaining about apple, I am saying stop acting like they are nice, they have not done anything to help open source.
If you can only ignore everything I say just so you have something to argue about, then feel free to do it by yourself, you don't need me.
It's far closer to a cast list or continuity log. It's based entirely on the code and used when modifying the code. It's a part of the program.
Please be at least marginally informed about the topic. We are not talking about GPLed source.
They are distributing LGPL source, and all the terms about distributing the source are the same between the LGPL and GPL, it's only that the LGPL does not require all derivatives to be distributed under itself.
What is your basis for stating that the legal definition of derivation is "anything that depends on it"? Omniweb, for example, depends on KHTML code, and is entirely proprietary.
That's a simplification of the legal definition but it's pretty accurate. Omniweb is a legal derivative of khtml and only allowed to be propriety because khtml's license permits it to be.
I am trolling
1, 2, 3: yup.
4. Beg & plead with MS to continue making Office for Mac.
Beg and plead? Microsoft makes money hand over fist with the Mac version of Office. No pleading necessary.
5. Write the GUI in house and a few other cool apps.
Yup.
6. Bundle it up and sell it for lots and lots of money and take credit for it all.
Okay, where has Jobs taken credit for writting Office, inventing Unix, writting BSD, or developing all the command line utilities. Take all the time you need to come up with some sites, but if you don't get back to us, we'll just assume you're an asshat speaking out of your butt.
Oh, and you forgot #7: Apple releasing some of their own code under open licenses, and giving their bug fixes back to the open source community.
The misperception is that anyone anywhere at anytime wants to hear what you think.
Go epoxy your fingers together. Seriously.
The Moral of the Story is that if you want companies that use your code to share all the modifications with you then use the GPL.
There is a fashion of trying to be clever and use other licences that do not protect fully you. This is naïve. Condoms are boring but give the most protection. The GPL may seem boring but it has a proven track record that and it has been challenged but never been defeated in court.
Apple took advantage of the LGPL and didn't share all the modifications: had KHTML been licenced under the GPL, they wouldn't have be able to do that.
Remember that the GPL is God's Preferred Licence.
My little Linux and tech blog