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.'"
Boo hoo. That guy needs to take a chill-pill.
Presumably, someone at Apple has to do additional work to do more than the bare minimum. Therefore, it would cost Apple money to do this. The KDE guys work for free. Apple says "let them handle it." Makes sense.
Geez, the open source community is about as ungrateful as it gets. They beg and plead for real businesses to use open source, and when they do, they're threatened with litigation if so much as a single source file goes missing or sneered at if detailed instructions outlining the process of merging two complicated code bases together isn't present.
And why should Apple do that, if you want a CVS history, go to cvs.com and click on "Company History".
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. --
They don't provide a CVS history, just the modified files where nobody can understand how and when things have changed
diff is your friend.
Haven't they released the source?
Apple has complied with the license. I now ask you...are you programmers or what?? I have programmers at work that, when given time, can step through about anything. Even a 6 MB file. I know the KDE Project has more then just KHTML, but at some point, you will want to look at Apple's code. They may have something you don' need to write. Is the code commented? If so, you have a leg up on the corporate types. There's MANY times where we had to rewrite stuff cuz the initial code was not understandable. This happens in all large projects be the open or not. Apple IS cooperating. Maybe the KHTML guys should just take a step back, finish the stuff they are working on, and start looking at Apple's code. Maybe, just MAYBE they have something you've been working on. I know I know....this does not seem as fun or glamourous, but would you not hate working on somethng that Apple's already got working all because you were too lazy to look at the code changes???
Gorkman
I released my code under a license where others can use it if they release their modified code. Someone is using my code and is then giving me back something that is too complicated for me to understand so I can't use what they did easily. *wah wah wah*
.. I am sick and tired of people complaining when others, especially companies, don't bend over backwards and worship at the feet of somebody when they use their code *AND COMPLY WITH THE LICENSE*. It's my understanding KHTML is GPL. If so, all Apple is legally required to do is make the source code of their changes available somewhere. They don't *HAVE* to send it back to the original project, but they do. From what I understand, this happened before and the KDE people couldn't handle a big scary complicated file from Apple so Apple stepped up and tried to help them. Hmm, i don't recall seeing that required in the GPL either.
Seriously
And, KDE makes a big deal about the KHTML being used in Safari, as much or more so than Apple. If they don't like how Apple is treating them, they shouldn't complain about the noise generated because Apple is using KHTML - they are the ones making it.
Really pathetic.. I'm glad I do not use KDE. Get over yourselves.
Is Apple using your code? Yes. Good for you, that's a pretty big kudo. Is Apply meeting the requirements in the license that the code they change is released to the public? Yes? They are? And, does your license require them to be a good babysitter to deal with your snivelling whiny attitude when you don't understand or comprehend a big bad scary diff file? No? It doesn't??? Then what are you complaining for.
It is people like this that make the business world not trust and think FOSS is a bunch of wannabe hacker types and not real professionals. You give a bad name to everyone.
Now -- if they are using a modified license, and I missed that it wasn't just a regular GPL, my apologies for the misunderstanding. But - I don't think I'm wrong. Their own site (KDE/Konqueror) says it's GPL.
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