Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases WebKit
rohanl writes "Apple has responded to recent criticisms from the KHTML developers by providing a live CVS repository (including all history) of WebCore, JavaScriptCore and the newly open sourced WebKit, public mailing list, irc channel and bug database. Details at the new webkit.opendarwin.org"
But wait... what is KHTML going to complain about now! On a serious note, I'm happy to see Apple offer their versioning history. A step in the right direction IMHO.
...good stuff, good stuff. It seems they actually do care about how the open source community perceives them. And it can only do them good to remain on good terms with the Konqueror/KHTML team.
:)
That said, some of the criticisms of the Konqueror team may have had some validity - specifically, there is little room in the cutthroat commercial arena for the unwavering dogmatism, devotion to absolute technical superiority over immediate user needs, etc. Hopefully the two can forge a way forward together now that Apple has made this (much needed) gesture.
iqu
Despite liking OS X and the now-defunct power-PC platform (though still preferring GNU/Linux on both PPC and AMD64), and having switched a number of people from Windoze to OS X, I have not been shy about being critical, even scathingly so, of Apple when they deserve it.
The deserved it in no small degree when they made it difficult for KHTML developers to reintegrate their changes into the mainline tree.
However, I am glad to see they responded to the community's criticisms in such a constructive manner. This is good for everybody. It's good for KHTML, as Apple's improvements can now be integrated cleanly into the mainline tree, and it is good for Apple, both on the PR/Community Relations front, and on the technical front, as they can continue to benefit from developments in KTHML and their porting burden should, at least theortecially, be lessened as their changes make it back into the main development tree.
Good show, Apple. Few flesh-and-blood people would have the character to admit a mae culpa and change their ways. For corporations, this is even more rare. This doesn't change my skepticism WRT the move to Intel (though if it is a move to AMD64 said skepticism is alleviated, and if the move is a result of supply issues with IBM, said move is understandable despite my skepticism, but I digress), but it is reassuring to see positive movements on other fronts.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
- Previously, Apple was following the LETTER of the LGPL license, and giving back all changes
- The KHTML developers were not pleased about the monolithic tarballs, but accepted that it was a valid option
- They were, however, annoyed about all the fanboys who complained that KHTML wasn't merging Apple's changes
- Apple is now following the SPIRIT of LGPL
- Yes, we are in fact through the looking glass, but that was yesterday's article
Any questions?a) Apple released the source before
b) they've just added additional ways of accessing the source instead of a giant tarball
Sorry, but that's just bs... the "KHTML developers" picked the license, and Apple gave back as much as they had to according to that license.
That's it, that's the whole thing; Apple never were the bad guys, because they did what they have to.
Now Apple is doing even more than they have to, and now you are waiting for the "KHTML developers" to say if they like it or not before figuring out if Apple are they good guys or not???
Wake up and realize that Apple's doing more than they have to, now it's up to the "KHTML developers" to figure out if they 1) want to use to code or 2) can use the code.
If they can't use the code, then what would Apple have to do to make them the good guys in your book??? Hire people to teach them and/or do the programming for them?
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
Bitching about the "SPIRIT" of the GPL, LGPL, whatever, are retarded. Seriously. Look, if the developers wanted to be dicks about it they could have (and should have) released their KHTML shit under a license that explicitly stated their desires.
SPIRIT schmirit.
Their behavior boils down to "Wah, I offered my friend a lollipop and he took it."
What are you talking about? Wasn't it only in the last month that KHTML was successfully able to integrate half the changes/patches provided from Apple into their trunk?
Getting half the patches in sounds like an advantage, especially compared to none, which is what would be the case if Apple had not adopted KHTML, right? So in the end, prior to this advance, KHTML gained lots of work, and Apple gained lots of work, and thus both had already benefited.
GPL Deconstructed
They had contributed back
They did release all their changes as one giant tarball, which, while complying with the license, is not a good basis for merging back changes. They did not get actively involved in hacking KHTML, instead they did a classic fork. This is not bashing Apple, just trying to bust some myths.OSS people got upset as they wanted more.
KHTML developers never complained about Apple's way of doing things. They were annoyed about users saying "This is fixed in Safari, why isn't it fixed in KHTML? They are the same thing!", so they pointed out that no, it wasn't, and merging with Apple is no easy task, because (a) the codebases have diverged so much and (b) the format in which Apple publishes its changes is, while legally sufficient, not an good one for merging changes back. Somehow, that was interpreted as complaining about Apple, while all they were really doing was trying to bust the myth that KHTML and Webkit are still the same thing.I think this problem highlights the fact that Corporate America doesn't seem to understand that if they treat relationships with open source developers as a non-zero-sum game, both parties can benefit. There is definitely a synergy that is created (or should be created) when open source teams up with corporate entities and this relationship needs to be nurtured further for the most bang for the buck.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Under the "agreement", Apple could use KHTML as the renderer in their Safari browser, _if_ they returned all changes to the source code.
No, all the LGPL says is that Apple has to publish its changes, which they did in a giant tarball. They did not get involved in hacking KHTML and are not about to do that now, but then, they weren't required to do so. The "agreement", as you call it, was fullfilled. Still, some open source users (not the KHTML devels) thought that this was not enough and raised a stink. Apple got concerned about the bad PR and asked what they could do to simplify the KHTML developers' life, and releasing their changes in a CVS with history was one of the items on the list.
Now, we will continue to reap the benefits of both freelance and corporate coding.
That still remains to be seen. While the CVS makes the merger easier, it's still not a trivial task. KHTML and WebKit have diverged quite a bit since the fork.Apple always did what they were supposed to do under the KHTML license...
What more or less happened:
- Apple was doing what they were supposed to do, but not anything more
- KHTML devs asked for some more, mainly access to Apple/Safari's internal repository and bug tracker in order to have a better understanding of webcore and ease the porting of the patches to the main KHTML trunk
- There were no answers from Apple
- KHTML devs dropped the issue and just decided to forget about it and keep working as they always had
- Acid 2 is released, Dave Hyatt does a wonderful job on Safari and soon gets the first fully Acid2 compliant browser (dev version)
- Everyone is overjoyed... and people start saying how wonderful apple is and how it'll benefit to KHTML core (I've been guilty of it, too)
- Main KHTML dev blogs saying that there is no way for the K devs to easily patch the tree from Webcore patches, that there is no real communication/backfeed between KHTML and Safari teams, and that people who don't have a clue about how it works should shut the fuck up (note that what he was ranting about was people not having a clue, not the relationship between Apple and the K team)
The of GP is fucking nonsense and cluelessness, which is why his post isn't informative in any way"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
No parent has ever had to teach their children to lie.
That said, I hope that the KHTML group can make a good use of this. Even with access to the cvs repositories, I don't expect that merging back the changes will be trivial, just easier. I hope this won't be used by the fans to bash the KHTML developers ('hey, they gave you the repositories, and you still don't merge the changes overnight! You *are* lazy').
Overall, I believe this is a good thing.
Well - a publicly traded company made a deal with another publicly traded company that will increase both their revenues! Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers. What bastards eh?
Apple wants to make some use of OSS code in their software, but they don't want to contribute back, which is not cool.
I think you're way off base. What makes you think they don't want to contribute back? Did you read the article about KDE passing the ACID compliance test? That was due to an Apple engineer patching WebCore so Safari would pass then specifically writing a bunch of comments and micro patches for the KDE guys. For which, I might add, he was thouroughly ridiculed here on Slashdot for not providing a CVS repository (Apple does not use CVS) which one of the KDE guys had asked for a few days previously.
Now Apple is providing a CVS repository at extra work and expense to themselves and you have the gall to say that they don't want to contribute back? Are you actively trying to make the OpenSource movement look like a bunch of pricks or is it unintentional? How about when a commercial company bends over backwards, spends money and time to do exactly what is asked of them even when they have no legal obligation, and basically do everything they can to be the good guy, use and support open code and standards and give back very useful improvements you don't attribute it to them being forced to by all the bad press you've previously generated about them in a forum that they don't care about anyway?
Apple is being nice because the engineers working there are good guys and want to be nice and help out. They aren't doing it to avoid bad press. Give credit where it is due already.
Sorry, but that's just bs... the "KHTML developers" picked the license, and Apple gave back as much as they had to according to that license. That's it, that's the whole thing; Apple never were the bad guys, because they did what they have to.
Bullshit. The fact that they weren't legally required to be good citizens does not mean no one should ever be able to criticize their actions. They took a piece of software from an open-source group, acted like they wanted to cooperate with them, then forked it too far and acted like asses when the KHTML guys asked them to try to work back toward one codebase. They went so far as to tell the KHTML guys to just drop their project and use Apple's version.
None of this was illegal. It was just a dickhead move.
Of course, now Apple has done something in the hopes of correcting that, which indicates they also feel they haven't done right by KHTML. Hopefully this will help the situation...overall, I have seen Apple as a halfway decent OSS player. But in this case, I think time will have to tell...the real issue is whether this will help the two codebases codevelop more or not. If it doesn't, Apple will have been the "bad guy" because they will have unnecessarily split development resources and time for a project that could have been cooperatively handled. That's a Bad Thing, regardless of whether it's legally permissible.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Forking isn't a bad thing, it happens all the time... The "problem" is that Apple didn't say that they were going to take the code and fork off, and I don't think they ever intended to; they just didn't have the time and culture to "bother" with returning the code in the shape that people expected.
Life sucks, shit happens and so on... but whatever you might think, Apple didn't do anything wrong; besides, why b*tch about this now that Apple's done more than enough to make people happy again?
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
Doesn't it seem logical that the tarball they released was the best they could do at the time? I bet if you look through the CVS repository they just released, you'll see some Intel specific stuff, maybe even just a check-in comment. That would have blown their big secret. Which, incidentally, is amazing they managed to keep that secret for 5 YEARS!
Where did you get that quote? Note for the math imparired: since it is now the middle of 2005, the end of 2007 is over 2 years away. I forget what I read where, but the impression I got was they'd introduce new HW in mid-2006, have the whole line converted by mid-2007, and have sold their last piece of PPC hardware by the end of 2007. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.h tml says Apple will "transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007." That's 2 1/2 years away.
Remember, folks, Apple has 2 challenges to meet:
1) Convince the world that despite marketing to the contrary, Intel chips are just fine, so please buy Intel Macs once we start making them, and
2) Even though they're switching to Intel in 2006, PowerPC Macs are a) just fine and b) will be supported for quite some time, so please keep buying them in the meantime.
Really, this is a tremendous uphill battle. There are bunches of people who won't buy current hardware if something new is coming out. There are bunches more who won't buy Rev-A hardware. And so on and so on. Apple is fighting a battle on many fronts. It's obvious that Apple isn't doing this traumatic change just for fun--they must have had very strong reasons to make the change. You think Steve woke up one morning and wanted to leave IBM, contradict a decade of marketing, and shake the foundation of the Apple faithful? Strong forces are obviously at work here.
Also remember that OS X has its roots in NEXT, which ran on (IIRC) 68k, PPC, Alpha, and Intel, so they're no strangers to multiple platforms and fat binaries. So new PowerMacs will have a different chip? BFD. 9 out of 10 blindfolded users wouldn't even know. Did you see people jumping up in the middle of the keynote screaming "Hey! Something wrong here! I'll bet he's running this whole damn demo on an Intel chip!"?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Steve doesn't mind the Opteron, but he's not using it.
:)
For now.
If anyone thinks, even for a second, after the back-to-back heartbreaks of the PowerPC 7400 and 970 (not to mention the stillborn misfires of the 620, 8500 etc etc etc), that Apple will not -- having already gone through the pain of an x86 migration -- have an alternate supplier to Intel on deck... well, I'd like some of what that person is smoking.
Intel, AMD, Via, Transmeta: the whole gamut is open to Apple now, and they would be dumb indeed not to use whichever one makes the most sense for any given application.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
It's been said before but I think it's insightful enough to say it here:
If they weren't happy with Apple following the license to the letter, they were using the wrong license.
Apple has always been willing to sell their hardware to people who want to run other OSes. Heck they have an explicit supply contract with Yellow Dog Linux, you can't get more official than that.
There's also the fact that Safari's intelligent about naming tabs. If you have five tabs open whose names all start with "Amazon.com," for example, and there's not enough room to display the whole title, Safari gets rid of the redundant part of the name. Meanwhile, in Firefox you'll probably be seeing "Amazon.com" five times--not particularly helpful.