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"

Comments

Speechless

[Anonymous Coward]

... or so it would seem

Re:Speechless

[KiloByte]

No, this is not that strange.

Apple is not an evil company. Sure, they don't have a "do no evil" policy and they have occasional lapses, but they recognize the fact that good will is valued by customers, and customers' respect produces money.

If you want a company that's inherently evil, you know where to find it.

Re:Speechless

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a company that's inherently evil, you know where to find it.

The Vice President's address book?

Re:Speechless

[EyeMyke]

You're so cute when you speak rhetoric about Microsoft without actually using their name!

Now come here and give mama some suga you creative thing you!

This message brought to you by Mac OS X with Intel Inside: *Bum... bum bum bum BUM*

Dated icon

[grub]

Hey Taco, better change the Apple section's "G5" logo to the Intel logo.

Re:Dated icon

[Hao Wu]

And he will surely create that bit of graphics using a G5 Mac.

Re:Dated icon

[DenDave]

Yeah.. and will swap Mini for a Apple Pentium 4..

Sheesh.. I'm still not over this..

Anyone have download mirrors for the keynote? My connection sucks bumsickle and streaming hangs..

Re:Dated icon

[anonicon]

According to Apple, they're sticking with the G5 for their high-end systems. The Intels are simply going into their low-end and laptop lines for now. Of course, we'll see how that pans out.

Re:Dated icon

[PygmySurfer]

Actually, according to Apple, they're hope to have the ENTIRE Macintosh line transitioned to Intel CPUs by the end of 2007.

"Mac OS on Intel is to be given to developers (ADC "Select" and "Premier" members) now and to customers "this time next year." The transition will be completed in less than 2 years, by the end of 2007."

Re:Dated icon

[hotdiggitydawg]

...and take another bite out of that apple. It's only appropriate, what with all this talk of "Apple cores"...

Re:Dated icon

[bsgk]

Baltimore!!!

Re:Dated icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak english much?-

Also, you don't know how to nest your quotes properly. 442k.

Re:Dated icon

[johnalex]

I wonder now whether the rumored Intel Mini was actually the Developer's machine Apple's making available. And everyone thought the Intel Mini would run Windows...

Re:Dated icon

[JPriest]

Maybe someone else can provide a source for this but I am pretty sure Jobs stated that they are not going to take any measures to prevent people from installing x86 Linux OR Windows on x86 Macs (they will however prevent OSX from being installed on comodity x86 boxes as before). So if there is no Intel Mini to run Windows on, the Mac Mini would probably do.
This means Mac owners can tripple boot OSX, Windows, and Linux!

Re:Dated icon

[woozlewuzzle]

Who's your friend?

Re:Dated icon

[oudzeeman]

the apple developers machine looks like a powermac - big and aluminum

Re:Dated icon

[Breakfast Pants]

He said it more in the context of running VMWare or a similar program.

Re:Dated icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco!

Re:Dated icon

[he-sk]

I don't see ENTIRE in your quote, so it doesn't really support your arguement. It could easily mean that by 2007 they expect all of the available Mac software to run both on the G5 and Intel. And of course, they will gladly sell you both.

Now, that's ambitious.

Re:Dated icon

[TheGreek]

Apple is transitioning from PPC to Intel.

They expect this transition to be complete by the end of 2007.

The sentences don't have to contain the word "entire" for the meaning conveyed by "entire" to be accurate.

Retard.

Re:Dated icon

[Anonymous Coward]

so does it means we can download mac os x as iso from bittorent and install on pentium4? seriously, i just wonder how it goes

Re:Dated icon

[sootman]

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!"?

Re:Dated icon

[Anonymous Coward]

really? where did you see the picture?!?! I want to see! Do you have a link? Huh? Do ya? Do ya?

Re:Dated icon

[javaxman]

"Mac OS on Intel is to be given to developers (ADC "Select" and "Premier" members) now and to customers "this time next year."

I'm going to have to point out that the "developer transition kit" which includes a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, is $999 to ADC Select and Premier members. And there's an interesting catch - you have to return the machine and software to Apple within 7 days of December 30. You're not buying the machine, you're paying to use it for a little less than 6 months.

This has me wondering if there's going to be a 6-month delay between the 'send the development machines back' date and the first publicly available Intel Macs. I'm thinking they're just hedging their bets, and we may see the Intel machines, at least in mini or eMac form, earlier than that this time next year.

Re:Dated icon

[eggnet]

You keep it for a year and 6 months, not 6 months.

Re:Dated icon

[Beardydog]

When he announces the developer's kit during the keynote, he moves to a large slide of a G5-style aluminum case with "$999" written next to it, if I remember correctly. It would be a little retarded to charge $999 for a mini that sells for $500 with a more costly processor in it, and doesn't have to be returned in a year and a half, and whose individual sale isn't quite as crucial to the success of the transition.

Re:Dated icon

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Dated icon

[The Great Wazzoo]

"...to have the ENTIRE Macintosh line transitioned to Intel CPUs..."

But that's fabulous. Can't wait till they pay me a visit to `transition' my iBook G3 with a brand new MacIntel PowerBook.

Please?

:-)

Re:Dated icon

[javaxman]

You keep it for a year and 6 months, not 6 months.

Oooops. Oh, thanks for that.

Re:Dated icon

[rthille]

Just a small correction. NeXTStep ran on 68K (NeXT Boxes), HP PA/RISC, Sun SPARC, and Intel (x86). Internally it ran on Motorola 88k boxes (for certain), and maybe PPC (prior to the apple acquisition) , but I doubt it.

Re:Dated icon

[mhbtr]

Note for the math imparired: since it is now the middle of 2005, the end of 2007 is over 2 years away.

From where I am standing, Next June to end of 2007 is less than 2 years - it is approximately 1.5 years. The transition does not start until the first IntelliMacs ship, which is 6/6/6 (GOJ, Gospel according to Jobs)
I agree with you though -- Apple has a MAJOR transition ahead of them, and it will take muich work to convince people to stay with them. They are fortunate that developers like their OS, consumers like their iApps, and the media loves Apple. They just may pull it off...

--
me 1, sig 0

Re:Dated icon

[sickofthisshit]

I think the main market in the keynote was the developers filling the seats. And for them, the two messages were

1) we are still going to sell computers after this happens---see, MS and Adobe believe it---so you will still have a reason to stay in business

2) if you guys want to sell any new software after 2007, you'd better check that damn box in Xcode to make Universal Binaries, because PPC is going buh-bye. And it isn't hard.

Dealing with the people coming into an apple store and going "Intel, no thanks." or "my goodness, this PPC architecture, while compelling, will be outmoded by 2007" is not Apple's worry, no matter how much blogs and other nerd media harp on it. People are not buying apple because of the chip inside. They buy it for any number of reasons, but the vendor of the semiconductors just isn't one.

Their worries for now is

1) developers sticking with PPC because they like Metrowerks, or think the G5 is going to be around for a long time, or that Rosetta will be good enough.

2) developers throwing up their arms, saying "screw it, Windows doesn't make me fix endianness issues, or change APIs, or all this other crap every five years." or "Apple's finally been beleagured to death."

3) deploying on Intel revealing that OS X is a dog compared to Linux or Windows on the same hardware.

The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Please replace it with the intel inside logo.

Ha ha ha - Mac vs. PC - PC WINS!

Re:The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha - Mac vs. PC - PC WINS!

Yes, the PC wins... but Windows loses.

Re:The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

So...what's it like being so pathetic?

Re:The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "PC" = Intel? The Mac does not become a "PC" as you have used the term when it uses Intel chips.

Re:The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, the Mac will remain a complete piece of shit.

Re:The G5 Logo is Obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

It does when it ships with an "100% IBM PC AT-compatible" chipset, as future Macintoshes will.

A good sign

[treff89]

Unrest was in the ranks that Apple had done a runner with KHTML source code. Under the "agreement", Apple could use KHTML as the renderer in their Safari browser, _if_ they returned all changes to the source code. However, for a period of time there was a lack or very small amount of this agreed return occurring. Thus, those who work on KHTML (and browsers which use it, such as the almighty Konqueror from which I now post) were "disadvantaged" or "at a loss", if you will. Now, we will continue to reap the benefits of both freelance and corporate coding.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

How could this be overrated? If anything, it is informative. [No, I am not the parent poster]. On a more serious note, the idea that 2 different entities working toward different goals can help each other in such a way (assuming, of course, the symbiotic partnership comes to fruition) it yet another fundamental advantage of OSS.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Apple never did a "runner" with the code. The K-crew were just whining that they couldn't figure out the changes Apple made without step-by-step CVS hand holding. Pussies.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple complied with the license: they made code changes public by returning them.

They didn't provide discussions of the changes, or histores of the changes. Those weren't required by the license.

They just make it possible to roll changes back in to the original project. So this is good citizenship rather than license or "agreement" compliance.

Re:A good sign

[2nd Post!]

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.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Safari is an inferior browser, even on OS X. I find Camino (gecko based OS X native browser) to be much faster, more stable and render more pages correctly than Safari. Safari also doesn't seem to easily allow you to accept/deny cookies on a per-site basis. And Camino isn't that stupid brushed-metal theme that Apple is so fond of. *shudder*

Re:A good sign

[h0tblack]

The Konqueror devs were never at a loss or disadvantaged by Apple using KHTML. They didn't lose anything from Apple using the code, they just didn't gain as much as some users thought they were or gain as much as some devs would have liked. Apple were always abiding by the letter of the law, they were always giving code back (it just wasn't in the easiest form for the Konq devs to use) and going beyond the minimum that was needed. Sure, they may not have been getting onvolved as much as some would have liked, but that does not explicitly take anything away from KHTML. Now Apple are going even further, which is IMHO a 'good thing' even a great thing. Is it something that could have been done much earlier, sure, but a lot of the Apple backlash recently has been pretty unrealistic and not very helpful.

Re:A good sign

[anno1602]

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.

Re:A good sign

[miscGeek]

I agree with most of your points. With one exception. It does appear that the Apple backlash has been helpful. We probably wouldn't have seen this had it not been for the public outcry.

Re:A good sign

[masklinn]

If anything, it is informative.

It's not, it's pure crap and that's been said time and time again in the previous threads and by the KHTML devs.

Apple always did what they were supposed to do under the KHTML license...

What more or less happened:

1. Apple was doing what they were supposed to do, but not anything more
2. 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
3. There were no answers from Apple
4. KHTML devs dropped the issue and just decided to forget about it and keep working as they always had
5. Acid 2 is released, Dave Hyatt does a wonderful job on Safari and soon gets the first fully Acid2 compliant browser (dev version)
6. 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)
7. 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

lack or very small amount of this agreed return occurring

of GP is fucking nonsense and cluelessness, which is why his post isn't informative in any way

Re:A good sign

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Because there is no "-1 factually incorrect" moderation. The previous poster apparently had no idea what they were talking about. The KDE team made no agreement with Apple, Apple just took the code and used it in compliance with its license. Then they released the changes when they released WebCore, much to the surprise and delight of the KDE team. They have been giving back all the changes, but since the Konqueror project decided a lot of them were not the way the wanted the project to go and since both groups are using different versioning systems the KDE folks were having some difficulty extracting the changes they wanted from all the Webcore code.

After some time of this one of the KDE guys got sick of everyone telling him how easy his job was now that Apple was doing all his work for him and wrote a very reasonable and clear statement about how Apple's changes were really hard to incorporate and why and how they wished Apple would give the team access to a CVS repository. This got posted to Slashdot and horribly misinterpreted by the vast majority of the readers into some sort of "Apple is stealing open source code" thread.

Immediately thereafter one of the Safari guys fixed Safari so it would pass the acid compliance test and made sure to put in special notes just for the KDE guys. Again, Slashdot picked this up and there was a huge rehashing of the previous argument, despite Apple trying hard to be nice. Now Apple has gone to great lengths and released exactly what the KDE team asked for despite the fact that it is extra work and expense (which they might have done earlier had they actually been asked).

The previous poster of course only read a few idiot's comments on Slashdot, never read any of the articles and thus was spreading his ignorance on Slashdot even more by restating factually incorrect third-hand interpretations of opinionated and poorly informed comments from Slashdot. Hence the modding down (or so I guess since I did not mod him).

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I use Firefox on OS X and it's a much better experience.

I have never liked Konq/KHTML, and Safari is not much better.

Apple should have went with Gecko instead of KHTML, their choice seems bizarre (I mean Gecko is well established). I imagine they made the choice based on the fact that KHTML is C++ (as are lots of things in MacOS) whereas Gecko is plain C. This dispite the fact that KHTML sucks.

Re:A good sign

[Gary W. Longsine]

3. There were no answers from Apple

This is interesting, though. Too bad meta moderators can't re-assign mod points to a follow-up.

Apple adopts this same style with bug reports, which can be quite frustrating. Submit a bug, hear back nothing, most times, until one day you install a patch and the bug is fixed. There should be a better way.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Apple forked a major free software project, essentially taking it and hiding it. Oh yes, they released the source once and a while.

The patches you talk about were the first in two years of discreet patches. Most of them were useless. The time required to 'merge' them was possibly longer and vastly less satisfying than writing yourself.

This is a case study on how to destroy a free software project. 'Cooperate' with it, raise expectations, then hide everything. The core developers will quit because the satisfaction and challenge is gone.

Expect to see this happen in other projects where a firm has a competing interest.

khtml survived due to the large developer base of KDE and the recognition of the strategic importance of khtml to the KDE project. In other words, khtml isn't a stand alone project. An active stand alone project would have been killed by what happened here.

Derek

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is no "-1 factually incorrect" moderation.

You would deserve it. The Acid test patches were what caused the whole thing in the first place.

Re:A good sign

[hawk]

>Apple was doing what they were supposed to do, but not anything more.

Wow. I missed the part about Apple only providing source code to those to whom they had provided binaries, and not providing any facility for anyone else to download it at Apple's expense . . .

hawk

Re:A good sign

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple should have went with Gecko instead of KHTML, their choice seems bizarre (I mean Gecko is well established).

I for one am very glad they did not. Using KHTML as a base provides another major web engine and helps prevent a monoculture. I'd much rather have web designers write a page to standards+workarounds for IE, rather than Gecko+IE. It helps prevent Firefox from diverging from the published standards (which it does). In any case the stated reason for using KHTML was cleaner, smaller, better written code base than Gecko.

I actually use Omniweb most of the time, which uses Apple's WebCore, but also provides a great many security and other features above and beyond either Firefox or Safari. The nice thing about Apple using KHTML as a base is that it provides choice. Obviously, Firefox will always be there, so if you like the way Gecko works (slowly) great you can use it. If you prefer Safari or something else, you have that choice too. Choice is good.

Re:A good sign

[jessecurry]

Being that the bulk of OS X coding is Objective-C wouldn't it have made more sense to use something coded in plain C?

Re:A good sign

[h0tblack]

Yerp, it's definitely possible.
But I also wonder if it could have been done without the outcry, without all the negative publicity. Possibly not, no-one will ever know for sure I think.
I really do hope that it hasn't caused other companies to think twice about getting involved with open-source projects and that it doesn't encourage other people to think the only way to get what you want is to throw a tantrum. I'm not saying this is what the KHTML/Konq guys did at all, but it is certainly what some people on the sidelines did.
I'm not trying to be negative, I'd just like to think that these things can be done in a positive way and that the only repurcussions are positive. Because in all honesty, on the face of it, things have all turned out great for everyone. So I guess I should shut up and not worry too much ;)

Re:A good sign

[molnarcs]

Don't think using the patches provided by APPLE was a simple copy and paste job or in any way convenient. It was probably more convenient than rewriting them from scratch though ... but we don't know how much easier it was.

Re:A good sign

[palndron]

Considering that Hyatt kind of knows Gecko alittle, they seem to have known what they where doing by avoiding it, at that time.

But WAIT!!!

[mitchell_pgh]

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.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[pebs]

But wait... what is KHTML going to complain about now!

Would Apple have done this had they not complained?

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is a load of BS, if I were to waste my modpoints on it it would be -1: Redundant.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[statusbar]

Yes, good step in the right direction.

But don't worry, the KHTML guys will complain about Objective C++ and the Qt replacement next.

--jeff

Re:But WAIT!!!

[rootofevil]

Would Apple have done this had they not complained?

would they they have known it was a problem?

if a tree falls on a hippie in the forest, does anyone care?

we can go on like this all day. Grandparents point is that apple is going out of their way to appease a relatively small (even in opensource terms) group of people. Kudos to them.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they knew it was a problem. The K folks had complained privately already. It wasn't until they grumbled in public that Apple decided to save face.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry. The KDE whiners will find something to bitch about. They always do.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[svanstrom]

But wait... what is KHTML going to complain about now!

They're going to complain about the code being PPC-centric... no, wait... damn...

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because it couldn't possibly be that Apple started putting this shit together weeks ago, and whining bitches (not the K folks themselves, most of whom were pretty cool) made a big stink about it during the interval in which it was being assembled.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure speculation!

Re:But WAIT!!!

[JebusIsLord]

No one who has ever actually used Objective C++ and Carbon would actually complain about it. That has to be the nicest toolkit out there, bar none.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[anno1602]

Would Apple have done this had they not complained?

As has been said here for about a thousand times, the KHTML devels didn't complain, they just asked their users to give them the credit they deserve instead of giving it to Apple, because Apple had effectively forked KHTML and development was happening in parallel. This got misreported as a flame against Apple.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[JebusIsLord]

grr I mean cocoa of course. it is damn early.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[masklinn]

Grandparents point is that apple is going out of their way to appease a relatively small (even in opensource terms) group of people.

For god's sake, are you retarded? Did your parents repeatedly slam your head in a brick wall when you were younger?
The "relatively small group of people" you're talking about are the ones who created the base core of Safari's rendering engine (KHTML) for fuck's sake. And if you had at least checked what happened, you'd have seen that the K guys had indeed asked (privately, not in public channels) for limited access to Apple's Safari repository and bug tracker before...

Re:But WAIT!!!

[MrLint]

Would Apple have done this had they not complained?

Apple would have been forced to comply with the license as written for the khtml code..

Oh wait they had already done that.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Objectivev C?

Re:But WAIT!!!

[TomorrowPlusX]

Objective C++ is a bridge, allowing you to ( fairly ) seamlessly call C++ from objective-c and visa versa.

E.g., with ObjectiveC++ you don't need to write a pure-C bridge, to get Objective-C and C++ to interoperate.

Now, that said, it's not like you can write a C++ subclass of an Objective-C class, but it's useful. Really useful.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[GweeDo]

The KHTML developers NEVER complained about this. They complained about the people that were pissy about them not merging the Apple updates fast enough. Your post here is as bad as all the new sites that failed to read the original post and have since mis-communicated the whole freaking thing. Good work.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[JebusIsLord]

yeah i totally meant objC and cocoa, but instead wrote objC++ and carbon. Which actually makes its own kind of sense, but isn't what I meant to say :)

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But wait... what is KHTML going to complain about now!

Dumbass commentary from slashbots?

I'm realizing that no one who gets serious work done reads or likes slashdot. It's the Jerry Springer Show of the internet.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the damn fine XCode IDE, which Apple ships free with every computer and every copy of OS X they sell --- that's the way to encourage developers to give the platform a try. Most fun I've had programming in the last fifteen years...

Re:But WAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, we both know you don't really know what you're talking about. No hard feelings.

I used Cocoa back before it was called OpenStep, when compared to the toolkits of the time it actually was worth programming with. But really Objective-C is a mediocre language and limitations with selectors make Cocoa pretty mediocre. Yeah, adding the complexity of C++ to Objective-C is a pretty convenient FFI, but it's also pretty dirty otherwise. C++ isn't a pure superset of C, and thus mixing C++ and Objective-C into one language makes that language also not a proper superset of Objective-C. Also since you can't really make use of C++'s advantages in its type system for the ObjC party, it's not even all that wonderously wonderful beyond an FFI path.

It's funny seeing Apple users discover OpenStep as if it came from some Holy Realm. They refer to it as "fun" and other such things that make me question whether they specifically felt nothing but endless agony developing for MacOS previously.

Use a Smalltalk for a while and see how much even better that is.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[bullitB]

They spend all this time asking Apple to open up, then they respond by putting WebKit on a CVS server instead of a Subversion one.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[rootofevil]

and? the KHTML license does not require them to provide a CVS repository, and previous to this the tarball that apple provided was within the legal requirements.

they were not required to do so.

do you know that apple wasnt planning to do this all along? after all darwin was released long before osx went gm. perhaps they just hadnt gotten around to it, and this hulabaloo merely accelerated the process.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[mrchaotica]

Sure they would have known it was a problem -- I sent them a feedback email a few days ago asking them to work more closely with the KHTML devs. (And I'm not an involved party other than the fact that I use both Mac and Linux PCs.) Obviously, they listened to what I had to say, and all this has come about thanks to me!

You're welcome. ; )

Anyway, the point is that more people care about this than just the KHTML people -- Apple's doing it to appease the whole of Slashdot, at least.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[stilborne]

actually i DO know that this wasn't planned.

the webcore people are simply working like animals and this slipped off their radar. a little priority reevaluation later and things are rapidly improving. i hope to see some of the details of how these conclusions were arrived at to be published at some point in the near future.

in any case, kudos to everyone involved.

Re:But WAIT!!!

[prockcore]

No one who has ever actually used Objective C++ and Carbon would actually complain about it. That has to be the nicest toolkit out there, bar none.

Objective C/C++ makes me want to vomit. [The syntax is awful.] The entire language looks like it was designed to be interpretted with a modified cpp.

In fact, I think the original ObjC compiler was just a preprocessor that parsed the little macros and output C code.

Problems

[treff89]

There seems to be a problem with the link on the main page... If you can read this, (catch-22) click on the "Apple" link on the left. The link on the subsequent page works well.

Wait and see first...

[irchs]

I think we need to wait and see if this is anymore use the KHTML developers before we go proclaiming Apple as the good guys... :)

Personally I hope it is, as it is a good show of how two groups with different agenda's can benefit from Open Source.

Jan

Re:Wait and see first...

[LegendOfLink]

I view it like checks and balances. Apple makes a lot of dough from it's software, which is based on OSS. The KHTML guys are doing it because of other reasons, of which I would like ot believe that they just want to write great open-source software (bless you folks).

Apple wants to make some use of OSS code in their software, but they don't want to contribute back, which is not cool. Groups like KHTML then show some static, and viola, we have a webkit site from Apple.

Re:Wait and see first...

[robbieduncan]

They had contributed back. The OOS people chose a particular license. Apple followed said license and did everything required by it. OSS people got upset as they wanted more. Apple have now gone way over and above what is required and provided this.

Re:Wait and see first...

[svanstrom]

I think we need to wait and see if this is anymore use the KHTML developers before we go proclaiming Apple as the good guys... :)

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?

Re:Wait and see first...

[anno1602]

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.

Re:Wait and see first...

[isilrion]

Actually, by doing this, Apple are doing WAY more than is required by the licence. This makes them 'good guys' for me (on this particular matter), regardless of the use the KHTML guys can make of this. Of course, this could be just a PR move, but it is still more than what they had to do.

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.

Re:Wait and see first...

[medgooroo]

As i understand it, one of the big problems is huge patchsets and not overly clean or readable code... Go do some work with khtml, then belittle the devs if you feel like it.

Re:Wait and see first...

[svanstrom]

As i understand it, one of the big problems is huge patchsets and not overly clean or readable code...

True, but that doesn't really have anything to do with complying with the license or not; it is a sign that maybe the license needs to be changed for the developers to get back what they really want though.

Go do some work with khtml, then belittle the devs if you feel like it.

I don't "belittle the devs", I'm just making sure that people know what they're complaining about; that there really isn't that much to b*tch about.

Go have a look at how much source code Apple's released, then make up your mind regarding if they are good or bad for open source.

Re:Wait and see first...

[irchs]

whoa, I agree with the parent post. All I meant was I hope the CVS is actually useful to the KHTML guys.

Jan

Re:Wait and see first...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Wait and see first...

[jusdisgi]

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.

Re:Wait and see first...

[LKM]

What would Apple have to do to make them the good guys in your book??? Hire people to (...) do the programming for them?

Actually, that's exactly what Apple is doing :-)

Re:Wait and see first...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, as long as the CVS server doesn't mysteriously block known KHTML IPs, we _should_ go proclaiming Apple as the good guys. If the KHTML developers can't make any use of it, then they're just pathetic, and that won't be Apple's fault in the slightest.

Re:Wait and see first...

[bdr8]

fallback! Bow down and kiss we've gone beyond what is required ring!

Re:Wait and see first...

[svanstrom]

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.

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?

Re:Wait and see first...

[jp10558]

Do you think they may start to converge again with this development?

Re:Wait and see first...

[mrchaotica]

Maybe -- it depends what this clause in the GPL means:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Is a mere tarball good enough to be the "preferred form", or does it need to be diffs (or CVS, for that matter)?

Re:Wait and see first...

[anno1602]

Do you think they may start to converge again with this development?

Personally, I don't think that it will come to a point where the codebases converge completely, but I'm hoping for a better patch exchange between the two projects. WebKit and KHTML have their strength and weaknesses in different area and could benefit from increased collaboration.

Re:Wait and see first...

[stilborne]

yes, it's a GREAT thing =)

and this is actually the result of working in coordination with the KHTML people. so this isn't just a PR move, but a coordinated effort between Apple and KDE.

this isn't the end, nor even a beginning, but rather a positive step in a long journey we're taking together.

Re:Wait and see first...

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

BZZT...logic error

Legality != Morality

Not necessarily saying they were bad guys just that you cannot draw that conclusion from the statement.

Re:Wait and see first...

[svanstrom]

Not necessarily saying they were bad guys just that you cannot draw that conclusion from the statement.

If what I wrote was about some unknown A and B in situation C, then yes, what you're saying about "Legality != Morality" can be true; but now there's a lot more facts available... and when looking at the situation knowing what Apple's done the past few years what I said is true - they never were the bad guys when it comes to KHTML.

Not necessarily saying they were bad guys just that you cannot draw that conclusion from the statement.

Perfect, you don't really have anything to say about the situation, you just roam around /. pointing out logical flaws... how very "helpful".

Good, about time

[Anonymous Coward]

But it won't change anything. You suck Apple for selling out to Intel and will never be forgiven

Apple Intel move 'could confuse'

The move has had mixed reaction The news that Apple is switching from IBM to Intel chips inside its machines could spell a period of confusion for consumers, some analysts are warning. The move, officially announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, could mean people hold off buying new Apple laptops.

Apple said is was making the move to x86 architecture chips because they offer more power and better efficiency.

The first Apple computers with Intel chips will be on the market next year.

That is likely to be the Mac Mini, with the entire product line switching by the end of 2007.

Applications will continue to work on both types of chip-sets for some years.

But Graham Barlow, editor of MacFormat magazine, said some people may not buy a new Apple machine knowing that a new processor was coming out next year.

"That must be the worry for Apple retailers. I think it's highly likely there will be some price drops to tempt people to buy the final stocks of PowerPC equipped Macs," he told the BBC News website.

Apple has sent a strong signal that it would be sensible to wait a year if you want to buy a new Powerbook Gary Barnett, Ovum One main motivation behind the switch is because IBM has not yet been able to produce versions of the G5 chip, used in Apple's desktop G5 machines, which are suitable for Apple laptops without overheating.

Intel is the world's largest semiconductor company. IBM and Motorola (now Freescale Semiconductor) have been providing PowerPC chips to Apple for more than a decade.

The announcement has come as a bolt out of the blue to many, and experts say it is one of the biggest transitions in the Mac market since the move from OS 9 to OS X operating systems.

Hold off?

Some analysts have suggested that the transition could further damage Apple's low 2.3% worldwide market share, while others say it is a logical decision.

Others worry that it is a big gamble for Apple because it might create consumer confusion, and could damage support from a loyal cohort of Mac users.

Gary Barnett, research director at technology analysts Ovum, said he was puzzled by the move and had been watching the reaction on internet newsgroup discussion forums.

"One poster was debating whether to upgrade his Powerbook or to go on holiday - there was no point in him buying a Powerbook if it was going to be obsolete in 18 months' time," he told the BBC News website.

Apple may have lost the war for the office environment to Windows, but it wants to win the next war - the battle for control of your digital entertainment Graham Barlow, MacFormat "Apple has sent a strong signal that it would be sensible to wait a year if you want to buy a new Powerbook."

Apple said the change gets around issues it has previously had with chip supplies, as well as the power versus heat problems it has with IBM chips.

But, added Mr Barnett, the move was confusing because IBM's PowerPC was about to be produced in huge volumes because of its deal to provide the microprocessors for the next-generation of Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony games consoles.

Its OpenPower initiative, aimed at device manufacturers, was gaining headway too.

It is aimed at improving the market presence of the Power architecture through open standards development.

Mr Barnett said he would have been more impressed if Apple had decided to switch to AMD processors instead. AMD had "out-innovated" Intel in terms of its 64 processor technology, he said.

"Everything around PowerPC seems to interesting and optimistic - AMD can be classified as that too. Intel is just the current leader, albeit it by a big margin."

Next war

But there was no

Re:Good, about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would have been so much better waiting for IBM to get its collective shit together.

You don't know much about Apple's chip history do you, cut 'n' paste boy?

Re:Good, about time

[djward]

But Graham Barlow, editor of MacFormat magazine, said some people may not buy a new Apple machine knowing that a new processor was coming out next year.

There's always a new chip coming out next year.

New software remaining available for both processors for years after the switch is the only issue here.

Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[ickoonite]

...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 :)

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

As far as technical superiority goes, Safari was the very first browser to pass the Acid test, and it's had better (read: existing) support for XHTML since day one. XHTML support is only just starting to be added to Konqueror in the 4.0 branch which is a long way from being released.

If the Konqueror developers are complaining about Apple not being devoted to technical superiority (and I haven't seen any complaints of this nature), then they'd do well to make sure their own house is in order to begin with.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[nacturation]

Now if only they changed the name to WebKore and JavaScriptKore, they'd be best buddies.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[0xC0FFEE]

I don't want to crush your hope about your community perceptions. But certainly they did some benefit analysis and came out with the fact the the more "aligned" (for lack of a better word) they are the more they can leverage OSS effort. And vis-versa really, I don't think Apple minds OSS leveraging their effort. So this is a pretty pragmatic decision, a good thing for OSS as it shows a company having rationalized its relationship with open source without reverting to goodwill or mindshare (Google?).

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[IAmTheDave]

This sucks, because I'm getting such a mixed signal. On the one hand, we have Apple actually giving a s*** about the concerns of the OSS community, and actually being a good corporate citizen, giving back to the community that has given freely to them.

Then you have the other side - Apple's move to Intel pushed by the Pentium D chip and hardware based DRM - Apple getting in bed with Hollywood. You thought Paladium was gonna lock down systems? Sounds like Apple might win the hardware DRM race.

So what is the final word on Apple? I've been contemplating the switch myself but am not really sure where Apple stands. Sue ThinkSecret, give back to KHtml. Sigh...

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[ickoonite]

Do we know for certain that Apple's move to Intel is about DRM? You say it as though it were gospel but is this deepest of cynical views actually warranted? I don't think it necessarily is, although it could be useful in their wanting to ensure Mac OS X only runs on Macs, a policy which I thoroughly support (as I want Apple to stay in business).

Fact is that some form of DRM is an essential prerequisite for an information-based economy, regardless of what the 'information wants to be free' types spout over here. I don't particularly like it, and I understand the fundamental problem with it (the black and white nature of computers versus the grey world of legal interpretation), but I do accept that it is necessary.

And I'd certainly choose Apple's over Microsoft's any day, because I believe that Apple is less inclined to screw the consumer over. On that I can only hope I'm right.

As to ThinkSecret, I've outlined my views on it before, but if you really think that free speech trumps any and all other rights then you won't mind if I publish your name, address, phone number and any other information you might like to keep secret because, well, my right to free speech trumps yours of privacy, right? On the other hand, if you do want your right to privacy, why shouldn't companies be able to keep certain things under wraps? (Note that I'm not advocating Enron-style behaviour - that is a very different kind of thing, but let's not muddy the waters here by calling ThinkSecret an outlet for whistleblowers. It's not. Really. It's not.)

Incidentally, as regards the switch, just make it. Assuming you're on Windows at the moment, you've got nothing to hold you back - it's really quite staggering the difference it makes to day-to-day tasks, but often quite hard to quantify using actual words. If you knew the pain, the stress, most of all the frustration I feel when I use Windows now....

If on Linux, I suppose ideological constraints more than anything would keep someone on that platform. As to the 'experience', well, these days I find I have so much more time to do what I want to do, rather than forever tweaking Linux's innards. (See here for more.)

iqu :)

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about missing the point...

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just "every silver lining has a dark cloud around it" with you, isn't it.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is off-topic, but your signature is wrong. Getting modded funny does not increase karma anymore.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[iceburn]

Now if only they changed the name to WebKore and JavaScriptKore, they'd be best buddies.

Even though its not related to Gnome, I think it would be cooler if they called it WebGore. That conjurs images of either Al Gore inventing the internet, or bits of giblet floating on the web.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[0xC0FFEE]

I'm just saying that being pragmatic (ie doing a benefit analysis) is a far more solid reason to engage in open source than doing it for good will. It is a logical and rational decision instead of a sentimental or ideological one and is a lot more defendable as a business model.

If a big corporation such as Apple can justify its OSS activities as a positive, value-added investment then this is a big plus for OSS. This is a validation of the benefits of sharing in business terms without the need for all the FSF ideological framework. Please note, M. Anonymous troll that I haven't commited against the ideology of Free Software. In fact, I'm saying that you don't need to to find a rational justification for engaging in OSS.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Breakfast Pants]

No one is saying free speech trumps everything. What they are saying is that an NDA between you and someone else should have no effect on me, even if I know about it. I wasn't a party to the contract, if I get information forbidden under the contract from someone who was a part of it I should not be liable at all. I never agreed to any contract. Also you have a slight problem that if we took your view of privacy we would basically create in a lot of instances a new legal equivalent of a patent that lasts til... infinity.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not wrong. It's just that You Don't Get It (TM).

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[akac]

And nobody is suing ThinkSecret et al for that. They are suing to get the names of the sources who were the ones who broke their legal agreement.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, notice how "safari passed acid2 test first" goes around these days

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[kasparov]

Also you have a slight problem that if we took your view of privacy we would basically create in a lot of instances a new legal equivalent of a patent that lasts til... infinity.

Except you can't get a patent without submitting into public view what it is your are patenting... If you want to keep your invention a secret indefinitely, you don't patent it. You produce it in such a way that reverse-engineering it is very difficult.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[jbolden]

Apple has never actually said they were moving for DRM. So far at least Apple has been kind of split on the whole DRM thing (much more so than Microsoft or Intel) who are much more split than say Sony, Time Warner, Disney and Fox.

I do think they want a laptop processor and that is their core reason for the switch. But they certainly could go nuts on the DRM side.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Mornelithe]

Posthumous, not post humorous.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[Breakfast Pants]

That's why I didn't say it allows a patent. I said it allows an equivalent of a patent.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[kasparov]

Accept that it isn't because there is absolutely no government protection. If someone is smart enough to develop it on their own, they can still compete with you immediately.

Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...

[kasparov]

I can't believe I misspelled 'Except'. sheesh. Preview!

Only because..

[CoolMoDee]

I bet Apple is only releasing the source because they want to get back some of the warm and fuzzies that they lost when they announced they were switching to intel.

Re:Only because..

[Kevinv]

a) Apple released the source before
b) they've just added additional ways of accessing the source instead of a giant tarball

Re:Only because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm sure Steve sensed you weren't happy and he made the WebKit developers stay up all night to get this together.

Re:Only because..

[/ASCII]

I think that only a very, very small percentage of all potential Apple users know or care about the KHTML issue. How many non-nerd articles have been written about KHTML and Safari?

Re:Only because..

[fdobbie]

Actually, Apple has released MORE source. Previously, only the source to the LGPL'd WebCore (khtml fork) and JavaScriptCore (kjs fork) were made avaialble. These were regarded as low-level frameworks and generally not for developer use on Mac OS X - in fact the API was never exposed officially.

As of yesterday, the source to WebKit - Apple's higher level Objective-C framework for embedding a rendering engine into any Mac OS X application - is also available (looks BSD licensed to me). This means that, amongst other things, it should be easier to download the source to Safari's rendering engine, hack it, and install your custom version.

Re:Only because..

[catmistake]

Sort of... this is definatly a tactic to dowplay the Intel switch. They are playing the news cycle game. I'll bet that's why they didn't mention new hardware yesterday (except for the developer platform, of which they showed no pictures of and Steve's P4 Mac was hidde, even after he revealed the secret), but everyone is expecting new powerbooks soon. I predict no less than two more news releases this week, not counting the powerbook, which may wait until next Monday, which will be played down slightly (playing it cool), in the hopes that the news itself forgets about the intel switch and stop reporting on it.

Re:Only because..

[robbieduncan]

They provide scripts as part of the cvs checkout to download the source from cvs (and to update your download), build it and then run Safari with your just built version of WebKit without messing with the system version.

Pretty cool really.

Re:Only because..

[Lars T.]

Actually, they simply also clicked the "release as OpenSource" checkbox, and stayed up all night partying.

Re:Only because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you watch the webcast??

He did show a picture of it, a power mac g5 case. He says the dev kit is a g5 case with an intel inside sticker on it.

Re:Only because..

[wootest]

They've opened up for contributions too - Hyatt just mentioned that he's already committed a few changes to the database.

Good show Apple

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:Good show Apple

[MassacrE]

Except, this move was planned long before the KHTML people came back and complained about lack of cooperation (or more appropriately - complained about perceived cooperation).

That event may have sped things along, but my understanding from the people on the project is that they have wanted this for a long time.

So, the response was prepared before the critisms ever arrived :)

Re:Good show Apple

[daeley]

admit a mae culpa

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad I'm better."? Is that a mae culpa? ;)

Re:Good show Apple

[TheUser0x58]

The deserved it in no small degree when they made it difficult for KHTML developers to reintegrate their changes into the mainline tree.

Why? They complied with the GPL. Apple did absolutely everything that they were legally (and ethically) bound to do. As has been said many a time, many of Apple's changes were platform specific or otherwise incompatible with the KHTML source anyways. Why should they deserve any sort of ill will because of this? Why is Apple's distribution of the WebCore source in a somewhat cumbersome format Apple's "culpa?"

Re:Good show Apple

[Have Blue]

the now-defunct power-PC platform

Defunct? There won't be an alternative to PPC Macs for a year, and Apple will likely be selling PPC Macs for another year after that. And there will be tons of PPC hardware lying around that's still useful. Does the fact that kernel 2.7 will be released at some point in the future mean that 2.6 is "defunct"?

Re:Good show Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... spirit of the law? As in, give back in the means that you took from? Apple took usable source code, and made changes to it. Apple gave back their changes to comply with the letter of the license, but not necessarily the spirit.

What if Apple hand changed the language the code was written in from English to Esperanto, run it through a babelizer or obfuscator, etc.? They could even give the whole code tree back then, but it would be next to useless, especially if it was obfuscated differently each time Apple released a blob.

"We complied with the letter of the agreement, so push off!" Wow. That's just playing so well with others.

It's right up there with, "Hey, you took my cookies! And ate them too, you bastard!"...as I stick a finger in my throat to reproduce them in prechewed, semi-digested form, and proudly pronounce, "Well, here, you can have them back then."

Re:Good show Apple

[nine-times]

The deserved it in no small degree when they made it difficult for KHTML developers to reintegrate their changes into the mainline tree.

They didn't make it difficult, they just didn't make it easy either. At least, I haven't heard allegations that Apple purposefully obfuscated code or anything of the sort.

Re:Good show Apple

[byolinux]

Especially not when 2.7 is the development version of 2.8, surely? ;)

Re:Good show Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the GPL forbids obfuscated source.

Re:Good show Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, there are people who are still using os 9. Nothing is ever defunct.

Just a reminder

[frankie]

For the N+1th time, let's remember that:

1. Previously, Apple was following the LETTER of the LGPL license, and giving back all changes
2. The KHTML developers were not pleased about the monolithic tarballs, but accepted that it was a valid option
3. They were, however, annoyed about all the fanboys who complained that KHTML wasn't merging Apple's changes
4. Apple is now following the SPIRIT of LGPL
5. Yes, we are in fact through the looking glass, but that was yesterday's article

Any questions?

Re:Just a reminder

[Otter]

I don't understand why this is so complicated -- neither the GPL nor the LGPL has any requirement to "give back" anything. If you use codebase A to develop product B, your only obligation is to provide source code to B to its users. There is *no* obligation to "give back" to A.

Of course, that's the "letter of the license". The next time you guys are ranting and raving about Steve Ballmer or Darl McBride spreading FUD about what the GPL and LGPL require, be sure to remember this "spirit of the GPL" business that can be invoked to support any accusation or demand.

Re:Just a reminder

[LetterJ]

As in all licenses and laws, when the spirit of the law and the letter of the law grow distant, the wording is at fault.

A properly written legal document's "letter" shouldn't require someone applying the document to make large interpretations or follow additional "traditions" not stated in the legal document.

Re:Just a reminder

[rampant mac]

Any questions?

Have you been to Hollywood?

Re:Just a reminder

[frankie]

when the spirit of the law and the letter of the law grow distant, the wording is at fault.

I don't think there's any "fault" here, except possibly the folks in the audience who assumed too much about Apple & K's relationship.

The letter of *GPL says "thou shalt not screw over those who developed before you".
The spirit of *GPL says "in fact, you really ought to be nice to them".
There's no contradiction, just a certain level of friendliness which may or may not exist.

Apple was doing the minimum necessary, and maybe a tiny bit more. KHTML asked them to play nicer, and then they did. I think this is exactly the way it's supposed to work.

Re:Just a reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you need to make accessable to community/everyone, not just your users.

Apple did that, but in an irritating way... which they had every right to do. The real problem was all the Apple fanclubs dissin khtml!

Re:Just a reminder

[greed]

No, you need to make accessable to community/everyone, not just your users.

(Reading "recipients of copies of the object code or executable" for "users", since copyright law is all about making and distributing copies, not using them.)

Really, AC? Want to point to the clause in the LGPL that says that?

Section 4 certainly doesn't.

Re:Just a reminder

[mcc]

Apple wasn't even violating the spirit of the LGPL. They were possibly violating the spirit of the GPL... but alas these are substantially and philosophically somewhat different licenses, and so with the LGPL they weren'tn doing even that.

I'm baffled by the people stating in this thread that the GPL "preferred form" clause means that you have to give people access to your versioning system. Have you people read the GPLs? It offers CDs over postal mail as a valid method of satisfying your GPL obligations! It explicitly lists mailing big chunks of code as a valid option for GPL licensees! I mean, actually read these things, people!

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

Now if emailing big chunks of tarball on demand is violating the spirit of the GPL then why does the GPL suggest you do that?

Re:Just a reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for posting with logic and facts. Sadly too rare here.

I still say the old way was a spirit violation (i.e. making it harder to incorporate your changes, when minimal effort could make it easier), but obviously that sort of thing is personal and interpretive.

-F.

Re:Just a reminder

[mcc]

I still say the old way was a spirit violation (i.e. making it harder to incorporate your changes, when minimal effort could make it easier), but obviously that sort of thing is personal and interpretive.

Well... I would assume that they were doing the old way for one of two reasons. Either it wasn't trivial to open up a cvs, or they were doing it on purpose.

If they were doing it on purpose I don't think they'd have totally reversed things so quickly and so quietly. So I'm guessing opening CVS wasn't quite so trivial. (For one thing I am guessing that the cvs server exposed there is NOT the internally used one, so they had to set that up, they had to convert or remove anything that was specific to Apple's internal versioning, they had to comb the changelogs checking for information which is proprietary (like, 'change was delayed because greg was up all night with his new baby). Probably.)

"Spirit violations" seems like a vague enough thing I would personally prefer not to work with that term except in really unambiguous cases. But I do know that the old way was inconsiderate and the new way was the right thing to do.

Re:Just a reminder

[jbolden]

1) Comments are part of source code
2) Apple's comment had references to their internal bug system
Hence you could argue the internal bug information is part of the source

I think the courts might have agreed with the KDE people here had they choosen to sue. It is customery among open source project to have open bug systems and the courts would be likely to find that this was the expectation at the time Apple made use of the code.... The fact that KDE might have won a suit is pretty good evidence that Apple's old actions were questionable.

Re:Just a reminder

[Macka]

Comments are part of source code

The GPL doesn't state that or ask for it. Its only requirement is for machine-readable source code. Comments make source code human readable. The machine doesn't understand them; the (insert-your-language-here) pre-processor just tosses them in the bit bucket at compile time.

According to your warped view, an Apple source tar ball with all the source comments stripped out would be less objectionable than with the source comments left in.

Yeah, right ...

Re:Just a reminder

[jbolden]

My view may be "warped" but it is accurate. There is no requirement of "machine-readable" you seem to be fabricating that. The GPL is quite specific, "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

Re:Just a reminder

[Mornelithe]

The spirit of the (L)GPL is the benefit of free software. You can make use of the software freely, but you, in turn, have to help to further the community which you are benefiting from.

Dumping a big, poorly documented tarball complies with the LGPL, certainly, but it was difficult for the KHTML developers to use, so in practice, it was of questionable value. By consequence, Apple was providing questionable actual benefit to the free software community, thus violating the spirit of the (L)GPL.

The section you quoted lists options for complying with (by definition) the letter of the GPL. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of those options are equal, or that they all necessarily comply with the spirit of the license (which isn't necessarily documented within the license).

(As an addendum, merely releasing a tarball isn't necessarily bad. You could, for instance, send a tarball of discrete, well-documented patches, rather than a blob of all the code with minimal documentation that references an internal, inaccessible bug tracking system. That would comply more with the spirit of the LGPL. It's not necessarily the medium of transfer, it's the content.)

Re:Just a reminder

[mcc]

It may have been of questionable value to the developers. The important thing about Open Source isn't the benefit it provides to the developers. It's about the benefit it provides to the users.

Re:Just a reminder

[Mornelithe]

If the developers of KHTML cannot make use of the code released by Apple, then what benefit is it to the users of KHTML?

The important thing about Open Source is the benefit it provides to all people in general.

Re:Just a reminder

[Macka]

My view may be "warped" but it is accurate

No its not.

There is no requirement of "machine-readable" you seem to be fabricating that.

I suggest you re-read the post you replied to. The guy quotes from the GPL, where it explicitly states "machine-readable" in paragraph 3a. No fabrication on my part.

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

Well I read that twice, and I don't see the word "comments" anywhere in that definition. Would you like to try again ?

Re:Just a reminder

[juhaz]

I suggest you re-read the post you replied to. The guy quotes from the GPL, where it explicitly states "machine-readable" in paragraph 3a. No fabrication on my part.

Paragraph 3a is clearly meant to prevent people from mailing the code in printouts, not to allow simy morons to crawl trough it claiming disassembled binaries, or heck, the binaries themselves - after all, there's the machine code string of 01001001 in there allright - instead of the original C++ code is enough. Which is why the "preferred form" statement is there.

Well I read that twice, and I don't see the word "comments" anywhere in that definition. Would you like to try again ?

Well, try reading it third time, then. It's obvious for anything with more than one brain cell that if you have three different forms of same code, one being machine, second more or less human readable without comments, and the last human readable code with comments that the last one is the preferred form for _making modifications_ which is generally done _by humans_.

Re:Just a reminder

[Macka]

Well, try reading it third time, then. It's obvious for anything with more than one brain cell that if you have three different forms of same code, one being machine, second more or less human readable without comments, and the last human readable code with comments that the last one is the preferred form for _making modifications_ which is generally done _by humans_.

Once again you completely miss the point.

Sure, the latter form is the most useful, but does the GPL specifically require it? No.

Does it distinguish between source code with and without comments? No.

Does the presence or absence of comments affect the compilation or run time execution of a program, its function, essence or purpose? No, No, No, No, No.

You try and make a case that comments are an integral part of the source code by exaggerating the use of "preferred". When the very meaning of the word depicts an expression of choice.

No matter how much you want it to be true, your straw man argument falls over all by itself.

Re:Just a reminder

[juhaz]

Once again you completely miss the point.

Once again? That's impossible with a first reply, you know. But hey, no matter. Although if you don't even bother to check who you're talking with...

You try and make a case that comments are an integral part of the source code by exaggerating the use of "preferred".

I don't claim anything about comments, or any specific little detail. I'm saying that the most useful form of the source code is also the preferred form. Do you have any arguments to the contrary? Why would non-useful form be preferred to anyone?

When the very meaning of the word depicts an expression of choice.

Choice or no, you'd be very hard pressed to find any programmer who prefers the less useful form. But, considering it's up to the distributor, not me, then their preferred form is the one their programmers work with.

And you didn't answer the questions: in your twisted interpretation of the "preferred" and "machine readable" clauses, where is the line drawn? Why isn't 010010010001... or disassembled listing of compiled program perfectly valid "source code"? They are machine readable after all, and can be modified, they just happen to be the least useful and thus least preferred by everyone. But that shouldn't matter, after all, it's expression of choice and there might be one lunatic somewhere in the world who chooses to prefer them, good enough, eh?

No matter how much you want it to be true, your straw man argument falls over all by itself.

So whose argument did I twist before attacking that? Why don't you see what those words mean before spouting them.

Re:Just a reminder

[Macka]

Once again? That's impossible with a first reply, you know. But hey, no matter. Although if you don't even bother to check who you're talking with...

Ah .. my bad. I assumed you were the same guy as this particular thread had taken on the tone of a 1-on-1 debate between jbolden and myself. I didn't expect someone else to jump in on such an old posting.

I don't claim anything about comments, or any specific little detail

Then why are you wasting your time writing on this thread? The mandatory requirement (or lack of) comments as part of source code, within the GPL, is what jbolden and I were debating.

Balance

[allanc]

I guess after switching to x86, Apple felt it needed to do something not-evil to balance things out.

Re:Balance

[mwvdlee]

As opposed to... what evil did they do anyway?

Re:Balance

[jimicus]

OT, but seriously, will someone explain exactly what's evil about that anyway? (Rating: -1, Troll)

Apple are a computer company. Not a "PowerPC chip powering the computer" computer company. They've never been afraid of major changes (witness 680x0 to PPC, OS 9 to OS X). If they reckon they can ultimately produce a better product or attract more customers by using Intel processors and they can minimise the pain to existing customers in doing so, why the hell not? (Rating: -1, Flamebait)

I seriously doubt we'll see them using a standard PC motherboard, chipset and BIOS (and these are generally the reason why things like power saving still suck in PC land).

OK, so a G5 powered Apple may have more limited use in 4 years' time than a 4 year old Apple does today. But the development tools being pushed by Apple don't produce "x86-only" code - they produce programs which can run on BOTH architectures. So I really can't see the problem.

Burn, Karma, burn.

Re:Balance

[geoffspear]

Problem: all of the new fat binaries will take up twice as much space on my already crowded hard drive.

Ok, that's about it.

Personally, I'd love to see Apple release OS X for non-Apple x86 hardware. Not because I want to buy cheaper hardware to run OS X on--I just want to see what Bill Gates' reaction would be. Destroying Apple's entire hardware business would almost be worth it for that alone.

Re:Balance

[vrai]

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?

Re:Balance

[oneandoneis2]

I just want to see what Bill Gates' reaction would be.

http://www.ubersoft.net

Re:Balance

[allanc]

For the record, I don't think it was really evil, I was just going for the joke.

(Although I do think that moving specifically to IA32 instead of x86-64 is dumb. And the move away from OpenFirmware is dumb. And I think the x86 architecture is dumb.)

Re:Balance

[Balthisar]

>>Problem: all of the new fat binaries will take up twice as much space on my already crowded hard drive.

Well, just as I use a freeware tool to remove all of the extra foreign languages (1.5GB savings!), someone will find or make a tool to remove all of the foreign-processor code. Or, you can do it yourself. Remember that a Mac app or library is just a directory with the "real" executables inside it. Trash the appropriate binaries, and voila! Come to think of it, the savings won't be *half* because all of the common stuff, like the NIBs, graphics, config files, etc, etc, etc (everything that used to be a resource in the old days).

Hell, we did the same for crowded hard drives in the 680x0-to-PPC days -- used ResEdit to manually remove the 680x0 code resources and the PPC code lived happily in the data fork. There were even free little utilities to hunt down all of the 680x0 code from FAT apps and eliminate it.

Re:Balance

[Doktor Memory]

To be fair, this is far from a completely win-win deal: there are some other people involved who may not make out so well on the deal. For instance, there's:

1. Independent MacOS developers, who at a bare minimum are now going to have to fork over $1000 apiece for one of the new "developer transition kits", and who may have to spend anywhere from hours to years fixing their applications to work on both architectures, and supporting their applications on both architectures.

2. Apple's customers, who are inevitably going to have to re-purchase rather a lot of their software the next time they buy a new Macintosh... if new x86-compatible versions of their software exist at all. (Yes, Rosetta will handle some of that, but there are serious limitations.)

It's gonna be a bumpy few years for us mac fans.

Re:Balance

[rjw57]

Problem: all of the new fat binaries will take up twice as much space on my already crowded hard drive.

But it wont really matter. Take GarageBand, a big heavy app. We'll only need to double the size of the executables:

persephone:/Applications/GarageBand.app rjw57$ pwd /Applications/GarageBand.app
persephone:/Applicat ions/GarageBand.app rjw57$ find . -type f -perm -0770 | xargs du -h -c 2>/dev/null | tail -n 1
14M total
persephone:/Applications/GarageBand.app rjw57$ du -h -c 2>/dev/null | tail -n 1
63M total

So we go from 63Mb to (63+14)Mb = 77Mb. An increase of about 20%. A 2Gig OS X install goes to 2.4Gig. In these days of O(100Gig) HDs does it matter?

Re:Balance

[Lars T.]

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Re ference/ManPages/man1/lipo.1.html

Re:Balance

[eluusive]

Not to mention the FUD here. Read the top sentence in bold.

The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it's in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines -- shredding the PC's reputation in the process.

Are we stupid for believing them in the first place? And the developers boycotting apple. Not only do they have to relearn all the ASM tricks they learned for the PPC, but they have to fork out 1000 dollars in order to LEASE a developer box for 2 years. Yes you heard me, LEASE a developer box.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess after switching to x86, Apple felt it needed to do something not-evil to balance things out.

Oh, didn't you hear? The WebKit source is only going to be available printed on HUMAN SKIN!

(cue screams, maniacal laughter, thunder, lightning, ominous music, basket, lotion, night-vision goggles)

Re:Balance

[Doktor Memory]

Mmmph. At the time of the 970's introduction, that claim could at least be defended on the facts.

In 2005, of course, matters are very different. The 970 didn't scale as far as even the P4, nevermind the Opteron, which is the reason for this whole debacle in the first place.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Trash the appropriate binaries, and voila!

There is only one binary file, containing segments for each of the supported CPU architectures.

To remove unneeded binary code, you need to use the commandline tool 'lipo', which has been in OS X all along.

On NeXTSTEP, the installer generally let you choose which architectures to install, and would take care of lipo-ing the fat binaries for you.

I expect that, at some point, the same behavior will be found on OS X.

Re:Balance

[argent]

I seriously doubt we'll see them using a standard PC motherboard, chipset and BIOS

Until the G5 a Powermac was almost exactly a standard PC motherboard, and the fancy industrial design of the G5 has not proven itself quite the win they hoped. They're not going to use OpenFirmware, though their BIOS will be unlikely to such as badly as most. And they're almost certainly going to use Intel's chipsets.

I'm sure they're going to do a good job, though anyone with a Rev 1 G3 would tell you to wait for Rev 2 before jumping on the bandwagon, but they're going to be a lot more of a design, software, and system integrator company than a computer company.

Which is really a good thing, because it brings the day closer when they can go head-to-head with Microsoft as a software company.

Re:Balance

[argent]

I'd love to see Apple release OS X for non-Apple x86 hardware.

Me too. My Thinkpad isn't any cheaper than a 15" Powerbook, but it's a MUCH nicer computer... other than the fact that Windows sucks dirty swamp water through a used oil filter.

Re:Balance

[argent]

Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers.

Maybe. I'm not convinced... the G5 actually got faster faster than the P4, even if it didn't get faster as fast as Steve predicted.

If he'd said "4 GHz Pentiums in a year" he'd have been just as POed at Intel.

Re:Balance

[argent]

The 970 didn't scale as far as even the P4

The 970 got, what, 30% over 2 years? I don't think the P4 did that well over the same time.

nevermind the Opteron

Steve doesn't mind the Opteron, but he's not using it.

Re:Balance

[jimicus]

I think I missed most of that.

The press release I read didn't say anything about going to IA32. It just said "Intel chips".

Intel are shipping x86-64 chips now.

I also don't recall anything about moving away from OpenFirmware, and just because there's an Intel CPU involved doesn't mean you're obliged to hook it up to a half-baked north/southbridge combo with a semi-compliant IDE interface and a braindamaged BIOS which needs updates just to handle basic features properly.

I think the proof will be in the pudding.

Re:Balance

[evilviper]

Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers.

Not according to Apple. Apple has been saying for quite a long time how much faster PowerPC processors are than Pentium processors.

What bastards eh?

I think "liars" and "hypocrits" would be more appropriate, but "bastards" is also okay.

Re:Balance

[allanc]

Re, IA32 vs x86-64: IA32

Re, OpenFirmware: Not OpenFirmware (doesn't say they'll be using a standard PC BIOS--and, in fact, there's good reason to believe they won't--but it does say they won't be using OF)

Granted, I haven't personally checked these, 'cause I'm too lazy to download and R the FM, but they wouldn't let people post things to Slashdot that weren't true, would they?

--AC

Re:Balance

[Doktor Memory]

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.

Re:Balance

[allanc]

Well, that makes sense. I mean, skin makes a much more durable writing material than wood pulp; vellum from the middle ages is still readable today--even palimpsests (manuscripts that have been erased and written over)--and Apple is enough of an Earth-conscious company that they wouldn't want to use calf skin. In addition, the historic feel of it would be very stylish, something that Apple certainly likes.

So yeah, human skin. Very functional and stylish. I'm just surprised that Apple hasn't already started printing up all of its documentation on that.

Re:Balance

[linguae]

Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers

Faster and cheaper doesn't always imply better. The PowerPC was a great platform; it is a shame that IBM/Motorola did a bad job in chip production with that platform, so we're forced to deal with the cludgy x86....forever. Seeing the 64-bit PowerPC G5 get phased out in favor of an archaic, 32-bit Pentium 4 just looks sad.

All of the other good architectures have been either phased out or destroyed thanks to the domination of Microsoft and the x86. Now Apple is forced to assimilate to stay alive.

Well, if you can't beat them, join them. I wonder when are we ever going to see a new, non-x86 platform for personal computers?

Re:Balance

[argent]

after the back-to-back heartbreaks...

What effing heartbreaks?

The only heartbreak is the Steve Jobs said "3 MHz in a year" and it didn't happen. Well, hell, Pentium 4 didn't increase it's clock by 50% over the same period, either.

The 7400? It's still a killer core, the only problem with it is the slow memory bus, and that was being fixed and then some with the e600.

Apple had multiple vendors to supply their chips already. They didn't have to fixate on IBM and the 970. They chose to throw everything behind the 970, even though they knew the problems inherent in that brainiac design with its high clock and long pipelines. I can't imagine why they were even expecting IBM to produce a low power 970. That's not what the 970 is all about. That's what the G4 is about, and it does a good job of it.

So, no, they're not going to use VIA or Transmeta. Neither of them has a CPU that's anywhere near even the lowest end G4 they're using now. They will use Intel, they may use AMD, but if they're going to ignore Freescale and whinge about IBM I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Balance

[GaryPatterson]

Ah, but you missed the spin.

They aren't lying or hypocritical when they say things like (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote in front of me) 'PPC can't take us in the direction we want to go in 2006'.

The processor speeds are (to Apple) still true now. It's just that next year and onwards this won't be the case.

And you know what? I think they're right. IBM just aren't going anywhere on the PPC970. Intel are pushing their lines very hard. Apple can't afford to allow more stagnation.

Re:Balance

[moof1138]

>The only heartbreak is the Steve Jobs said "3 MHz in a year" and it didn't happen.

No, another heartbreaker was no G5 PowerBook, and not only that, but no POSSIBILITY of a G5 PowerBook. A liquid cooled G5 PowerBook with six fans and a backpack mounted battery doesn't sound like a good seller. Meanwhile notebooks are becoming top selling computers and the G4 PowerBooks keep looking comparatively more anemic than their x86 cousins. Apple was getting screwed by their chip vendors, Freescale most notably. Freescale hosed Apple as badly as IBM, really. The top of the line PowerBook still has a 1.67 Gz G4.

Dual core Pentium Ms are on the roadmap. Dual Core G4s aren't. Dual core G5s would probably need liquid nitrogen cooling in a portable.

That wasn't just a heartbreaker. For a long term view it was a dealbreaker for Apple. Even though Mz for Mz the Pentium M is not fast as a G4, it doesn't matter when the Pentium runs cooler, gets better battery life, and runs at such a comparitively higher clock that it's still faster.

Beyond that Steve knows a lot more about which chips have legs legs than you or I, he has talked to the people at Intel, Freescale, and IBM who know the roadmaps, and one has to assume he chose based on that knowledge. Steve doesn't just draw decisions that stake the future of a company like this out of a hat.

Re:Balance

[sethstorm]

Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers. What bastards eh?

Only if you use them up for the entire useful life as you see fit and not just until the next immediate major upgrade. As the saying goes, "Fast, Good, Cheap. Pick two." - and there are enough people to make things worth it to large-scale businesses to forego cheap to get profit from them.

One has now decided to step far out, some others will stay with quality and performance for their profit. They dont need rumormills- little more than the facts provided at the right time does quite nicely for them.

Re:Balance

[argent]

No, another heartbreaker was no G5 PowerBook, and not only that, but no POSSIBILITY of a G5 PowerBook.

That's not a heartbreak. Not unless you have unreasonable expectations... I never expected a G5 Powerbook. I can not conceive of the confusion of mind that would lead anyone to expect a G5 Powerbook.

Dual core Pentium Ms are on the roadmap. Dual Core G4s aren't.

The hell you say. Do you know something about Freescale you're not telling us?

Beyond that Steve knows a lot more about which chips have legs than you or I

I don't think Steve's pulling this decision out of a hat. I just don't believe for a minute that he's told us why he made it. Nothing he said on stage Monday justifies it, and I can't believe he's as naive about Intel's track record or the fantasy of a G5 laptop as he seemed.

So what's your money on? IBM's promising 3.2 GHz cores for Microsoft and Sony, now, and if they're not going to deliver those that's huge news. He's not going to have any intel-based Macs for the public until next June, and he hasn't actually committed to any schedule for Intel-based Powerbooks, so even if the e600 has a huge slip it's still a better bet.

No, Steve's holding something back. If that's some dark secret about IBM then you better get your wagers on the Xbox360 missing the Christmas shopping season down now.

Re:Balance

[moof1138]

I think you put the wrong link in there. That is a dual core CPU, but not really a G4, it's an embedded controller with a PPC core. Great for a router, not appropriate for a PowerBook.

>I never expected a G5 Powerbook. I can not conceive of the confusion of mind that would lead anyone to expect a G5 Powerbook.

That is enough of a troll to indicate this conversation is over. Ciao.

Safari for Windows

[doublem]

You know, with this CVS tree, and the move to Intel hardware, how long before we have a Windows port of Safari?

Nah, the last thing we need is something like Safari cluttering things up. Mac users hang onto it for the same reason most windows users use IE, it's what came with the OS. I cant see anyone switching TO Safari if it wasn't preinstalled.

Re:Safari for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a troll. Safari is faster than Firefox on my Mac Mini. I tried to switch to Firefox because of the AdBlock and FlashBlock extensions but it's too slow for me...

Re:Safari for Windows

[doublem]

Well if SPEED is all that matters, use lynx.

I, however, care about functionality, and Firefox has a basic feature set that makes it useful out of the box, while Safari is truncated. Safari's tabbed browsing isn't as elegant. It has fewer keyboard shortcuts for common functions, and it doesn't have the library of installable extensions that Firefox has.

Yes, Firefox may be a bit slower, but it does a whole lot more than Safari, and it's easier to use.

Re:Safari for Windows

[PygmySurfer]

Nah, the last thing we need is something like Safari cluttering things up. Mac users hang onto it for the same reason most windows users use IE, it's what came with the OS. I cant see anyone switching TO Safari if it wasn't preinstalled.

Web designers could use it to test for Safari compatibility. Mac users could use it on their Windows PC at work, for familiarity. Maybe some people just want a KHTML-based browser. Choice is always good.

Re:Safari for Windows

[doublem]

Web designers could use it to test for Safari compatibility

Ohhh!

A GOOD reason for a port!

Assuming of course that both ports run the same on both platforms.

Re:Safari for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I do, frequently - every so often I get the shits with it and try Firefox, and it's still clunky, poorly-integrated, and slow.

It does kick Safari's ass for doing Web development, though. Then again, that's what open source is good at - making low-level tools for developers.

Re:Safari for Windows

[PygmySurfer]

A GOOD reason for a port!

It IS a good reason - remember the days when everyone coded for IE, and pages looked like shit in Netscape? I'd rather NOT go back to that.

Just because Safari doesn't have a huge percentage of the userbase doesn't mean web developers shoudln't ensure their code looks good on it.

Assuming of course that both ports run the same on both platforms.

They should - of course, in practice, that's not usually the case... :)

Re:Safari for Windows

[DrWhizBang]

It IS a good reason - remember the days when everyone coded for IE, and pages looked like shit in Netscape? I'd rather NOT go back to that.

That would be, like, today I have a lot of sites I would like to use firefox on, but they are borked unless I use IE.

Back in the day when we did use something called "Netscape", it was more than likely the other way around - broken in IE, but functional in Netscape.

Your point is right on, though. More (and more standards-compliant) browsers cannot help be be good for web.

Re:Safari for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mac users hang onto it for the same reason most windows users use IE, it's what came with the OS."

Almost every Mac user I know has switched to Foxfire. I'm a unix guy and it took me forever to switch over because it works pretty fucking well...the ONLY reason I switched was the fact Foxfire has killer plugins. I still haven't found a plugin that works as well as the build in Safari Spellchecker (it's built into the OS -- someone PLEASE add the f'n hooks to make it available to Foxfire). It was the nongeeks that convinced me to move over...

*BUT* If I had to pick a choice between IE and Safari -- it would be Safari hands down. If somehow Safari could hook into Foxfire plugins, I'd move back in a heartbeat...its by far the more stable software (I've never had Safari crash on me except in the old beta days) and it renders much nicer, IMHO.

Re:Safari for Windows

[flounder_p]

Try the recently released alpha of firefox. They call it deer park. I have been using it at work to develop with and liked it. So tried it on my powerbook. Much better than the current firefox. Alot faster and better intergrated.

Re:Safari for Windows

[NeoOokami]

Out of curiosity how is Firefox's tabbed browsing less elegant? Especially out of the box mind you since that was brought up. I've seen some nice extensions to improve Firefox's tabs, but out of the box they seem pretty comparable. The biggest difference being Safari's tabs have a close button on each tab rather than a universal one on the right hand side.

Re:Safari for Windows

[Rits]

Yes, let's turn this in another my-browser-is-better flamefest, instead of a KDE/Apple/etc sucks flamefest.

BTW, Opera for Mac has more functionality than Safari and Firefox combined without needing extensions, and is as fast as Safari in many cases :)

Re:Safari for Windows

[pomo monster]

Safari has fewer keyboard shortcuts? Then I'd be happy to know what key combinations I can press in Firefox to switch between tabs and how to make the Delete key act as a shortcut for "go back." If it requires the use of extensions or mucking in about:config, forget it.

Re:Safari for Windows

[pomo monster]

I think GP was actually saying Safari's tabs are less elegant, but I still disagree. For one thing, if you open too many tabs in Firefox, they're pushed off the side of the window; Safari, on the other hand, displays a popup menu so you can still switch to them. Also, Safari's tabs are a hell of a lot nicer-looking. It's small things like that that really make the difference.

Re:Safari for Windows

[Ryano]

"Safari's tabbed browsing isn't as elegant."

Doing a feature comparison between the two browsers' implementation of tabbed browsing, all I can come up with is as follows:

Favicons
Safari: Not supported
Firefox: Site's favicon is displayed in tab
Verdict: Win for Firefox

Close button
Safari: Each tab has its own close button
Firefox: Single close button to the extreme right of the tabs bar closes the active tab
Verdict: Win for Safari

Is there a single other significant difference?

Re:Safari for Windows

[doublem]

On Windows and Linux

Move between open tabs:

CTRL+Tab

Move between Tabs in reverse order:

CTRL+SHIFT+Tab

Backspace already takes you back a screen in the browser history, unless the cursor is in an editable field.

Don't know about Firefox on Mac. It may have fewer shortcuts.

Re:Safari for Windows

[doublem]

I generally run with one of the tabbed browser extensions that adds a close button to each tab, and lets you change the tab order with drag and drop.

This is why I consider Firefox extensions so important.

Re:Safari for Windows

[doublem]

You know, it's been a couple of versions since I used Opera. I should give it another go. Thanks for the tip.

Re:Safari for Windows

[pomo monster]

Safari has extensions too, you know. I'm running with one that lets you rearrange tabs and drag and drop them between windows, and another that blocks ads. To each his own, I guess...

Re:Safari for Windows

[nekura]

Safari supports favicons; they're displayed in the URL bar and next to any sites that have one in a bookmark folder.

Re:Safari for Windows

[jbolden]

I was a Mozilla user for years before I switched to Safari. I like tabbed browsing, I like word enlarge that works. That's why I switched off IE. I'd rather use the OS broswer and get the better integration (frankly I think the stuff that Microsoft was doing with Active Desktop, push and IE 4 was way cool and I wish it had continued).

Re:Safari for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Link?

Re:Safari for Windows

[pomo monster]

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.

Re:Safari for Windows

[trendyhendy]

How about Camino?
Favicons: supported
Close button: Each tab has its own close button

Go Apple!

[WhiteWolf666]

Death to the Mac-Fanbois!

This is great news. Hopefully, the opensource community and Apple will be able to support and help each other.

In other news: Stop complaining about the Intel switch.

(By the way, I own 2 mac minis, a Dual G5, a powerbook, and have encouraged two other people at our company to switch to powerbooks).

PPC is dog slow! That's the *reality*. Pick any game supported on the Mac. Compare the speed of that game on the *top of the line* dual G5 with the *top of the line* nvidia 6800 ultra video card.

My mid-grade AMD64 system with a Geforce 5900FX beats the everloving crap out of it. There are certain tasks that the G5 is slightly faster. But there are many tasks for which it is a great deal slower. By switching to x86, Apple get a faster processor now (Intel), and maintains the option for a *very* easy switch to AMD, just incase that AMD because the 'processor manufacturer of the future'.

PPC->x86 will be somewhat difficult. Intel -> AMD would be cake.

Sorry, couldn't help myself :P

[ZephyrXero]

I for one welcome our new x86 overlords...

Slashdot is messed

[internetjunkiegeorge]

Yeah, I check /. before 7:00 when I go to work, whereupon I will revisit and stay updated, and for some reason, it says "Sorry, search is down at the moment. Until it's back up, you may wish to search Slashdot through Google:" I mean, seriously, I need my /. and I need it now. Fix this you people up top.

All of you zombies

[SamBeckett]

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."

Re:All of you zombies

[Lemming Mark]

This whole mess started when Zack Rusin blogged saying (basically) -
* don't keep bugging us about when Konqueror will do what Safari does because it's not as simple as taking Apple's patches and applying them
* don't keep saying how great it is that Apple are giving us these features

He explicitly said that it was fine for Apple to behave as they were. He just asked that people didn't keep giving Apple credit for doing things that actually needed to be done independently by the KHTML team.

The mess started when multiple news websites and bloggers misreported this as an anti-Apple flame and subsequently seemed to base their articles on each others, not the original post.

Re:All of you zombies

[lilmouse]

The "spirit" should be taken to mean "in some helpful way". If they wanted to, they could bulk-mail printouts of the code to people (for the cost of materials, of course), and that'd be within the letter of the LGPL as well.

However, that's certainly *not* the spirit, and it is a good distinction to make. The spirit is something along the lines of "share and share alike" and make it convenient for others when they help you out.

The distribution method shouldn't be written into the GPL - what're you going to say? "The source code must be supplied on the fastest internet option available using IP6." That's great...except for people who don't have the first clue how to get stuff using IP6, and except for 10 years from now when we're all using telepathy to transmit code (or whatever - everything will be obsolete eventually). So the GPL has to be vague about that sort of thing.

In light of this, bitching about the "spirit" of the GPL, LGPL is entirely legitamit. It's equivalent to being an asshole. There's no law saying you can't be an asshole, most people (AFAIK) don't enter into contractual obligations not to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean you can't bitch if a person is an asshole.

Having said that, play nice on the playground!

--LWM

Re:All of you zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The root of the problem is that WebCore should be regarded as a fully-fledged fork of KHTML and not as a couple of patches to make it run on a Mac.

Re:All of you zombies

[snorklewacker]

Their behavior boils down to "Wah, I offered my friend a lollipop and he took it."

No, that's slashdot's behavior. Most of the KHTML developers really wish slashdot would keep their damn uninformed blathering to themselves, and while they're at it, get a little informed and stop demanding that KHTML support Safari features within 1 day of implementation because "they're the same codebase, right?"

No one but slashbots are griping incessantly about the licensing.

Re:All of you zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not the "he took my lollipop", it's, "he ate half of it, shoved the rest of it up his asshole, and then he offered it back to me".

Just like if you borrow your neighbor's hedge trimmer, and give him a box with it disassembled, and you say, "sorry. I think I broke it, tried to fix it, but it's too complicated. Thanks for letting me borrow it!" Yes, you've complied with the "give back what you borrowed to use", but definitely violated the spirit of "...in the form and usability that you got it initially".

Re:All of you zombies

[Ruie]

Strangely enough, but you came across an interesting issue that highlights the differences between closed source and open source software:)

You see, the point of the closed source software is to leave as much control in the hands of copyright holder as possible.

Using your example, this would be something like: I give you this lollipop in exchange for 1 dollar on the condition that you will only suck it yourself, in the privacy of your own home and will not tell others whether you like it or not.

The point of the open source software is to maximize its usage - in as broad sense as possible. This is really a very fine point as making derivative code is a form of use.

Using your example it would be something like this:

Hey, I made this new exciting type of sugar that smells good, tastes great and makes you 200% smarter. Try this lollipop and tell everyone whether you like it or not.

Oh, and you can read the formula and instructions on the wrapper, so try to make a lollipop or a cake yourself !

Nightly Builds

[Eslyjah]

This is great. I'm really looking forward to building webkit myself and dropping the new version into Safari.

NO, Apple was VIOLATING the letter of the LGPL

[Anonymous Coward]

From the LGPL:

"Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

As we can see now, for Apple the preferred form was not tarballs but a code repository so they should distribute it.

Re:NO, Apple was VIOLATING the letter of the LGPL

[ToastyKen]

Um, that line is simply defining what "source code" means, i.e.: C files and not binaries. I don't think there's any developer out there who'll argue that "source code" means "source code change history".

Re:NO, Apple was VIOLATING the letter of the LGPL

[LaBola]

No, that line defines what is source code for the rest of the license, and in this case source code include the change history, because Apple also uses it as the preferred form for making changes.

I would advise you to read the "terms and definitions" on all your contracts. Maybe you have sold your soul.

Re:NO, Apple was VIOLATING the letter of the LGPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure the FSF has their cvs repository public. If they do it is a relatively recent change. Lets add gnu.org to gpl-violations.org.

Re:NO, Apple was VIOLATING the letter of the LGPL

[ToastyKen]

All I'm saying is, even the KDE developers complaining about Apple's behavior felt that Apple was adhering to the letter of the law.

Now, IANAL, and I'm guessing neither are you, so let's defer the fine print interpretation to the people who DO have lawyers to consult, shall we? And they seemed to believe that source code without history was what "preferred form" meant.

You know, there's probably a ton of legal precedent for that specific phrase. You can't just go and interpret legal documents however you personally feel is intuitive. That's the whole point of lawyers.

Evil Company TM contact Details:

[cheezemonkhai]

The SCO Group, Inc. (SCO) is a provider of software solutions for small- to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and replicated branch offices. SCO solutions include UNIX platforms; messaging, authentication, and e-business tools; and services that include technical support, education, consulting, and solution provider support programs.

Based in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide presence with representation in 82 countries. This infrastructure enables SCO to provide local support and dependable solutions to businesses around the world. In addition, SCO has a channel of more than 11,000 solution providers, a developer network of nearly 8,000, thousands of direct account customers and an installed base of more than two million systems.

SCO solutions are divided into three broad areas: operating systems, extended platform and services.

Contact Us
Please bookmark our home page HERE for quick access to the latest information on all SCO products and services. Click HERE to purchase products. To become a SCO reseller, please click HERE. SCO may be reached using one of the following options:

• Email: info@sco.com
• Web: http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/
• Tel. (801) 765-4999

Support Services
For information on support service options, contact your product supplier or SCO directly.

SCO Worldwide Support Services
SCO offers a broad portfolio of technical support services tailored to the needs of partners, corporate accounts and end users. With support centers located in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, staffed by SCO's highly skilled support engineers and local language support availability, SCO can meet all our customer support service requirements.

For information on SCO Support Services, click HERE or: United States and Canada 1-800-726-8649 Korea +82-2-784-2542 Japan 03-5290-3900 Latin American Countries Contact your local SCO Sales Office Europe, Middle East, India, Africa and Pacific Rim +44(0)1923-813 600

Why not open up all of Safari?

[Eslyjah]

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but why doesn't Apple open up Safari? I would love it if all the energy that goes into Safari modifications went into Safari development itself.

Re:Why not open up all of Safari?

[Tonik, the]

Open up Safari? OMG you're a reta^W^Wan average slashdot user, that's ok...

Re:Why not open up all of Safari?

[Anonymous Coward]

What energy ? Safari is the most underpowered browser in the history of computing. Nearly 30 MB (that would be 60MB as a ph4t binary) and it does what exactly ? Ok a reasonable RSS reader but nothing else unless staring at Brushed Metal is your thing.

Re:Why not open up all of Safari?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that the actual Safari executable is only 1 MB. Not everything in an application is machine code you know.

Not a zero sum game

[ChrisF79]

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.

Re:Not a zero sum game

[jtshaw]

What your saying requires that the corporate interest has the same goals in mind for the product.

Apple took khtml and extended it the way it felt it needed to for Safari. Meanwhile, the khtml people were changing and extending it there own way, which happened to be a bit of a different direction. This happens all the time, and it isn't anyones fault.

Many times it becomes very hard to backport code after forks, regardless of who forked the code. The only way to fix that is to restrict development by others to a similar path as your development, which shits on the "spirit" of the GPL just as much if not more then what people were complaining about Apple doing in the first place.

When you release code under the GPL you have to know that it is totally possibly somebody might fork it and create patches that are useless to you. That is the nature of the beast and all part of the OSS development environment. If you can't deal with it, then don't use the GPL.

NOone's inherently evil

[daniil]

Calling someone "inherently evil" makes just as much sense as claiming that man was born from a monkey. Noone's inherently evil. There's no such thing as the original sin or the original evil, inherited from father to son, from grandfather to grandson.

Not even Microsoft (you were referring to MS, weren't you?) is inherently evil. Not even Roland Piquepaille.

- [tt]

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Three Words:

Santa
Cruz
Operation

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[wrf3]

No parent has ever had to teach their children to lie.

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[tomhudson]

For those who are wondering about Roland Piquepaille, slashdot, and primidi, here's a do-it-yourself faq by Roland Piquepaille on how to whore your very own site.

Is Microsoft inherently evil? I think Gates would pull a Clinton, and say "Depends on what you mean when you say the word Evil." At least all Clinton did was carpet-munch, not astroturf.

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[Casualposter]

In order to understand lying and liars, one must first understand the nature of language. Language, is a tool for the manipulation of other people. Children are hardwired to understand this as a fundamental part of their survival. A child is not capable of providing for its needs and must communicate those needs so that they are met in a timely fashion. Children do not intend to lie as a fundamental sign of evil, but rather they intend to speak what ever phrase will achieve their end. Example: One child hits another child and the adult places the first child in "time out," which is the new name for the old concept of "standing in the corner." The child wants out and will cry and plead, etc. When the adult asks a question: "ARe you going to hit the other child?" The child will answer "No" not because they intend to be good, but rather because that is the word that gets the adult to meet their need to be out of "time out."

Accurately delivering information, ie., the truth, is something that must be taught. It should be interesting to note that trust and truth are closely related. therefore societies value truthful communication, while individual tend towards manipulation.

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[wrf3]

Language, is a tool for the manipulation of other people
If so, than that in itself is immoral, since manipulatioin is inherently selfish.

Children do not intend to lie as a fundamental sign of evil, but rather they intend to speak what ever phrase will achieve their end
Just curious, but how many children do you have? Like a dog on a couch, they know better.

Accurately delivering information, ie., the truth, is something that must be taught ... while individual tend towards manipulation
I think you've just helped prove my point.

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[KaptajnKold]

[...]since manipulatioin is inherently selfish.

No it isn't. As you would know if you'd ever thought about it. I put it to you that manipulation is inherently selfless. Which makes about as much sense as what you postulate.

Like a dog on a couch, they know better.

So, a domesticated dog can be immoral? Can all dogs? What about non-domesticated children?

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[wrf3]

I put it to you that manipulation is inherently selfless
Manipulation of another person is for personal gain. That's selfish. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: do you like being manipulated?

So, a domesticated dog can be immoral?
They can be disobedient; I don't know if they have knowledge of right and wrong (as opposed to a pain/pleasure response).

What about non-domesticated children?
That's not an experiment I'm willing to run. Perhaps there's some literature on it (besides Lord of the Flies).

Re:NOone's inherently evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Manipulation of another person is for personal gain. That's selfish. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: do you like being manipulated?

Manipulation is for something more often than not. But isn't raising a child the same as manipulating the child, and the reason for it to be sought outside the selves of the parents? Perhaps the reason is for the child itself?

To me "to manipulate" (in this context) means the same as "to (attempt to) alter". Many people recent being altered. I would guess that this is because they believe that they give up their integrity or selves if they give in to this alteration. I am of the believe that we are altered (or "manipulated") constantly, that this is the nature of living, and the image of our selves as a more or less static whole is a false one.

Oh little sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think the timing of this is highly opportunistic and manipulative then there is something wrong with you. That is your problem

Re:Oh little sheep

[rohanl]

If you don't think the timing of this is highly opportunistic and manipulative then there is something wrong with you. That is your problem

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but couldn't the timing just be due to the fact that WWDC is on at the moment. I'd expect a few more announcements this week too...

Re:Oh little sheep

[Professor S. Brown]

Its WWDC this week. Go back to polishing your tinfoil hat, you fucking retard.

MOD DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma whore doesn't know what he's talking about.

Apple complied with the liceanse agreement 100%. Now they are just going above and beyond what is actually required to keep up good relations.

Re:All of you lollipops

[Anonymous Coward]

No their behavior boilds down to "Wah, I offered my friend a lollipop and he took 10 and hid them and sold them to everyone else then he told me to shut up and punched me and laughed at me, then later on when he did a really really bad thing much worse than stealing my lollipops so he pretended to be my friend again and be nice to me to make himself not look so bad"

Now, we will continue to reap ... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, we will continue to reap the benefits of both freelance and corporate coding.

Are you sure? How good a "sign" is it if MOST of the code released on this new website is still usable only if the OS X API is accessable?

This appears to be nothing more than a PR move by Apple to make it appear that Apple is doing more than just giving lip service to the Spirit of the GPL.

Apple was not following even the letter

[LaBola]

The GPL and LGPL talks about the prefered way of modifying the source (or something like that). If Apple was not distributing the code among their programmers as tarballs they should distribute the code repository.

The QT 4/KDE 4 Transition

[CyricZ]

How will the upcoming QT 4/KDE 4 affect Safari? Will Apple continue to base their renderer off of the KHTML 3 widget, or will they rewrite their bindings to take into account the benefits of the new KHTML 4 widget based around QT 4 and KDE 4?

Re:The QT 4/KDE 4 Transition

[nietsch]

As far as I know, Apple does not use the qt toolkit or kde komponent apart from khtml. So the answer is probably no. If the khtml developers did a good job, the qt dependencies should be not hard to remove anyway.

Defunct?

[Gary W. Longsine]

Despite liking OS X and the now-defunct power-PC platform

Odd, my PowerBook G4 just exclaimed: "I'm not dead, yet!"

This is really good for GNUstep.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad WebKit turns out as BSD. GNUstep doesn't have enough developer, ie. to maintain its own gswebkit tree. But now it seems it has everything to go web browsing, free webkit and ObjC++.

Re:This is really good for GNUstep.

[fdobbie]

I doubt WebKit will be that useful on GNUstep, as it uses other Apple technologies like ATSUI, Quartz, etc.

Re:This is really good for GNUstep.

[CyricZ]

Doubt is one thing. But we need answers, my good man. Solid, reliable answers. Can you provide them?

mVod up

[Anonymous Coward]

then Jordan Hubbard significantly being GAY NIGGERS. 800 w/512 Megs oF it's going, if I remain

Oh, come on!

[CarrionBird]

What was ol' Adolf just a victim of circumsatnce? Puh-leese!

Way to take determinism to its extreme.

Re:Oh, come on!

[daniil]

Just because you've just proven Godwin's law to hold it still doesn't mean that Nazis will be mentioned in every Internet discussion thread.

And since when is denying one form of determinism considered "taking determinism to its extreme"?

Re:Oh, come on!

[Okonomiyaki]

Do you have some proof that Hitler was born evil? Do you know enough about his upbrining to completely rule out the possibility that his worldview was brought on by exposure to various stimuli outside of his own control?

If you do, then I'd also like to hear your definition of the word "evil" because I'm not satisfied with any of the ones I've heard up until now. Can evil be defined in any completely objective way? I've never known it to be used in a way that is not ego-centric, ethno-centric, or human-centric.

Re:Oh, come on!

[Roland Picky-Pail]

No, he made choices like anyone else can.

Posting from CVS WebKit...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

It's noticeably faster than the version that ships with Tiger (and yes, it passes Acid2 :)

"Preferred form" BS

[ubernostrum]

The "preferred form" of most Apple developers is probably some versioning system running as a client on G5 workstations, so obviously Apple is legally obligated to provide the changed source code to KHTML developers in that form. Go sign on to the KHTML project now and your free G5 will be shipped soon!

Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

CVS repository != source code.

What??

[jpsowin]

You mean there is nothing to complain about now? Wait, what about that Intel thing? They can't get off the hook that easy!

THANKS TO APPLE AND ALL!!!

[-_broken_watchman_-]

[As Cies Breijs said]

My congratulations to all parties. Apple for beeing cooperative, and for giving back. To Zack Rusin http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/14 for sharing his opinion and reasoning, which openen up this issue.

If would be 'cool' if KDE-Konq and OSX-Safari use the same codebase for HTML-rendering and running JavaScripts. It would be 'cool' is KDE and Apple coders would work together on this.

Yet... if this will not be the case it already is a big help that both parties can view each others cvses/svns and bug databases.

I think once again Apple shows it really wants to play nice/fair with free/open-source movement.

Thanks for the good news :)

Legal != Ethical

[FreeUser]

Why? They complied with the GPL.

They were complying with the letter of the GPL, but not with its spirit. That was the problem. The GPL is very good, but no license is perfectly watertight. Not even the GPL.

Apple did absolutely everything that they were legally (and ethically) bound to do.

No. Ethics != Legality. Never has, probably never will.

Apple was doing absolutely everything it was legally bound to do. By making the information available in a format (apparantly) designed to be very difficult for the KHTML folks to use, Apple was not doing everything it was ethically bound to do. Indeed, if what they were doing was deliberate (and not simply a result of lack of manpower/time/what have you), what they were doing was decidedly unethical, by any sane, reasonable (read: non-lawyerly) understanding of the word.

Now, it appears, Apple's ethics have caught up its legal obligations, and what they are now doing is both comensurate with their legal obligations and their ethical obligations. Which is a very good thing for everyone.

Re:Legal != Ethical

[akac]

Ethics != What you want done

They only have a couple people working on Safari. Its been said that their internal source control system is completely incompatible with CVS. So it sounds like it was just very difficult for them to set this up. They had to make a conversion system for their stuff to CVS (they probably had one done for other projects, but that doesn't make implementation simple). They had to setup the site. Etc... For a a few developers.

So you're just making your worst case assumptions against your desires, and calling it lack of ethics.

Re:Legal != Ethical

[FreeUser]

So you're just making your worst case assumptions against your desires, and calling it lack of ethics.

No. Reread my post. What I said was that legality is not equal to ethics, as was implied by the grandparent post. Additionally, I said that if what Apple had been doing were deliberate, it would have been actively unethical.

As it was, what they were doing wasn't helpful to the community they depend on for their product, the community complained, and they fixed the problem. The fact (if it is such, and not just the corporate spin we are fed by virtually every media outlet these days) that Apple took so long was a shortage of manpower and an internal RCS incompatible with CVS clears them of being unethical, but it doesn't change the fact that what they were doing was unhelpful to the KHTML community, or that something needed to be done about it, regardless of whether or not they were adhering to the letter of the GPL.

Keynote

[takotech]

When you get a chance to watch it, check out the chick from MS. I've never seen a worse presenter. I wonder if Apple requested her on purpose.

Re:Keynote

[Anonymous Coward]

I've forgotten her title, but she's the manager for MIcrosoft's Mac BU. She does all of Microsoft's presentations at the keynotes. You're right about her being an awful presenter; I don't know why Microsoft can't find someone better.

Re:Keynote

[iamacat]

She looked like she has something to hide and is not happy about it. Maybe Microsoft is about to do something especially nasty and borg-like that will result in her division getting demolished? Like porting Windows to new Macs, asking people to install that instead of OSX, and canceling all the other Mac products.

Re:Keynote

[punkass]

Roz Ho is her name...yeah, someone really should ask her to blow her nose before she comes on stage...

Re:Keynote

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting up in front of 3800 developers isn't exactly easy. Following Steve Jobs on stage isn't exactly easy either. Roz has been doing a stellar job running the Mac Business Unit at MS, and her message was one of a strong commitment to OS X on Intel. Your criticism is pretty sad.

Re:Keynote

[andreMA]

Voice like fingernails on a blackboard.

Re:Keynote

[Squozen]

She's always been that bad a presenter.

Re:Keynote

[Anonymous Coward]

The criticism is that she sucks ass as a speaker on stage. Given that you think her job would involve hundreds of presentations to groups of technical and non-technical people, I would say she has had a lot of practise. The end result: she sucks ass. Valid criticism.

Right on time, Cavalry.

[Spy der Mann]

*JUST* when KHTML complies with ACID2, after a giant effort of hacking and trying to understand the tarballs' code, and look!

There they come! It's the cavalry, and they got a CVS repository! OK we're ready! Where are the bad guys now?

*Tumbleweed passes by*

Re:Right on time, Cavalry.

[tbone1]

There they come! It's the cavalry, and they got a CVS repository! OK we're ready! Where are the bad guys now?

They're at www.irs.gov.

Sincerely,
Willie Nelson

Re:Right on time, Cavalry.

[stilborne]

we don't need, nor want, "bad guys".

that was kind of the whole point, now wasn't it? we WANT a happy collective of projects each furthering their own goals and helping each other in their respective journeys as far as that is possible and makes sense.

when someone points out that a process isn't working well, don't blame the messenger.

when that message results in good things, hail the improvement.

In other News....

[iluvcapra]

In other news, Apple has been bought and is now operated by every troll that ever bitched about Apple on slashdot.

The best they could do at the time

[injustice_sucks]

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!

Re:The best they could do at the time

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Which, incidentally, is amazing they managed to keep that secret for 5 YEARS!

Uh, I imagine that I read Mac rumors more than you, but it wasn't much of a secret. It was pretty widely acknowledged that Apple had a working version of OS X for x86 in their labs.

The big surprise was that Apple decided to actually play that card, not that they had the card up their sleeves.

That, and now the OS X-on-x86 guys get offices with windows, and the PPC developers go to the skunkworks basement. C'est la vie! It's funny to think of the OSx86 developers rising from the ground, like zombies seeking brains.

Did YOU read the original ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, did you read past paragraph one? It was a very strange document. It started with "I am not here to complain about Apple" and then... mostly consisted of some very annoyed complaining about apple.

I have no doubt that the KDE guy who wrote this honestly INTENDED to respond to unwarranted public backlash, but at some point in the document his long-pent-up frustration with Apple seems to have taken over and he switches over to complaining about Apple's KHTML compliance.

Is it time to release Safari to the open?

[wealthychef]

I wonder if Safari could be improved by open-sourcing it.

Re:Is it time to release Safari to the open?

[argent]

That's what just happened, pretty much. Safari is just a shell around this code... something like Shiira could be bundled with it and you'd have the whole thing. Probably even run Shiira 1.0 on Panther that way. :)

Wait and see first...Deja Vu.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the whole situation similiar to the Trolltech situation. Eventually the RMSers got what they want. But not after a lot of bad feelings were generated, and two stabs were taken to undermine their business model. e.g. Harmony, Gnome.*

*I should tack this to the other Apple-Linux story but with Apple moving over to Intel. I don't see such GNU tactics being successful much longer. Pissing off people in the face of a good alternative simply isn't wise. Just ask Microsoft.

Less than impressed...

[reznet]

Hmm, I'm less than impressed with Apple's standards support: DOM

Re:Less than impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, it's not DOM support that "needs to be written", it's the webpage.

Duh...

Re:Less than impressed...

[reznet]

Thank you for not getting my joke.

Duh...

Re:Less than impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it might be a joke...but notice that apparently the mods haven't gotten it either...

Re:Less than impressed...

[reznet]

Tough crowd this slashdot is...

thanks for the reply.

Re:Less than impressed...

[ssyladin]

AC whino

Re:Only because..(mod parent up!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Too true. Apple is the master of playing the media. I bet more than 3 or 4 press releases, though. Intel switching to Macs is too tasty to brush off the press' plate.

SHIT!

[fakedupe]

Does this make it easier for adware and spyware writers at all?

I'm paranoid.

Re:SHIT!

[argent]

Does this make it easier for adware and spyware writers at all?

It would be a good idea to do a security review of the code base.

build options

[Anonymous Coward]

soo... anyone messed with the build options yet? O3 vs Os?
mcpu=7450?

Recommendations?

Ain't gonna help KHTML people anyway

[melted]

They will still have to spend a lot of effort porting patches from there. Think about it, if Apple gave a shit about cross-platform coding, KHTML team would just recompile stuff on Linux and it would just work, perhaps with a few minor tweaks. If they crap Cocoa and Carbon code all over the place, you first need to remove that and THEN port what's left. Having worked with large codebases I can say this is only worth the effort in rare cases, and most of the time it's easier to see what was changed and re-implement something similar, not backport.

I can't blame Apple for any of this, though, especially after they've opened up CVS.

Re:Ain't gonna help KHTML people anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

They will still have to spend a lot of effort porting patches from there. Think about it, if Konqueror gave a shit about cross-platform coding, the Safari team would just recompile stuff on Mac OS X and it would just work, perhaps with a few minor tweaks. If they crap Qt and KDE code all over the place, you first need to remove that and THEN port what's left. Having worked with large codebases I can say this is only worth the effort in rare cases, and most of the time it's easier to see what was changed and re-implement something similar, not backport.

T, FTFY

Complain: Why CVS? Why not Subversion??

[Anonymous Coward]

>> what is KHTML going to complain about now!

I know, I know, I know!

Why the f*ck does Apple use the old-fashioned CVS for their repository? (Does it fit better to their old-fashioned Objective-C language preference?)

Why for G*d's sake don't they start with Subversion?

KDE made the difficult move and conversion from an *existing* CVS to Subversion -- so a company like Apple should be easy with *setting up* an initial repository, no?

From previous discussions:

[NilObject]

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.

Re:From previous discussions:

[entrigant]

It's been said before but I think it's insightful enough to say it here:

This was never about KDE developers being unhappy with Apple. It was KDE developers being unhappy with KDE users bitching that safari had things khtml did not. So they explained why.

Sell people

[jbolden]

I don't doubt there are strong forces. People just aren't sure what they are. It would help if Apple were very very clear on why this option was chosen and what they intend to do.

Re:Sell people

[JQuick]

It would help if Apple were very very clear on why this option was chosen and what they intend to do.

Jobs was very clear about that in the keynote speech.

By 2006 and beyond, Intel chips will have much better Performance/Watt ratios than PowerPC.

That seems pretty clear to me.

What does that mean?

The Power architecture does have a number of strengths. However, the roadmap for future improvements to the PowerPC line will lag significantly behind future chips from Intel in that regard.

Cooling, noise, and the increasing prevalence of portable computers make Intel more favorable in the long run for the types of products that Apple wants to build.

G5 laptops were too hungry and dissipated too much heat to put in a laptop. 'Nuff said.

sue vs. mind

[jbolden]

I think Apple was perfectly entitled to mind Think Secret publishing this information. The question was whether they should win a suit.

I think you are perfectly entitled to publish secret information about me, and I am perfectly entitled to mind.

Bill gates

[jbolden]

I just want to see what Bill Gates' reaction would be

I'd imagine not much of one at all. Bill has beaten a 2 dozen really good OSes over the years.

I understand you were trying to be sarcastic

[melted]

It kinda didn't work out. In fact what you said is what Apple ended up doing, thus the problems with backporting fixes.

Will the Whining Stop?

[qw(name)]

The KHTML developers will just start crying about something else no doubt...

newsflash has little to do with recent shenanigans

[RestiffBard]

If some of you folks took the time to know what you're talking about before you spew you'd know that this open sourcing has been in the works for months. Long before the KHTML issues cropped up.

This really is the G4 roadmap...

[argent]

I think you put the wrong link in there. That is a dual core CPU, but not really a G4, it's an embedded controller with a PPC core. Great for a router, not appropriate for a PowerBook.

And why, pray tell, is it not suitable for a Powerbook? Seriously? The MPC8641 has the same core as the MPC7448 (which is a G4, down to the socket, which is why it's only a slightly faster bus than the current G4), it's got ample cache, and it's got most of the interfaces that a typical PC chipset provides built in and it's low power even with those interfaces which means more power saving since you don't have to add the power consumption of those parts of the support chips. The only possible issue is that it requires a new logic board, because it's got a new pin-out, but ANY real improvement to the performance of the Powerbook will need that, whether it's a new G4, a G5, Pentium, or G3+Altivec... because that's where the bottleneck is: the slow system bus on the MPC7xxx line.

If you think a G5 Powerbook was ever a realistic possibility, then I honestly can't see how you could object to this.

For the Record

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for Apple.

This wasn't released because of any pressure or obligations to anyone. This was on the schedule to be released after WWDC (duh it's a dev conference!) The khtml comments have nothing to do with our choice to "open" webcore up.

Not a response to the KHTML guys

[dalangalma]

This was not a response to the KHTML flap - Apple had been planning to do this before that whole thing blew up. Or so their director of Internet Technology told me.