Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Avocates Open Sourcing OS X
xzvf writes "Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels." From the article: "That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes. Let's start at the beginning. There's been a lot of fuss over Apple's rollout of the unsupported Boot Camp product, which lets Mac users run Microsoft Windows easily on an Intel-based Macintosh. I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."
Look, shut up nigger. Nobody cares if you want to look into the API if you want to see what's going on behind the scenes. If you don't like it, fuck off and go work with Loonix and the rest of the bearded open source faggots.
Am I angry? Yes. Why? Hell of a question. Here's why.
There exists an open source version of OSX; I saw it floating around Usenet not too long ago. All the source you could ever want is there. Problem is, the code is a nigger, and it's got an attitude. So what does it do? Well, rather than compiling, it somehow purchased a Harley, drove up to my subdivision, broke into my neighbor's house, and fucked his wife in the ass -- what? -- ten, eleven times. She's hot, and I would have too, but come ON -- nigger OSX fucking a hot 34 year old blonde in the ass? That's just insane.
But it gets worse. As OSX was buggering her stink knot, her husband came home. OSX dismounted his wife, attacked him, and broke his fucking neck. Then OSX calmly resumed fucking his wife in the ass for the next hour or so, until it came all over her face.
Then -- THEN! -- OSX killed her, the bastard.
So no, OSX should NOT be open sourced. Get a grip.
John Dvorak says OSX Should be Open Monday April 17, @05:23PM Rejected Man, I love /.
Sign up today.
Sadly, the internship program isn't as exciting as it used to be. I hear that in previous administrations you could do a job right in the Oval Office -- working under the President even!
Bemopolis
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
OSX is built on an open source platform, BSD. Why should it itself be open sourced? Why do I want 20 different distributions of OSX when Apple makes one decent version of it.
Honestly, people say Open Source without thinking. They think that all software should be free or all source code should be made available without even thinking for one instance whether the world needs it. OSX doesn't need to be open sourced, neither does windows, sorry.
For all you hobbyists out their, linux is great, it is an example of good OS design and if your wondering how the pros do it, look at linux source code. But that doesn't mean that every software vendor out their needs to open source their friggin software.
Open source isn't a solution. It's a business concept which really isn't that successful. Its not making anybody rich, it isn't creating products that are truly sweeping proprietary software, and I tire when someone say "Hey, open source your software!" without making one real statement of why it should be so.
F*ck off, write your own software, stop standing on the shoulder's of giants because you feel you can build a better mouse trap then them.
I can tell you one thing that will happen if everything is to go Open Source, Software PATENTS. If Microsoft or Apple open sources their OS, then that is going to mean that as much as you can look at their source code, you can't use it or modify it because of both Microsoft and Apple will get so many patents on it that it will stiffle open source development. Apple isn't going to want to give away source code that makes spotlight fast and efficient, especially with companies like Microsoft around. So Apple will patent their software up the wazoo so that even if you see their code, you couldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Will this be beneficial for Open Source?
Open source is about the free exchange of information and ideas to develop software by community, and while this is a great grassroots idea, the fact is that Apple and Microsoft and others have billions invested in their software, they aren't just going to hand it out so that Linux users can make 100 differet versions of OSX or Windows. What benefit has 100+ versions of Linux offered the world? Only confusion and weakness is what 100 versions of Linux has offered. Without one distro to rule them all, Linux WILL NEVER compete with OSX or Windows. Open source development fragments the linux community into 100 weak products, all with their own subtle strengths, but get the community behind one Linux distro, and you will have a strong competitive product.
But sorry, Apple isn't one of them, neither is Microsoft. I mean, did this guy even realize that Apple is the developer of OSX? A company that surrounds themselves in propietary technology and secrecy to the point that you don't really know something exists until Steve Jobs stands up on a stage and says its so? You really think Apple wan'ts to release their OSX operating system, now the ONLY reason why people should buy a Mac to the masses so that it can be cloned and ripped off at will leaving Apple with no leverage. OSX as open source would simply turn Apple into Dell, an OEM pre-fab PC manufacturer among 100's of equals. This will kill off Apple quickly.
Sure, OSX source code will last for ages, in one form or another, but gone will be the company that made it great.
Open source OSX? Get real. Put down that pipe because you got a hold of some very bad weed.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Inside source: this happened on the morning Microsoft announced delays to Vista.
The board meeting
So it's Tuesday morning at Apple. The boardroom is having another meeting about the future of the Macintosh. They're perusing the feedback over the unofficial port of Windows to the Mac, and considering the consequences. There's a whole bunch of things on the agenda. OS development is hard, and it's expensive. Their competitors, Sony and Lenevo, doesn't need to do it, and they're doing pretty well all in all. Plus, there's the whole break up plan. When Apple separates into Apple Macintosh Inc and iTunes Corp, how attractive will Apple Macintosh be as a take-over target? The whole move to Intel will be for naught if it hasn't made Dell and friends just a little more excited and comfortable they could fit the Macintosh into their lines.
Apple has some little development projects on the boil and has for some time. To begin with, it's pretty much completely reimplemented the Carbon APIs under Windows. Indeed, that's how iTunes and Quicktime are implemented. But, interestingly, so are the Cocoa APIs. They're all there, Apple never stopped developing them, even after it nixed WebObjects for that platform. It's also in need of certain features that would help it with the future. Apple has no "managed code" environment - it supported Java to a certain extent, but Cocoa never was a perfect fit for that. Apple's progress with .NET, unofficially, under Windows and OS X, is coming along surprisingly well.
As time has gone on, the notion of switching to Windows as the base platform really has gotten more and more plausable. There are still roadblocks, Apple needs Microsoft to provide them with a little more customizability of the UI. A switch to Windows without providing the essential Macintosh experience just wouldn't do. But, well, .NET, and Aero, are Microsoft's attempts to break with the past. Perhaps an OS built upon these APIs could, with Microsoft's help, look entirely like a Mac environment - with the right code, obviously. You don't want a Dell user flipping a registry switch and getting a Mac.
It's clear that whatever happens, OS X is doomed. Postings by MacRumors alumni arguing that the porting of Windows to the Mac spells disaster are read out, and largely agreed with. But the question then is - does Apple continue to pour money into OS X, or could Gates and Ballmer be ameanable to making the modifications needed to make Windows Vista the next Macintosh OS?
The phone call
Jobs picks up the phone and calls Gates. There's a brief discussion, and then the phone's put down. A few minutes later, the phone rings. It's Ballmer, Gates, and Allchin.
"We think we can do it, Steve" says Bill Gates. "I mean, this is a major thing for us. It's a coup, and I know you know we're thinking it. So we're going to help in any way we can."
Allchin interjects: "Funnily enough, from our end, the code's largely there. We need a bit more time. WinFS needs some work - we'd put it on hold, but if you're going to want Spotlight on this OS, we'll need to finish it. Sticking menus at the top of the screen and reordering them... that's easy stuff. We'd appreciate it if you ported your own Dock and Finder, you can
I really want to know who Dvorak's weed hook up is. I stopped smoking years ago, but if it's that good I might consider a "for old time sake" session.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano