Apple Announces New Open Source Efforts

Today Apple announced a few expanded open source efforts. First, beginning with Mac OS X 10.4.7, the Darwin/Mac OS X kernel, known as "xnu", is again available as buildable source for the Intel platform, including EFI utilities. Second, iCal Server, Bonjour, and launchd are moving to Apache 2.0 licensing. And finally, Mac OS Forge has been launched, as the successor to OpenDarwin as a conduit for hosting projects such as WebKit that were formerly hosted by the OpenDarwin project's servers, such as WebKit. Mac OS Forge is sponsored by Apple. DarwinPorts has already moved to its own servers. Update: 08/08 01:43 GMT by J : The official Apple announcement is now out. Other fun news: Leopard will ship with Ruby on Rails.

Comments

Official Apple announcement

[daveschroeder]

The official announcement by Ernie Prabhakar of Apple is here:

From: Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka@apple.com
Date: August 7, 2006 4:15:51 PM PDT
To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, fed-talk@lists.apple.com
Subject: Apple Opens Up: Kernel, Mac OS Forge, iCal Server, Bonjour, Launchd

Hi all,

In conjunction with this week's Developer Conference, we have four great pieces of news for Open Source developers:

A. Intel Kernel Sources

As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarba lls/apsl/xnu-792.10.96.tar.gz

B. New "Mac OS Forge" for Community Projects

Mac OS Forge, a new community site hosted by Apple, is being created to support WebKit and other open source projects focused on Mac OS X, especially those looking to transition from OpenDarwin.org.

http://www.macosforge.org/

C. New Open Source Calendaring Server

In order to encourage community participation, source code to the new iCal Server in Leopard Server is now available on Mac OS Forge under the Apache License.*

http://collaboration.macosforge.org/

D. Apache-Licensed Bonjour and Launchd sources

To further enable and encourage cross-platform adoption, the APSL** sources for Bonjour service discovery and Launchd process management are being re-released under the Apache License and hosted on Mac OS Forge:

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/
http://launchd.macosforge.org/

Apple is more excited than ever about the power of Open Source development to create value for our (and your) products and customers. I'll be offline much of this week due to WWDC, but I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to Leopard.

Sincerely,
Ernest Prabhakar
Open Source Product Manager, Apple
WWDC 2006, Aug 7-11, San Francisco
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc

* Apache License, Version 2.0
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

** Apple Public Source License 2.0
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt

And as always, Darwin and Darwin component sources are available here:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Re:Official Apple announcement

[samkass]

The most interesting of these to me is the iCal server. This looks like it could become the best open-source competition to Microsoft Exchange. The Leopard version detailed here looks like a pretty compelling product to have as an Apache-licensed piece of code, and I could see the code getting merged into a lot of other products.

Re:Official Apple announcement

[BigCheese]

It would make a dandy Apache module just like Subversion.

Re:Official Apple announcement

[mkiwi]

I would be very happy to find an alternative to MS Outlook. I'm sick of people reaching the "2GB" mail limit and the program wiping all their messages. It happens all the time, and causes no end of frustration in the IT department and especailly the end user. MS needs some real competition in this arena to help them do some actual innovation. Apple and Open Source may provide the answer that we have waited a _long_ time to see come. Outlook needs to be completely redone, maybe MS will start feeling the pressure as Linux calendar apps come of age using Apple's technology.

Re:Official Apple announcement

[TheGreek]

I would be very happy to find an alternative to MS Outlook. I'm sick of people reaching the "2GB" mail limit and the program wiping all their messages. It happens all the time, and causes no end of frustration in the IT department and especailly the end user.

If your IT department sets up users to download mail from Exchange to local PST files, each and every person responsible for that decision needs to be fired.

And then tortured.

And then executed.

Re:Official Apple announcement

[topham]

This is common practice when the users in question have laptops and run around visiting clients, or other business locations.

You might not like the fact but it's true. Outlook should warn users and not corrupt it's own file.

Re:Official Apple announcement

[TheGreek]

This is common practice when the users in question have laptops and run around visiting clients, or other business locations.

I suggest you stop reading Slashdot and look into Cached Exchange Mode.

Darwin on PC

[mnemonic_]

Is there any reason to run Darwin on a PC instead of FreeBSD or other *nix system? Everyone knows OS X has a fantastic GUI, but is there anything exceptional about its kernel?

Re:Darwin on PC

[Quantum Fizz]

These guys might have something to say about that, they've got a supercomputer of 1100 dual G5 Xserves running OS X 10.3.9. There are other OS X supercomputer and distributed cluster projects you can read about here.

Re:Darwin on PC

[Noksagt]

There are only two reasons: "because you can" (e.g. you get "cred" & can try to hac OS X to run on white box hardware (in violation of the license), etc.) and driver development for Macs.

Darwin isn't designed to be run without OS X for desktop usage & it certainly shouldn't be used in production.

Re:Darwin on PC

[ToasterofDOOM]

That's not really what it was made for, it was really only a development platform, a testbed, etc.

Re:Darwin on PC

[oudzeeman]

vtech used a custom compiled kernel, and have also been using Linux on the cluster. I used to work for a site with a 256 node Xserve cluster that was running the latest OS X 10.4 (we started with 10.3 and switched to 10.4 shortly after it was releases). They still run an up to date 10.4 on the cluster, but now they also have a portion of the cluster running Linux, which performs better than OS X for many HPC applications. They are working on software that will interface with TORQUE/Moab to install either a Linux or OS X disk image prior to launching a job thereby allowing a fully dynamic OS X / Linux hybrid cluster. Xnu appears to have issues with its memory manager. Sites often write their own simple memory manager in order to get the best possible benchmarks for OS X. VTech did it. We did it. Ours was a IOKit driver that loaded at system boot. The first thing it did was grab about 90% of the physical RAM (contiguous). The driver had to be loaded at boot or else this would have failed. Then we wrote a library that would overload the malloc familly of functions to use our memory manager rather than the default. This ensured that our high performance app would always get physcally contiguous memory which improved cache hits and greatly improved the performance of Goto's blas libraries (he has a very low oppinion of the OS X memory manager).

Re:Darwin on PC

[m874t232]

There is little reason to run Darwin if it didn't ship with your machine: it's a decent kernel, but kernels like Linux and BSD have more hardware support, more functionality, and somewhat better performance. However, the technical differences are not large enough for Apple to bother switching right now. On the other hand, if Apple wants to move to generic PCs, porting their user environment to a Linux or BSD kernel might make a lot of sense.

In any case, Apple's future is likely in hypervisors--small kernels that allow Linux, Darwin, BSD, and NT to run on top of them. In a sense, that's what Mach was supposed to be from the beginning, but it's being achieved using different technologies now.

Re:Darwin on PC

[paulmer2003]

Am I the only one whom is irrated by the lack there of VIRTUAL CONSOLES?

Re:Darwin on PC

[njh]

You could make a super computer out of DOS 6.1 given enough computers. Most of what makes a supercomputer is the libraries and hardware. For many single task runs you don't even need an OS.

Re:Darwin on PC

[quizzicus]

When making such a strong, sweeping claim, it's usually a good idea to cite a few sources.

Re:Darwin on PC

[PhunkySchtuff]

In a word, No.

Not that I can see. You might want to use something like QuickTime Streaming Server, or cluster up some machines as a beefy iCal server, but otherwise, I can't see any reason to run Darwin, other than as a development tool...

Re:Darwin on PC

[j-pimp]

I disagree on two counts. On the other hand, if Apple wants to move to generic PCs, porting their user environment to a Linux or BSD kernel might make a lot of sense.

Hardware venors will port their own drivers. If apple switched to Linux or FreeBSD's kernel, (lets assume FreeBSD becasue thats what userland is) they would probally have to release closed source drivers for some products to keep vendors happy. This would outrage a very vocal minority and stick apple in a fight between kernel developers and hardware vendors. Apple has nothing to gain by this. On the other hand, apple could sign deals with intel, broadcom and a few other platers to get them to write OS X drivers, write a few of their own, and not worry about the rest. In any case, Apple's future is likely in hypervisors--small kernels that allow Linux, Darwin, BSD, and NT to run on top of them. In a sense, that's what Mach was supposed to be from the beginning, but it's being achieved using different technologies now.

I doubt there will be a hypervisor involved, at least a thin one. The CPU can handle OS virtualization, the "hypervisor" can probally live in firmware.

Re:Darwin on PC

[TheRaven64]

Xnu appears to have issues with its memory manager.

Very true. I wrote some code last year that was quite I/O intensive and had two back ends; one using POSIX AIO and one using mmap. On FreeBSD their performance was within 10% of each other (which one was better depended on the dataset). On OS X, the mmap backend was an entire order of magnitude slower. Overall, the XNU performance was not great; I got faster test runs on a 1.4GHz Athlon running FreeBSD than a dual 2.5GHz G5 running OS X (it only used a single thread, but the other CPU could have been used to handle I/O).

OS X is a nice development platform (great dev tools, particularly for debugging malloc issues and profiling), but I wouldn't use it for deployment unless I had to.

Re:Darwin on PC

[blugu64]

No

Re:Darwin on PC

[m874t232]

If apple switched to Linux or FreeBSD's kernel, (lets assume FreeBSD becasue thats what userland is) they would probally have to release closed source drivers for some products to keep vendors happy. This would outrage a very vocal minority

Apple has never given a damn whether they outrage anybody. Also, I don't see anybody in the BSD community complaining about Apple's current proprietary uses of BSD, so why should they start complaining if Apple's uses become more open?

I doubt there will be a hypervisor involved, at least a thin one. The CPU can handle OS virtualization, the "hypervisor" can probally live in firmware.

It may well live in firmware; what's your point?

Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Billly Gates]

The closing of the Xnu kernel and proprietary nature of carbon and aqua made alot of former macosx FOSS zealots switch to Linux. I am aware that Windows is all closed source but people run windows because it comes with their computers and all the software runs on it.

Most os's today are open source such as Solaris and the free unixies.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Quantum Fizz]

I'm the opposite. I used to be a FOSS zealot, I've run Linux since 1998, I've gone out of my way to write reports in LaTeX instead of Word and to do presentations in OpenOffice instead of Powerpoint, etc. But now my time is worth more than a few bucks, and putzing around with my Linux box is getting too annoying.
.

So last year when my GF got a Mac Mini and I started using OS X, I've come to realize that I'll gratefully pay money for Quality closed-source software. I've since even bought iWork '06, and I never would have thought I'd pay money for an Office Suite.

So what you say might be true for a select few of the harder-core FOSS zealots, but I don't see why FOSS zealots would have even been on the Mac platform anyway if they're as zealous as to switch merely for the closing of Xnu. But anyway, for the rest of the 99% of the computing populace, this OSS initiative will be welcomed.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Millenniumman]

There might have been 3 people who switched during the couple of months before apple released xnu for intel because of that. And I doubt there were that many.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[great throwdini]

The closing of the Xnu kernel and proprietary nature of carbon and aqua made alot of former macosx FOSS zealots switch to Linux.

Care to quantify that? What? You can't? You mean you're only talking about a handful of bloggers? And even though many read their rants for amusement, does that bless their scribblings as a bellwether for OS X? It doesn't? Oh, I see.

Some may have "gone over" to Linux, but I don't think Apple loses sleep over it. I don't, and I fail to grasp what bearing it has on Apple's attempts to put code "out there" to interest other developers.

As for the rest of your post ... I will admit to it having been lost on me. Windows is closed, but everyone uses it, but "most" (though, clearly not in terms of market share) operating systems are open, and so what then ... ?

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[MBCook]

Oh please. If you switched to OS X because you are a hard core FOSS person, you're an idiot. OS X is not open source. It never was, it never will be. Linux will ALWAYS be more open. Apple may open the kernel and various low level things, but OS X in total will not be. It's a great OS and if you want a no-fuss desktop with true Unix under it, it's great. If you want to be that hardcore ("Apple was late so forget them") then why did you choose a proprietary closed-source OS in the first place?

As for the comment that most OSes are open today, that's because you can't survive otherwise. No one has survived the desktop/server space except MS (who was once up near 100% of the market) and Apple (who bundles with their computers). Solaris is open because it wasn't profitable enough. OS/2 died. BeOS died. At this point, if you want your new general purpose desktop/server OS to have a chance in hell it has to be open source. The only way to live and be proprietary is to have a niche and run on custom or embedded hardware.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[MyDixieWrecked]

BeOS died because of Microsoft.

During the whole antitrust thing, Be had gone to the DoJ and presented their case to them stating that, basically, with all the evidence they had, it was an open and shut case against M$. the DoJ, for whatever reasons, decided to instead focus on the fact that IE was bundled and embedded inside windows.

Be's case was that M$ was using unfair business practices to force them out of the industry. the M$ contract, to bundle and pre-install windows with your computers was that you were not allowed to sell any other operating system software, even if you bundle windows in addition to Windows, whether it's installed or not, or sold separately.

I believe it was Toshiba that was in talks with Be to bundle their OS as a dual-boot option, but M$ started throwing their lawyers at them.

The reason this didn't hit mainstream was that this contractual agreement between vendors and M$ was protected as a trade secret.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Tylerious]

"The only way to live and be proprietary is to have a niche and run on custom or embedded hardware."

Excuse me? Look at Microsoft. They're proprietory, but don't deal in hardware and don't have a "niche". Yet it's one of the most successful companies ever.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[at_slashdot]

Quality is important, that's why I use Opera not Firefox (yeah, I know funboys will mod me down) however, what's more important is to have the freedom to switch, that's why Firefox is still important to me. I think that Mac OS is a good thing just as long as there is a easy way to switch to another, preferable free, OS (Linux) in case you need.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[greenguy]

Huh. I'm currently typing this on my sixth Mac in 15 years, but it will go the Ubuntu way soon (I've already tried... "release keys?" WTF?). My iBook already did.

Thing is, I won't pay to upgrade from 10.3.9, and I can't friggin' make either Fink or GCC work on what I have. That means I'm stuck with substandard versions of AbiWord and OO.o, and general frustrations with Scribus, Inkscape, etc. All of it just works on Ubuntu.

Not that there haven't been frustrations there, too (wireless? "release keys???"), but by and large, I'm more productive on Ubuntu. More than once -- more than twice -- I've gotten up from my Mac to go use my Ubuntu machine.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[MBCook]

Microsoft is the exception, because they are 90% of the market. The reason you can't have a proprietary OS is because you can't get past MS. At this point, it is currently impossible.

The only exception I can think of this would be to have a proprietary OS and give it away for free. Even then, you'd have a very tough time.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[TheSpoom]

I'd mod you interesting if I still had my points from yesterday.

I wonder if this will change with Vista?

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[andreyw]

The next time you sit down to think why they have 90% of the market, realize that most of the "latest" technologies in computing have been directly pushed for (and had their design contributed to) by Microsoft.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Swift2001]

The second the Mac OS gets like Windows, I'm gone. I think the whole point of this OS conundrum is to make sure that many OSes survive. It would be best if they play nicely together, so that you can move your e-mail for Mac to Linux and so on, and open up Word docs on all platforms, maybe in a free app, but the maintenance of a number of systems in important in a networked world.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[HiThere]

Doubt if you want. I didn't "switch", I made decisions about future purchases. I run a mixed Apple/Linux environment with one MSWind95 machine. My decision was to hold off on any new purchases of Apple. And to think several times before recommending it to someone.

So they're switching back. I think I'll reserve judgement for a year. If they're really back, then I might consider buying an Apple again. (I'll agree that the Apple has advantages. It's also got a LARGE number of not clearly identified licenses that need to be periodically agreed to. And I really don't like that. And I find their file system (desktop) to be unintuitive...which is odd, because it's the ONLY file system (desktop) that I use which I find to be that way...and I didn't find the OS9 file system to be unintuitive. With OSX I have to stop and think. This is bad because the main user, my wife, has even more troubles with it than I do. (And she does have trouble with MSWind95...but not as much as with the Mac which is currently her main system.)

But Apple does have some really nice applications. If they are genuinely back as a peripheral member of the FOSS community rather than just doing a Sun-like flip-flop then I'll be considering them again because of those applications. If not I'll make do with the ones we've already purchased. (No, I'm not considering discarding them. That would require someone proving that they were being VERY sleazy with their EULA's.)

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Mr. Jaggers]

I personally try very hard to only run GPL'ed, natively-compiled applications, and to contribute back to as many as I have to skills to help. This, I think, is part of being a good neighbor.

However, in the interest of helping a new convert stay on the side of the light, if you ever miss the popular windows games, you should consider Cedega from TransGaming. Several guys here in my office run it on their Gentoo or Debian boxes (so it'll probably work on Ubuntu also), and play World of Warcraft and Battlefield 2, etc. It's good to have a beefy machine, but it's more important to have a nice graphics adaptor (my buddies here have NVidia cards).

Anyway, I hate to sound like an advertisement for them, since I think that projects like Cedega and NDIS are generally bad for FOSS in the long run. After seeing how happy some of my friends are to be able to play certain games on their GNU/Linux laptops, some over (mostly) functioning wireless LAN connections via NDIS wrapper, I have to admit that they are generally good for GNU/Linux in the short term.

Also, keep in mind that if (when) you have money to buy your shiny new Mac OS box, you can also put Ubuntu on there as well, and switch handily between them (simultaneously, I believe). That will give you an easy migration path from your old box without having to abandon any of your new L33t Ubuntu skills.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Overly Critical Guy]

The closing of the Xnu kernel and proprietary nature of carbon and aqua made alot of former macosx FOSS zealots switch to Linux

No, it didn't. Let's see some numbers cited. Hell, Mac sales continue to rise.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[BrainInAJar]

What did Sun flip-flop on? Solaris is almost completely open source (the list of required binaries for OpenSolaris is shrinking almost every build) and that hasn't changed. J2EE server is now apache with some other (also free software) stuff tacked on... really, Sun makes very few non-free products (sunray server, for one off the top of my head, and the JDK/JRE for two, which is slowly but surely being released)

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Vulcann]

Wouldnt it be uber cool to have Apple "adopt" the Solaris 10 kernel. I realise that switching from a BSD to a system V kernel will be heresy to some but think about the possibilities : You have one of the best UIs on the planet talking to one of the most advanced OSes at present. Before all the Linux fanboys climb up onto me, I have got to say that Solaris 10 is an extremely capable system and has a lot of innovation from Sun right from Dtrace to containers which Linux doesnt yet support (AFAIK). It also has a good track record of being used for several decades on mission critical systems so stability/scalability is never an issue. Mac/Sun would scratch each others back - one by diving into the server space firmly while the other getting a good toehold on the desktop.
 
The only real issue is hardware support. But considering Apple has gone Intel and Solaris with better support for AMD, if Apple and Sun get together and try to churn out device support for more peripheral devices with the help of the community it should be a sight to see. Wish it happens in my lifetime :)

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[trifish]

It's a great OS and if you want a no-fuss desktop with true Unix under it, it's great.

In fact, Mac OS X is not "true Unix" (it is based on the Mach microkernel technology).

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Paradise Pete]

I'd mod you interesting if I still had my points from yesterday. I wonder if this will change with Vista?

No, your mod points from yesterday are gone for good.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Antique Geekmeister]

Look back at the SunOS/Solaris architecture and open source flip-flops, from BSD to AT&T SysV. It's taken them years to recover from the chaos that created.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Durandal64]

Whether or not something is a Unix has nothing to do with the kernel. It has to do with whether it is compliant with the POSIX standard. Apple hasn't gotten OS X POSIX certified as far as I'm aware, but they implement all the necessary APIs as far as I can tell.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Midnight Thunder]

I am a big supporter of open source, but I don't see open source as a right and I don't expect everything for free. Unfortunately many do think a program being open source is a right and do expect everything to be free. Someone needs to spend time and energy developing software, so unless they are doing it as a part time job then they need some sort of compensation, and usually the best is money - you still have to pay for food and rent, of course the hardware to develop the software on. The danger of opening up too much is that your closed sourced competitors can take advantage of your work and you also reduce your income. Therefore what you open up needs to work to your advantage, otherwise why bother being in business?

When a company like Apple or Sun opens up their otherwise closed source software we should be grateful, rather than thinking 'about time'. These companies are there to make money and if everyone is trying to have a free copy of their software, then revenue goes down, and if no one buys the hardware, then the revenues goes down even further. If revenue is zero, then you can imagine how good that looks.

Be happy with what you have, be happy with what you can get, or provide constructive value to the process.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[trifish]

If anything is an operating system, it's the kernel. The userland applications around it are just sauce. By the way, Windows XP comply with the POSIX standard in many respects. That does not make it a "true Unix".

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[trifish]

And in case you missed it, Linux is the name of the kernel.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Durandal64]

So what about the kernel determines whether something is a "true Unix"? The simple fact is nothing, unless you're snobbish about monolithic versus microkernels or don't consider Mach to be a "real" kernel or something equally ridiculous. As long as the proper APIs are implemented, you could argue that something is a Unix. It doesn't matter whether you're running Mach, Windows NT or Linux underneath. A Unix can be built on any kernel; that's the whole point of POSIX.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[spitzak]

Yea, it's much better to use an abbreviation that means "Multiple Scolorsis" to anybody 30 or over, or that indicates that a woman does not want anybody to know if she is married from her name.

Face it, the abbreviation "M$" is immediatly readable and identifiable. "Microsoft" is too long and is probably the only other acceptable way of writing it.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[trifish]

I will just repeat what I said in my first post to this thread: OS X is not "true Unix". Period.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Durandal64]

Ah yes, repeat what you said with absolutely no justification so that your claims can't be critically examined. Truly brilliant. Period. Seriously.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[JulesLt]

I think it actually made a small number of people switch - Carbon and Aqua have always been proprietary and unavailable to Darwin developers. What it did do was create an enormous fuss amongst FOSS zealots who had no interest whatsoever in the Xnu kernel, but want to see Apple open source everything for their own benefit / the good of the world.

People like Doctorow and Mark Pilgrim - who are the two most public OS X to Linux switchers - have actually cited the closed nature of Apple's apps than their OS as their reason for switching. This strikes me as odd in Doctorow's case in that Apple's apps are no more closed than they ever were. It has just taken desktop Linux for this EFF advocate to realise this - in the past he was not willing to sacrifice usability for freedom, as the EFF often advocate.

Like a Windows user, I run OS X because it came with my computer and because there is a lot of OS X specific software. The apps were the reason I chose the OS.

Solaris, on the other hand, has no real killer Solaris-only applications - aside from powering proprietary Sun hardware. With Solaris x86 the competition is free and you have to do what the competition does. I would wager that lack of interest will eventually let Solaris x86 go the same way as most flavours of BSD. In their own way, Linux advocates are a fixated on the one true system as Windows or Mac fans, and generally show a lack of interest / disdain for developments in other operating systems.

Apple have the advantage, unlike Sun, that the vast majority of their customers do not give a fig about Unix. They aren't looking for a server to run an Oracle database or web server. For some of the apps their choice is Windows or Apple. For some apps they have to choose one system or another. Development of consumer level apps on Linux is years behind Apple, and will take an initiative on a scale comparable to Novell's SLED to achieve (just think how many millions of pounds of corporate investment from Sun (OpenOffice), IBM, Novell and Red Hat SLED represents). It's not just the programming, it's hiring artists to create themes for movie editing and DVD creation packages, etc, that distinguishes Apple's products. It is the side of the business volunteer projects are rarely good at implementing - good free programming talent is easy to find these days compared to design talent.

I'd also say that Windows is another reason why most OS today are open source - being free is often the only way to compete against Microsoft. Apple have managed to create enough value in their system that people will pay more than Microsoft based machines to use it. There would have to be a compelling business reason for them to throw that away, as they would need to justify it to their shareholders. The only one I can think of is if they actually started losing market share to Linux or Windows.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[Lars T.]

If he doesn't end on a black list, he should have more Mod points by the time Vista comes out - at least 50.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[trifish]

> absolutely no justification

Absolutely no justification? You kidding me right? I told you that OS X has the Mach kernel and Mach kernel is _not_ a Unix-like kernel. The aim of the authors of the Mach kernel was to create a better and _different_ kernel than Unix. OS X has BSD toolset which is Unix-like, but the kernel is not Unix like. Saying that OS X is "true Unix" is just plain wrong. Period.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone

[MyDixieWrecked]

Face it, the abbreviation "M$" is immediatly readable and identifiable.

while you've got a point, so does the GP poster... I'm pretty childish when it comes to Microsoft due to the fact that they kill just about everything that's great in the computing world. Their worst targets, in my eyes, have been Be (an OS that I loved enough to ditch apple for) and Bungie (my favourite gaming company of my youth).

Also, everyone seems to think that my hatred of M$ is related to the old Apple vs. M$ flamewar, where it isn't. I've always had very specific reasons why I didn't like M$, many of which are related to the fact that they rarely support anything outside of their own technology, or they "extend" existing tech to a point where their implementation becomes incompatible with everything else. this leads to people who learn the M$ version and when they try to use an OSS version or even just a plain standard version (J++ and Java, for instance), they blame the non-M$ branded one for not working the way they expect.

All of this frustration that I feel is compounded by the fact that most people don't seem to care at all about this and assume that the reason that M$ is the goliath that they are is because they ship a superior product; which isn't true. A perfect example is how several people I know (and I can only assume that there are LOTS more out there) see no reason to dump IE in favour of Firefox or other alternative browser. Their reasoning is that since IE has such high marketshare, there really must not be any real good reason to use anything else. And if pages don't render right (because of mis-implemented support for CSSx or other technologies), it's the fault of the website creators for not taking IE into account.

Re:Congrats!!!

[lotus_anima]

Ha... you got second post...

Re:OS X

[Billly Gates]

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.

Re:OS X

[G-funk]

Already the case. No, Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves. Because Dell would like to sell it to you. And I would like to buy it. Windows exploded and killed itself "for no raisin" for the last time this weekend, and it's getting replace with OS X. I have a mac laptop, I'm already paying for OS X. but I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would, but I can't so thepiratebay it is. Yar!

Re:OS X

[Quantum Fizz]

No they're not, people here on slashdot are constantly bickering whether Apple is a hardware or a software company. It's both.
.

Apple is really a solutions company. They give you the complete package to get done what you need to get done, without you worrying about the fine details. From the high end they'll sell you a server environment (Xserve + RAID + OS X Server), at the low end they'll sell you a system to let you browse the web, play with photos and make simple movies (iMac or MacBook + OS X), etc. And anywhere inbetween, they give you the tools for you to do what you want. They give you the solutions.

Sure they sell hardware, they sell software, but look where they're aiming their market, and you'll see it's really solutions they sell.

Very nice ...

[Sonic McTails]

I wasn't too happy about xnu-x86 and related kernel modules being closed source because the fan controls for the MacBook Pro are software based (in AppleSMC AFAIK), and that means someone can use the source code, and modify it so the fan starts at a lower temperature which should hopefully resolving the heating issues.

Re:Very nice ...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Not really. Take a look at http://macosforge.org/subversion.html, where it says:

        Several projects hosted at Mac OS Forge use Subversion. Subversion is not available by default on Mac OS X Tiger, but you can download and install it from Mac OS Forge with the following commands from Terminal:

        $ curl -O http://www.macosforge.org/files/Subversion.root.ta r.gz
        $ sudo tar xzf Subversion.root.tar.gz -C /

Notice the complete lack of any checksums or PGP signatures of the software: you're just supposed to slap it on top of your root filesystem and never look back. And since Subversion by default stores user passwords locally, in cleartext, for any servers using HTTP or HTTPS or svnserve access, and even if you use svnserve+ssh it could be programmed to steal your password free SSH keys or information about your SSH keyring setup and mail them to the mothership, it represents a serious risk to the Subversion user, and a risk to any software repository at MacOS Forge.

Subversion is vastly preferable to CVS for a lot of reasons, but these people should not be trying to re-invent the wheel this way without noticing that previous wheel inventors already invented brakes and axles.

Apple

[nurb432]

Today they are a mixture of both. However, they are moving towards becoming a 'media company', where software will be a bit more unlikely to be given away.

Re:Apple

[jdbartlett]

Must be a pretty poor media company. iTunes and iPod barely got a mention in the WWDC keynote. The focus was on Mac Pro, XServer, and OS X Leopard.

Re:Apple

[TheGreek]

Must be a pretty poor media company. iTunes and iPod barely got a mention in the WWDC keynote. The focus was on Mac Pro, XServer, and OS X Leopard.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it's because Mac Pro, XServe, and Leopard are more relevant to the target audience of WWDC than iTunes and iPod are.

OSx86

[Joe The Dragon]

How long will it take for this new kernel to make it in to OSx86

I Thought...

[redragon]

I thought Apple was evil and torpedoing the OSS efforts on OS X, because they don't want their Intel work to see the day of light, cause someone would hack OS and get it to run on home-brew hardware. Oh, or were people just being bitchy?

Re:I Thought...

[evilviper]

Or maybe Apple changed their mind about being evil, because of so many people "being bitchy".

Re:I Thought...

[jcr]

were people just being bitchy?

Bingo.

Apple doesn't talk about unreleased products, and they won't release any code that tips their hand. The Intel kernel sources would have made it very clear what was going on with the replacements for the G5s, so they waited until today to release that code.

The lesson here is: don't jump to conclusions just because some people with an inflated sense of entitlement throw a tantrum about someone taking their time to do something.

-jcr

Re:I Thought...

[jcr]

Apple made a blunder by not releasing source in the beginning.

Guess again. Apple maintained their policy of not talking about products before they're ready, and the payoff is tens of millions of dollars worth of free publicity. Compare that to being yelled at by a couple of bloggers trolling for page hits, and it's pretty clear to anyone with an ounce of business sense (which admittedly includes very few of the open-source zealots) that they did precisely the right thing.

-jcr

Re:I Thought...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Apple...won't release any code that tips their hand.

And more power to them, noone disuptes their right to do that.

What people do have a problem with, is Apple calling their products "Open Source", when you couldn't download the complete source.

don't jump to conclusions

No conclusions were jumped to. Apple were describing a product as open source, when you couldn't download the complete source.

Understand now? People were disgusted at Apple's hypocrisy, rather than being annoyed that they couldn't download some almost completely useless source.

Re:I Thought...

[squiggleslash]

Neither.

Apple didn't "get" Open Source (that's fine, many of us Free Software enthusiasts don't "get" Open Source either) and began deprecating it when it started to interfere with their other plans in general. The first to be deprecated was the open-sourciness, with Apple releasing code but generally not in a "community friendly" way and rarely making it easy for the community to contribute directly back.

There's no evil in that, if you're strongly opinionated about the direction code should take, and you have the resources to write it yourself, you don't necessarily want to spend time trying to integrate everyone else's changes with your own.

Some people noticed. In particular, the KHTML people got a little fed up with people pointing out that WebKit supported some feature or other that hadn't made it into KHTML yet. They explained that the changes to WebKit weren't easy to track and back-port. This was interpreted by the meeja, including Slashdot, as KHTML slapping down Apple, rather than slapping down the people who assume that simply because X is based on Y, Y can easily incorporate changes to X, and who keep flaming the developers of Y for not doing this.

Then Apple closed XNU-Intel. Yes, they did. There are several releases of XNU-Intel for which source code apparently will never be released (though who would want them?) Some people noticed. They pointed this out and were immediately hounded by a bunch of, for the most part, obnoxious Mac zealots who claimed this wasn't true because at some point in the future, Apple might change their mind, and any way, who said their mind had been made up, I mean, Apple hasn't made an official announcement, right? To make matters worse, Apple's one comment on this was so inane it simply fueled the fire. One developer at Apple, posting on an Apple mailing list, said that the talk of XNU-Intel being "closed" was "speculation" and people shouldn't assume anything.

This was meaningless and largely wrong. Those saying it was closed were right: it was. You couldn't download the source to XNU-Intel. When you're stating a fact, you're not engaging in speculation.

There was much anger at this point because many people felt lied to. Apple had been advertising the openness of Darwin for a long time, and "Team Apple*" had been loud in repeating this supposed advantage, and now, without any explanation, the core of Darwin was now closed. Team Apple responded by claiming the Apple developer who said "speculation" had actually used the word "yet", and the "yet" word was used in pretty much every response to anyone critical of Apple or simply pointing out the fact that XNU-Intel was closed. Team Apple changed tact on the "Open Source is an advantage of Mac OS X" thing too, claiming it was never Apple's intention to release a useful operating system as open source, and that nobody cares about operating system kernels anyway. Needless to say, this intensified the anger.

What do we have today?

Apple has taken considerable steps to undo the damage. There's still no real explanation as to why XNU-Intel was closed. No technologies were announced yesterday whose existance could be discerned by looking at the kernel - which has supported the Intel architecture since its original release, which has supported the Xeon CPU range even back in the Panther days, and probably long before. It was not necessary to withhold the XNU source before the release of the PowerMac G5, or, indeed, any of the recent radical changes in architecture. Meanwhile, the software-related announcements this week don't appear to have anything to do with the Tiger kernel.

So, anyway, leaving aside the nonsense that it's "been confirmed" that the withholding of the source "was due to Apple's policy of not commenting upon unreleased products", we don't have an explanatio

Re:I Thought...

[acaben]

Some people noticed. They pointed this out and were immediately hounded by a bunch of, for the most part, obnoxious Mac zealots who claimed this wasn't true because at some point in the future, Apple might change their mind

Actually, they were immediately hounded by a bunch of pissed off mac developers for spamming every mailing list that Apple has, and then continuing to fight their holy war while list moderators told them to knock it the fuck off.

Most people on the lists even seemed to agree with the little twerp, but were just constantly astounded at his lack of social grace and amused that he didn't even realise his temper tantrums were doing nothing but hurting his cause.

Re:I Thought...

[bnenning]

I don't think there's a credible alternative explanation. The "undisclosed technology" thing has been revealed to be utterly untrue.

Why? The x86 kernel sources almost certainly have references to Woodcrest and quad CPUs, which Apple wouldn't have wanted to expose until the hardware announcements.

Re:I Thought...

[SteeldrivingJon]

"I want an oompa-loompa NOW, daddy!"

It's not hypocrisy if the source release for one small portion of their OS is temporarily delayed.

When you're at a restaurant, do you throw a crying tantrum if a pea gets into your mashed potatoes?

What about WebKit?

[cblack]

But what about WebKit, or other projects like it, such as WebKit?

You prefer Miicrosoft?

[bobalu]

Y'know, with all the crap Apple takes here about fanbois and shit you go ahead and tell me what they do compared to what Microsoft does isn't light years better for everyone in the community.

And yeah, my MacPro order is in already.

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft?

[Nataku564]

Wait ... VB a plus point for Microsoft? You know, you almost had me up until that one.

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft?

[Macgrrl]

It made it easy for computer users to use their computers without having to worry about hardware compatibility.

Prior Art = the Macintosh in 1984...

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft?

[dfghjk]

bullshit. that machine had no compatibility issues because it was Apple-only.

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft?

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, young 'un (and I'm still in my twenties). There were LOTS of PC games before DirectX and the platform was every bit as strong as it is now relative to consoles. Perhaps more so.

Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but...

[MarkWatson]

I still can't help feeling that at least outside the USA, the future will be Linux - China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and other places with low costs of living and an educated population are going to power the world's economy, and I don't see the rest of the world paying the Microsoft tax.

That said, Windows, Linux, and OS X are all good platforms for open source applications: for work I 'live' using open source applications that really run great on all three OS platforms: Emacs, Eclipse, Ruby, LaTex, OpenOffice.org, and others...

Commercial products that I rely on also run well on all three OS platforms: IntelliJ, LispWorks, and Franz Lisp.

The only commercial application that I love to use that is single platform is OmniGraffle (OS X).

I actually have a psmall oint here: as Linux gets better (and Ubuntu is approaching OS X in usability for my work, and is roughly on par with Windows), people like myself will likely use Linux and non-programers OS X or Windows.

Anyway, I checked out Apple's new OS site FTFA, and it looks useful. Some enthusiasts will likely get Apple's open source OS core up and running with X Windows, etc., and make a free distribution, but I am not sure what the point is.

Re:OS X

[Noksagt]

Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves. Because Dell would like to sell it to you. And I would like to buy it.

Apple doesn't cater to the commodity market. So, no they won't do this.

but I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would

And I thinkthey'd rather sell you a new $1000+ computer rather than selling you the $100 software (which would increase their costs by having to develop, test, and support a wide variety of configurations).

No actually they are open for a purpose

[DECS]

As noted in my various articles on Apple and OSS, companies open things for strategic purposes.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

(tapping foot)

[jpellino]

OK - let's see the rush of support for Apple that's roughly equal to the bashing they took when Intel XNU source went dark.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but

[MBCook]

I agree. Over the past few years I've seen just how bad Windows is for the average person. This is through a combination of exposure to Linux and later OS X. If OS X didn't exist (or I couldn't afford the Mac) then I would run Linux. OS X is worth the extra cost. But if that is an issue, then I can see using Linux. It may come time that Linux surpasses OS X.

I also agree about the Xnu being open source. It's cute and all, but for practical reasons who cares? They have nice projects that I can see being useful (iCal Server, Bonjour, etc) but to try to take Xnu and such and make something to compete with a Linux distro just seems pointless.

PowerPC is to remain open

[Wesley Felter]

XNU/PowerPC has been open source for years. That's why people were surprised when the source for the x86 version was not released.

Re:OS X

[flithm]

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken. If Apple were smart (which they are) they would rather sell you $350-$1000 dollar software and make TONS of ROI rather than try to compete in the tight hardware market which is currently on a downward trend.

No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware -- but it'll happen. Because Steve is smart dude.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but

[macurmudgeon]

The point of OSS on OS X is not to make an alternative Darwin OS that can run X Windows. That's already available with FreeBSD and Linux. Hell, Apple offers a nice X environment that looks like Aqua.

The point is to be able to easily add things like Subversion and ImageMagick and other command line 'Nix programs, that don't come with the default OS X install. The Open Darwin group may have had visions of making an alternative Power PC distro. But most of us wanted it because it was an easy Mac version of RPM.

Re:OS X

[God'sDuck]

I'm rather stumped what this wide variety of configurations is that you speak of.

Mac OS works fine on all recently released Macs, meaning dozens of mainboards and video cards, and will work fine on systems to come. USB and Firewire peripherals are all supported. All hard drives and most memory brands work fine.

Seems to me all they'd have to do is charge equipment manufactures for the privilege of a "Designed for Mac!" seal, and add a little line of code to the new hardware dialog which indicates whether or not the hardware is something that has been tested and approved, and if it hasn't been, make you e-sign an EULA which says any problems that come are not covered under Applecare, and they'd be better off returning it for a certified piece. So they'd lose out on the $300 markup on 25% of their systems for people who would rather buy a (shudder) Dell...but gain a free $50 from the millions of people who would switch over in droves on Dell boxen. Massive profit gain, with the only downside being a slight loss in public love when people blame them for their DOA Dell boxen.

no, i really think Macs aren't universal for one lonely reason: they *like* being a boutique company, and like the shiny image it gives them. the only thing that would make them change would be if the execs wanted more money.

Re:OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. Any half baked rant about open source will get modded up in the first wave of moderation, then will slowly end up at +3 or +2 over time.

Why not open J2SE mods?

[Vardamir]

I'm rather annoyed that Apple has chosen not to open their modifications to J2SE 1.5 and greater, since the project is now open source and can even be built on Windows by anyone that wants to ... kind of ironic it can't be built on a supposedly more open operating system.

The reason I really care is that I can't use anything but Java 1.4 on our OS 10.3 systems; I have no interest in upgrading to 10.4 except for the fact that Apple refuses to port J2SE to such an old and outdated os as OS 10.3 .....

Re:First post (from a mac)

[NosTROLLdamus]

A little slow... you must not be using an intel one.

Re:OS X

[pyite]

From the high end they'll sell you a server environment (Xserve + RAID + OS X Server)

Just as a point of clarification... Apple's solutions in this arena are more like mid end. The high mid end, at best.

The problem with Apple's SAN offerings is that while there is some redundancy in the box, you can't connect the same array to two SAN fabrics. This is a serious drawback for any true "high end" work.

Re:OS X

[Noksagt]

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken.

That isn't what I was suggesting at all. You can develop high ROI & loyal repeat customers by providing an end-to-end solution. The game is to sell iPods, iBooks, and OS X to their customers, just as Microsoft's game is to sell Windows+WindowsMobile+Office. Even microsoft does sell hardware where they can. With the commoditization of the PC, there isn't a lot of space for that. They play where it is profitable & there aren't hugely dominant players & where the average customer is willing to get something better than a commodity (such as input devices).

Development and support of OS X is eased by the fact that Apple controls the hardware.

No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware -- but it'll happen. Because Steve is smart dude.

I might agree that it can happen, but it isn't going to happen soon & there's no business reason to make OS X available on commodity PCs anytime this year like you want (which is why they didn't--Steve is, as you say, a smart dude).

Re:OS X

[Bogtha]

I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would, but I can't so thepiratebay it is. Yar!

And for every person like you who could earn them $129 buying OS X but deciding to hack up an illegal copy, there'll be ten people deciding to go with a $2499 Mac Pro instead of a Dell. You're right, I'm sure Dell is anxious to sell OS X for Dells. That doesn't mean it make sense for Apple to allow it though, does it?

Re:OS X

[Korin43]

I don't know how these things usually work, but couldn't they just come up with their own license that says that the software and all of its code can only be used on Apple hardware and that attempting to make it work on another platform is a violation, etc?

Re:OS X

[aergern]

Um. NO. They are NOT a hardware company. Intel designed the new Mac Pro, while Apple designed ALL the software that loads on that MacPro. Watch the Keynote today and tell me Apple is just a hardware company.. then I'll tell you that Microsoft is just a photocopier company. :)

Be careful what you ape, lest you become a monkey.

Re:OS X

[Noksagt]

I'm rather stumped what this wide variety of configurations is that you speak of.

One easy example is that Rosetta relies on SSE3. Apple has released an OS that takes advantage of features not found on "legacy" chips (including rather recent ones). While allowing a "designed for Mac!" brand could be useful, but I doubt anything would be branded that wasn't also high-end & so wouldn't be that much cheaper. (And, to respond to other posters:the markup on bleeding edge hardware is quite high.)

I think that the outright sale of their O.S. to the unwashed masses who don't have the hardware to run it (and run it well) would be suicide. They might develop a rather small niche geek market, who wants a lower-end new PC (rather than a new high end one direct from Apple) with OS X, assuming that piracy in this demographic wouldn't be rampant.

But they'd have many, many more people who would buy it & just couldn't run the damn thing or would refuse to buy it (or a Mac) after hearing of others who couldn't run the damn thing.

Re:OS X

[celotil]

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.

And I refer you to Baghira.

Have a look at the screenshots - mouse hover over the paw for the full menu.

It's a theme for KDE that allows you to make KDE look exactly like the Mac OS X desktop, including tips on how to use KDE's features to "rename" Konqueror as Safari, have the same sorts of drop shadows and alpha-channel transparency on windows, links to dock-like devices, change the window focus behaviour to that of OS X, and so on.

Re:Not allowed by Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's Java contract with Sun does not allow it to give away any of it's Mac OS JVM code.

Blame Sun.

Not Apple.

Re:OS X

[Noksagt]

They control the fact that they have no legacy components & can take advantage of recent technologies. Every MacIntel has SSE3. If Apple (or any other dev) wants to make an app that takes advantage of that (sucha as Rosetta), they'll be able to. They don't have to test on low-end PC hardware or every single component you can shove in a PCI slot from manufacturers that have died. The minimum hardware for a MacIntel is considerably higher than the average PC that is on someone's desk right now.

To shrinkwrap OS X & sell it to the Dell users of the world, they'd have to either develop & test like crazy on the lowend hardware (and pull out their hair when asked why low-end systems can't do some of the really cool stuff) or they'd have to specify minimum system requirements which the average user might not be able to see if they meet.

Re:OS X

[Y-Crate]

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.

Your post is a perfect example of why open source is not making any real headway into the desktop arena.

It's not that open source is a flawed development methodology, but rather that there is a persistent, and unflinching lack of understanding in the OSS community of what makes Mac OS attractive to a large number of users. I'll give you a hint. It's not POSIX-ish compatibility, it's not Cocoa, it's not even the pretty Aqua widgets themselves.

People are drawn to, and continue to use Macs because of the way the userspace functions. The pretty icons catch their eye, the nifty effects wow them, but in the end, it is how all the pieces fit together as a whole, and how that larger piece works. Commonality of behavior and interaction between various applications makes the user comfortable and allows them to be more productive. The GUI is simply the glue that brings these pieces together. Mac OS applications are user-oriented, while there is still a pervasive developer-oriented ideal running through open source efforts. "If you want it to be different, just code it yourself" is still an underlying principle in many corners of OSS development that completely goes against the core Mac OS attitude, and ultimately relegates the open source community to spending the foreseeable future isolated in its current markets.

OSS efforts have been hammering away at various desktop concepts for years with little success outside the relatively small circle of open source die-hards. They put in new effects, they make spiffier icons, they do all of this, but fail to recognize that improvements to the presentation of information need to be geared to facilitating the user's interaction with it. That's not happening. The reason is ego, Not Invented Here syndrome, and a simple lack of cohesive vision that will never be remedied until there is a sea change in the way developers view their relationship with the user and one another.

Saying that all you need to do is port Aqua and people will abandon the Mac, betrays a complete lack of understanding as to why Mac users love OS X.

Re:OS X

[imemyself]

Would that really be open source then?

Re:OS X

[topham]

Actually, it looks like a poor knockoff.

Re:First post (from a mac)

[Nataku564]

Since when did slashdot start liking Intel over PowerPC?

Re:OS X

[kfg]

look where they're aiming their market. . .

At the people so hip they're square?

KFG

Re:Retraction?

[Lord Kano]

Douche is the French word for "shower", if you want to insult someone it should be douche bag or douchebag.

LK

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but

[samkass]

outside the USA, the future will be Linux - China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and other places with low costs of living and an educated population are going to power the world's economy, and I don't see the rest of the world paying the Microsoft tax.

I agree for the near-term, but probably not for the reason you think. I think areas where people's time aren't as valuable and there are more unemployed people around to do "grunt" technical work, Linux makes a huge amount of sense. In countries where people's time are more valuable, easier systems like Windows and MacOS make a lot more sense. (My old motto was "Linux is only 'free' if your time is worthless.") This isn't meant as a flame, but it's hard to argue that Linux is simpler or more productive than MacOS for most people. So it ends up being a return-on-investment proposition, with all time spent from installation to compatibility resolutions to upkeep and updates on the cost side of the equation. In the countries you mention, it's almost certainly better to hire someone cheap to do the legwork and save the money you'd have spent on a commercial license. In the long run I don't think that will be true, and it's almost certainly not true now in the United States.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[TheNoxx]

Apple's just trying to find a balancing point between the open source philosophy and financial viability. I love the open source idea, and I'm guessing Apple does too, but you have to make some fucking money to support yourself, end of fucking story. I've never seen any other line of work ever that gave away so many man-hours of ingenuity and labor for nothing to the whole world. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I will willingly burn karma to emphasize that people working on open source projects deserve compensation. The groups organized to work on the projects deserve compensation. Perhaps some open source groups will get this in the future and willingly hire translators to work with third-world countries so they can set up an open source or *nix based infrastructure for the entire government (education, military, police, revenue, legislation) in return for some tax funding or whatever.

Just my couple of my petty cents.

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[thechronic]

well said

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[nick.ian.k]

Perhaps you are confused about what the community understands already, and will consider other perspectives in the future?

Your statement implies that people contributing to open source and/or free software projects/efforts/whatever aren't always compensated, and also that compensation equates with financial gian. Contribution alone suggests that there is some interest already at stake. This list is by no means comprehensive, but here are some common motivations:

1) Challenge. Perhaps someone's working on something because the matter at hand intrigues them and is a good way to flex their mental muscles and solve an interesting problem.

2) Practical application. The task at hand may be somewhere between fascinating and dull, but the contributor has a problem that they need to solve somehow, and either starting a project that's FS/OSS or contributing to an existing one somehow helps to solve the problem, either in one go or incrementally approaching a solution.

3) Facillitating "The Greater Good" relevant to one's own field of interests. Things done out of the goodness of one's own heart are typically geareed towards furthering a particular ideal, community, or some goal; that is, the well-meaning, altruistic behavior occurs because, if nothing else, the acting body has some interest at stake, in this case wanting to better or facilitate an application or other project that crosses into other fields of personal interest.

4) Material/financial gain. Yes, it does happen: some folks do indeed get paid directly to work on stuff that gets put out under GPL or whatever other give-back license might be appropriate. They get paid to put something together because someone needs it, and then the code gets put back out there so fewer people have to waste time solving the same problem twice.

That's an over-reduction, mind you, but I felt compelled to remind you that there's often more at stake than *just money*. If that was really the prime motivation, a lot fewer people would being opting to work jobs that require intellectual engagement and consideration, problem solving, etc. Remember, cents aren't always just petty in terms of exchange rate, but interpretive value as well. :)

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely.

There is nothing wrong with free software. I've written some myself. However, I object strenuously to GPL style "free" software that forces me to release my software under the same license if I use it. None of my software went out GPL. If you want to make it free, make it *completely* free. Don't tie a huge pile of strings onto it and call it free, because it isn't.

The huge fallacy of the software market is that software should be free because it has no material cost. Such logic completely disregards the value of the labor that went into writing (and maintaining!) the code. The principles that underly the philosophy of the FSF are closer to communism that most modern day communist regimes. Both would have the hard working and diligent stripped of the products of their labor.

Thankfully, the FSF does not appear to believe that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[Dasher42]

I will willingly burn karma to emphasize that people working on open source projects deserve compensation.

I agree completely with the spirit of your post, but you miss the kind of compensation that one will realistically ask for in releasing open source. The compensation is participation. If you want to keep all the programming work to yourself and get paid, that's one model, but there's a number of things to consider. I personally dislike the risk of support being only from one company that could go out of business. The more important a program is to your work, the more you should consider that factor. I myself have released code for MUDs and things like the Foundation, a Python modding framework for Bridge Commander, and my experience is that the better you enable people to use their talent to add to your work, the more impressive the end result will be. There's a place for both models, but I feel good about having empowered other programmers.

Have you ever read the story of nail soup?

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[Eil]

Gentle Slashdot readers, please do not take the parent poster's (rather offensive) remarks as representative of the open source development community. A very good number of us neither want nor ask for monetary compensation for our efforts. We work on open source software to satisfy our own software needs, to improve the quality of the projects we choose to work on, and to contribute something back to the community that makes it possible to do what we do for free. But mostly, we do it for fun. Yes, sometimes a project is so popular that there's a certain amount of infrastructure that needs to be paid for (web servers, etc), but by and large, nobody becomes an open source developer for the money.

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[jvkjvk]

I don't really get your strenuous objections. If you are going to object to having strings tied to code, I guess you only use public domain stuff? I mean, anything that has a license has some strings...

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[nick.ian.k]

"However, I object strenuously to GPL style "free" software that forces me to release my software under the same license if I use it. None of my software went out GPL. If you want to make it free, make it *completely* free. Don't tie a huge pile of strings onto it and call it free, because it isn't." The point of the GPL is to protect the code and encourage further development. The trade-off is that if the code is released with 100% permission to re-use the code in any way possible, there exists the possibility of the code getting improved without any give-back to the community: the improved code can wind up unavailable to those who need it, which can result in needless replication. Also, it is possible for the code to be used without crediting not just those who originated the project or contributed to it, but the very project from which the end result was derrived. Thankfully some people still play nice and say, "Yes, our product is derrived from [existing software], and we appreciate the hard work blah blah blah." But imagine how often we *don't* see this. The GPL by no means perfect, but does manage to (at least legally) prevent this from happening when it is utilized. "The huge fallacy of the software market is that software should be free because it has no material cost. Such logic completely disregards the value of the labor that went into writing (and maintaining!) the code. The principles that underly the philosophy of the FSF are closer to communism that most modern day communist regimes. Both would have the hard working and diligent stripped of the products of their labor." Go back and re-read the FSF stuff. FSF does not insist that *everyone* must share their code, but rather says it's good, ethically-sound practice for things that are made available outside the doors of a given company/institution/project. They do not insist that "free" should necessarily mean "gratis", nor do they demand that everyone collaborate; rather, they encourage people to volunteer -that is, elect to work together of their own accord, QUITE different from communism, which is imposed on the populous by the will of the state- to cooperate and share things for the common good, because that's how mankind betters itself. They themselves value this so much that they will not behave otherwise, but do not necessarily expect other to act this way (though they would prefer if more did). Stallman himself has even been known to concede that it is not practical to expect folks to change to their high-ideals in one big jump (and did so a few months ago when lecturing at UIC in Chicago), but rather transition gradually with the overall goal in mind. It's not the loony pinko business you claim it is.

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[nick.ian.k]

Apologies for the run-together, my machine in the office defaulted to formatting the post in HTML. Changing that now. :)

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Sorry,but participation doesn't pay the bandwidth bills, nor the mortgage or for the server.

Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance...

[twistedcubic]

  The principles that underly the philosophy of the FSF are closer to communism that most modern day communist regimes. Both would have the hard working and diligent stripped of the products of their labor.

Interesting. If I took Microsofts code, made some improvements, and released it under a different license, Microsoft would certainly stop me, sue me, and the Feds would probably jail me. If I took some GPL code, made improvements, and released it under another license, the copyright owner would just ask me to stop, and possibly civil action if I refused. The nerve of that guy! He's such a COMMUNIST! He asked me to stop, and that's all! Man, I'm glad Microsoft and all other copyright holders would do the humane thing and have me fined and imprisoned, instead of the much worse scenario of just asking me to stop distributing their software. I'm sick of these commies trying to take over!

Re:OS X

[mochan_s]

Who cares? Everyone spends 99.9% of their time in Firefox and Thunderbird which looks the same everywhere.

However, will that girl be impressed if you don't have the apple logo on your laptop?

Apple fell in love with Ruby??

[gnufied]

http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/8/7/ruby-on-rai ls-will-ship-with-os-x-10-5-leopard "The love for Ruby has definitely spread inside Apple and we've been thrilled to see the level of interest they've taken to get OS X to be a premiere development and deployment platform for Rails." So what happened to a rather fruitful discussion, we had with Steve jobs. http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172223&c id=14341270 Yeah, I know you may still argue like James Golsings that Ruby is alright for generating web pages(mind you *generating*, doesn't it shows the contempt/disregard on the part of James Goslings for Web Developers?).But still shipping a framework is too much.Even none of the flavours of GNU/Linux has done it.But i guess, Apple will eat its own humble pie, when it sees a business sense. Ruby on Rails + Textmate and the push by Rails core team, has created new OS X users.So, lets cash on it.There is nothing called "love for Ruby", as put up by, this guy on the Rails blog.If there is a love, why don't they help in writting Ruby bindings for Cocoa?? I am 101% sure, if tomorrow, there is a "Rails" for GUI development. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Aug-02.html, Apple will again eat its own humble pie(or cow dung, depending upong your GeoIP), and will ship it with OS X. But i am not interested, I am from India and will cost me a arm and a leg to lay hand on this half baked open sorsed(actually not open at all, if you call Mac open, then Windows is open too!!, but the way Mac zealots project Apple as less evil is funny.I remember, Galadariel talking to Frodo, "if you give me the ring frodo, then you will have a queen in place of dark lord Sauron.And she will be fair, white and terrible to behold." Ahh..there is go again, may not be the exact words, but that is beside the point. I just have this point that, Apple doesn't seem evil as long as M$ is there, but there it gains the ruling ring(the monopoly), it will be one for sure.) product.I am happy with Ubuntu. Thank you very much for your open kernel.(I am bothered to read your license also)

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby??

[JavaLord]

If there is a love, why don't they help in writting Ruby bindings for Cocoa??

It's not really love, it's just them looking at Ruby on Rails, and being pissed off because Ruby on Rails is like their own product WebObjects, except it doesn't suck.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby??

[gnufied]

Ubuntu repositories also have Opera9 and lots of non-free stuff. So, will you say, Ubuntu comes bundled with Opera?

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby??

[Erik K. Veland]

Who the hell modded this rambling incoherent mess "insightful"? Come on! I know you are out there!

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but

[MarkWatson]

I wanted to add the word "small" in front of "point', and missed :-)

Actually... (fan controller)

[quacking duck]

By all accounts the fan control is entirely firmware-based, on both Macbook and Macbook Pro. In other words, no licence in the world would do you any good right now in coming up with a utility or even kernel extension to change the fan switch-on threshold.

This is a marked difference from the hardware sudden motion sensors, which CAN be accessed via software APIs on Macs; this is why a couple of funky hacks using the SMS, like iAlertU, or switching virtual desktops by tapping the side of the screen, were done on Mac notebooks first (IBM notebooks with similar sudden motion sensors did not have APIs exposing them).

I understand why Apple won't release actual APIs for these--the last thing they'd want is anyone accidentally (or purposefully) changing the fans to turn on far hotter than when they do now. What I DON'T understand is why they didn't design the firmware to allow a system preference that uses the current setting as the maximum threshold, with a couple of options to start the fans at lower temperatures.

Re:OS X

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"No, Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves."

Wait.. are you saying Apple won't Open Source OSX, or that they pwnd OSS?

If only they would put OpenOffice on it

[bgfay]

I know that there is Neo Office and that's all well and good, but I want to run the same Office software on all my machines. When OpenOffice goes native for OS X, I'll buy a Mac. Probably that day.

Re:If only they would put OpenOffice on it

[Algorithm wrangler]

The NeoOffice 2.0 (now in a closed beta with native widgets and dialogs) is probably the closest you'll ever get to a native OpenOffice on mac. It is for all intents and purposes the same OO as the windows or linux version - everything is to be found the same places, the only difference is the looks (which are better on the mac imho).

Re:If only they would put OpenOffice on it

[Angostura]

You effectively would be running the same software - just with native widgets and OS integration. So what's not to like?

Re:If only they would put OpenOffice on it

[SachiCALaw]

OpenOffice runs on OS X under X11, which any of the geeks 'n' geekettes here should have installed. It does not quite blend in with the rest of the OS the way "native" OS X programs would, but it is quite usable if you have X11 set to windowless mode. I use it myself at times, and it works fine.

Re:If only they would put OpenOffice on it

[ZachPruckowski]

There is a project underway at OO.o with apparently (non-public) alpha-level results. I'd be tempted to help - once I get a Mac Pro and learn some Cocoa and/or Java (I only know C++)

Re:OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

then I'll tell you that Microsoft is just a photocopier company
  Actually that's fun to imagine, constant paper jams, the occasional entirely blue page... :D

Re:OS X

[Skye16]

You say they'd have to specify minimum system requirements like it's a bad thing. Sure, some people are going to whine that they can't run it on their 1ghz Celeron, just like they complain about XP, or, god forbid, Vista. Big fucking deal. There's still a huge number of people out there who would be just fine with it. Plus, with a minimum spec defined, you'd probably find Dell and other companies extremely likely to start shipping computers that were OS X compatible, just like they made a point of doing as soon as XP was released.

Re:OS X

[FLAGGR]

Um. NO. Apple designed the Mac Pro. Intel built the cpu and some other chips probably. If Intel gets all of the recognition for "designing" the Mac Pro, what is Dell? Apple makes a lot of custom boards and junk (because they're always making crazy, nonstandard, and usually (but not with the Mac Pro) small enclosures) Dell, Hp and what not just throw pieces into a box (actually, I think Dell soemtimes makes their motherboards..) Apple makes the moniter, the mouse, the keyboard, the case, the wireless antennas and junk on the inside plus that iPod you probably own. That doesn't make them a hardware company? Come on. However, Apple also makes the operatiing system, the iLife apps, iWork apps, and the gajillion other awesome programs. I guess that makes them a software company. They are both, hardware and software. They offer full solutions for computing needs, all in one bueatiful package and fully integrated with itself. Sort of like how Nintendo makes the systems not because they want to make hardware, but because they don't want to use other peoples hardware. (I think Mr. Miyamoto said something to this effect, but I'm too lazy to get a quote)

Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[bobalu]

I bought my first IBM BIOS reference in '81. I know the history.

If it wasn't for Apple you'd still be stuck with CGA graphics.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Achromatic1978]

Yeah yeah yeah. My Amiga (500) had 640x512 in 4096 colours when your Mac Classic was running 512 x 342 in ... 2 colours.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[dfghjk]

bullshit. Macs were dogged by monochrome displays until the Amiga came along and started kicking its ass. Meanwhile IBM marched on with the EGA and then the VGA and XGA. At least IBM offered color with the CGA and anyone who needed high res graphics bought a Hercules card. Mac's 9" display meanwhile was a total joke.

PC's were business machines and macs didn't play in that market. The mac's actual graphics hardware was crappy compared to the PC and macs had no influence anyway.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Quantum Fizz]

Well if you want to play that game, the Apple IIGS came out a year BEFORE your Amiga 500 and had resolution of 640x200 with 4096 colors.
.

And in reality your statement (as well as mine here) are quite misleading because both systems could only simultaneously display a handful of colors (out of a palette of 4096).

But anyway, if you're going to dis Apple at least do a proper comparison.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Achromatic1978]

Well, along those lines - the Amiga /could/ display 4,096 at once, it's just certain types of adjacent colours didn't work.

And the Amiga 1000 beat the Apple the IIGS by 14 months. ;-)

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Bert64]

The amiga could only display the full 4096 colours at once in HAM mode, which only worked in 320x256 mode on the earlier models. Otherwise you were limited to 32 colours in 320x256, and 16 colours in 640x512

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Bert64]

The A500 was not the first Amiga, the A1000 was but i`m not sure how much earlier it came out... The A1000 had exactly the same audio/video hardware as the A1000, and came in a bigger box, but shipped with less RAM by default and an older version of AmigaOS.

Both machines could display 4096 colours at once, using a mode called HAM (Hold And Modify), but which only worked in low-resolution (320x256 perhaps 320x512) and introduced ugly ramping effects if adjacent pixels tried to change more than just a single RGB component (HAM let you modify one of the three components per pixel)

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[crawling_chaos]

Macs were dogged by monochrome displays until the Amiga came along and started kicking its ass.

Yes, and what an ass kicking it was. Kind of like the ass-kicking the French handed the Germans in 1940. It takes more than pretty colors to deliver an "ass-kicking" I'm afraid, and the leadership of Commodore had more in common with Petain than DeGaulle.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[Dionysos Taltos]

He said Apple, not macs. I'll refer you to here: http://www.macmothership.com/timeline.html/

Product: The new Apple® II is unveiled at the first West Coast Computer Faire. It is the first personal computer able to generate color graphics and includes a keyboard, power supply and attractive case.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[dfghjk]

It was an asskicking from a hardware perspective. The Amiga was a commercial failure for other reasons, much like the Lisa was. It was vastly ahead of the mac in both hardware and software capability and it continues to have a (misguided) fanbase today. While Apple lovers seem to think that desktop video was invented on the mac, the reality was that the Amiga did it first.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[dfghjk]

Haha yeah. We all know that the Apple II, with it's stunning color graphics, drove IBM to improve it's capability beyong the CGA. That MUST have been what he meant.

Give it a rest. Apple was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the color world. Every current computing platform at the time had color graphics before the mac finally got it.

Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there.

[crawling_chaos]

Doing it first is meaningless, as pretty much the entire history of technology shows. Doing it sustainably is much more difficult and is why many "first" companies are not successful in the long run. There is quite a bit of money in being second, or even third. Just ask Messrs. Gates and Balmer.

Re:OS X

[noewun]

Several points:

1) Apple most assuredly designed the new Mac Pros, as they are an evolution of the G5 case. Beyond that, Apple co-designed the motherboard, as I don't think Intel makes one with Firewire 800;

2) Apple is most assuredly are a hardware company, as they make most of their money selling hardware, just as Dell does. Dell doesn't design their systems, either: they buy in bulk, toss it into a box and sell it. Apple actually does much more industrial design than does Dell;

3) Very few large companies are really make their own stuff these days. Fr'instance, almost any car you buy will be made of components and subassemblies manufactured in twenty different locations and assembled at a central point;

4) And none of that includes the iPods or laptops, which Apple most assuredly designs and manufactures.

What about college kids?

[Slithe]

I think 'hacking' is far more dependant on age rather than location. Linux seems to appeal to the younger crowd, both because of the appeal of FOSS, and the 1337 ability to tailor your system EXACTLY to your liking! I first entered the Linux community in high school, and back then Gentoo seemed like a good match for me. Sure, it took me several weeks to properly install it. (I did not know what I was doing, so at every attempt I started from scratch. I liked to start from stage one and bootstrap the compiler while I slept and then emerge the system while I went to school, so I could compile the kernel when I got home! Now that my studies have picked up a bit, I do not have the 'endless' amounts of time that I once had (but still enough to read the comments on several Slashdot stories per day), so I pick a more convenient distro. The only way I could currently afford a MacBook/Pro would be to use the Apple Student Loan, and another monthly bill would inconvenience me even more than setting-up Ubuntu would.

Re:OS X

[Millenniumman]

You can make it look sort of like it, though "sort of like it" may be an exaggeration, but you can't give it the interface the same functionality or intuitiveness. It's like putting a paper mache Ferrari on a Malibu. It'll sort of work, and kind of look okay, but it won't be anything like the Ferrari.

Microsoft ...

[kahrytan]

  Does this mean Microsoft will consider open sourcing parts of it's NT 'Vista' OS? If Apple is willing to embrace Open Source community then Microsoft should seriously consider it. It would appear Microsoft is dragging it's feet in accepting Open Source.

Re:Microsoft ...

[f1055man]

That's not very fair. Apple can open source its kernel, MS can't open source its kludge.

Re:OS X

[mrchaotica]

Apple makes a lot of custom boards and junk (because they're always making crazy, nonstandard, and usually (but not with the Mac Pro) small enclosures)

Most new Macs are no more "custom," "crazy," or "nonstandard" than the average laptop, you know.

Re:First post (from a mac)

[mrchaotica]

Whether you like something or not (hopefully) has nothing to do with your ability to recognize reality.

Re:OS X

[dotgain]

Bloody well said! And believe it or not, I'm one of the die-hards he's talking about, except that I don't: fail to recognize that improvements to the presentation of information need to be geared to facilitating the user's interaction with it. - I agree 100%.

I've always used a shell since 16MB was a chunk of RAM, and it's going to stay that way. Every time I've tried out a new Desktop Environment I've just ended up frustrated at the waste of time that it was. Geez, guys - at least borrow some old Mac running OS8.1 and take some tips from that for a start. I've resigned to using XFCE, I've managed to tweak it so that enough shit stays out of my way graphically, and don't use much past launch menus and the dock, usually to open a Terminal or a Browser.

I often wonder if the very fact that it is free (as in beer) will doom it forever. Nobody can complain, because nobody pays for it. The guy who wasted time writing Wanda the Gnome fish can't be fired. The guy who stayed up until 3 coding a fix that would keep once again instill peace of mind in millions of administrators might get a pizza or a box of beer. There's little incentive or disincentive in it. While I'm not entirely chuffed with OSX myself, I give it 10/10 for "The devs giving a crap about the users experience"

Re:OS X

[Mr. Jaggers]

Not buggy any more, still fugly oldness though. I do run WindowMaker with some personalizations, though, and get some of that OpenStep goodness.

I must admit...

[cyberbian]

That I have been cranking on the source being closed since the Intel Mac debut, and that releasing kernel sources will allay the fears of many people. This release, however, does not mean that Apple is off the hook for their TPM implementation. Shipping a TPM enabled STILL implies remote ownership (per the spec).
If Apple were to provide a control panel to verify that the trusts are correct for the security context of the machine then I would be able to sleep better at night, and happily recommend Apple again to all of my friends, family, colleagues, and clientelle. Furthermore, I would also be empowered to utilize the TPM capabilities to help properly secure business networks I integrate, and ensure that these networks aren't exposed to misuse, and/or negligence on the part of end-users.
This source code release hasn't achieved that, and while it goes a long way toward that goal, it's still not hitting the mark imco.

Interesting; G5 is in software.

[Kadin2048]

I found your comment interesting because it's different from what I know from experience is the case on the desktop machines (G5 towers). While I have no experience with the newer Intel-based systems, I always assumed they were the same.

At least on the G5, the firmware acts only as a "fail safe." If the software doesn't come up after some reasonable amount of time and take control of the fans, and keep the core temperatures within a normal range, it will kick the fans on to keep the system from melting (or going into some sort of thermal-shutdown mode, also bad).

You could test this easily by rebooting the machine into single-user (recovery, safe, whatever you want to call it) or target disk mode, in which all the hardware/firmware systems ought to be running normally, but many parts of the system aren't loaded, and watching what happens: after a delay, the fans would be ramped up to their highest setting and left there. The intelligent control normally performed (which regulates the fans/pumps based on temperature) doesn't happen at all.

Seems like it would be a pretty easy test on any other machine to reboot it in Target Disk mode or single-user mode (maybe it was open firmware mode), and watching what happens to the fans, to see if they're managed by a firmware system, or by a combination of hardware and a kernel extension.

Re:Interesting; G5 is in software.

[Sonic McTails]

I believe it is the same on the MacBook Pro at least. If you reset the SMC, the fans run on full speed until reset by the system controller, and the speed controls are set when the OS comes up.

Re:Interesting; G5 is in software.

[cswiger2005]

Agreed. It's very common for systems to run the fans at full speed when they first power up, and then slow down once the system boots far enough for the "smart" fan control software to take control.

It's not uncommon to need to provide about half of the fan's rated power before it will spin up when stopped, so providing an initial full-power jolt to the fans helps make sure that they are really spinning; once they are, it's OK to slow them down even below the point where they wouldn't be able to start from a standstill.

Re:Interesting; G5 is in software.

[Blakey Rat]

When my iBook is in target disk mode, the fans behave normally. Which is to say it's off 99% of the time unless the ambient temp. rises above about 80 degrees or so.

Interesting theory, though... I'll have to try it on my G5 when I get home. The desktops might be different than the laptops. (And, frankly, how often do you put a desktop in target disk mode?)

Re:OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait

Re:OS X

[shmlco]

Apple gets a LOT of milage out of the "it just works" mantra. All that washing their hands of it and saying "it's up to you" would do is piss off a lot of people. They're not going to think the software not working is their fault, no matter what the pretty dialog said, they're going to think it's Apple's fault. And even if they could return it, they're going to be pissing and moaning about it all the way back to the store, and to their friends and coworkers.

Apple doesn't need that kind of hassle, nor do they want or need tons of unhappy customers.

If they do it, they're going to have to spend the time and dollars to it right... or not at all.

Retractions, Please?

[Narcogen]

Anybody want to make a list of all the sites that announced that Darwin was now "closed source" because of the delay in releasing xnu source for Intel?

Any of those sites now care to print a retraction, and admit they actually had no solid information whatsoever, that they were building their stories up from the fact of this delay plus rampant speculation?

For a few weeks there it seemed every tech site on the planet was decrying how Apple had abandoned Open Source, was not giving anything back, was closing the kernel, and how this was going to negatively impact Apple's customers and benefit Linux on the desktop.

And now, at Apple's own developer conference (of all places) they release that source code. Isn't anyone pointing that out to the sites who said it wasn't going to happen? Or are they already claiming that the only reason Apple did it was because of their articles?

Re:Retractions, Please?

[nick.ian.k]

Why bother?

Apple had the opportunity to correct people on those statements ahead of time and didn't. Without even disclosing particular details, they could have even gotten away with a semi-cryptic, "No, guys, we're not turning our back open source...trust us, just wait and see."

There's no use in speculating over what exactly has gone on. That said, I don't think it's particularly likely that they'd abandoned it and chose to move back based on outcry in the relevant publications, blogs, and the like.

The reactions by interested parties should not be pooh-poohed simply because Apple wanted to keep up on it's showmanship --such would be a damned poor excuse, as they already had *plenty* to get their own community excited about, what with Leopard and the MacPro and all. Fact of the matter is that, at the time, Apple didn't behave or react in an immediate or explicit way that indicated their commitment wasn't gone, and as such has violated people's trust once again.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[mccoma]

Why bother?

Because it is the right thing to do if you make remarks about someone or something that are untrue.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[cyberbian]

Did it ever occur to you that Apple's recent release of the sources comes well after the kernel was hacked to bypass the TPM AND due to the outcry from their userbase and others alike?
If every tech site on the planet had the same thing to say about the fact that Apple didn't release sources for a previously open project doesn't mean they should all rush to retract their previous statements. Apple is doing the right thing NOW while when those statements and reports were made they weren't.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[Sam Ritchie]

Apple had the opportunity to correct people on those statements ahead of time and didn't.

Like this?

I personally think Tom Yager does deserve to be pooh-poohed now his sensationalist spin on a piece of non-news has been proven incorrect.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[Narcogen]

So, you're suggesting that Apple only released the source code because, since TPM was already bypassed, there was no reason not to do so? And that they reached this decision coincidentally at their annual developer conference?

Apple wasn't doing the right thing? I'm not sure I follow. Is there some sort of statute of limitations in effect here-- that the kernel isn't considered open source unless it's released within a certain period of time?

The sites in question speculated that Apple's failure to provide sources for the most recent kernel immediately signaled a change in policy: that there would be no more such releases. Apple did refute that at the time, and has now released the source.

The so-called news stories were nothing more than speculation. If Apple had chosen not to release source code to the Darwin kernel ever again, those publications could rightly claim to have predicted the action. If Apple did release the source, they could claim to have caused it by stirring up a controversy that really never existed in the first place.

Although I'm not a programmer, I'm glad Apple chooses to at least provide SOME source code. However, there appear to be elements in the community that seem unhappy with anything less than total and immediate transparency which is something I do not think Apple will ever do, nor perhaps should they, lest they risk putting themselves out of business.

If I had to hazard guess, I'd say that Apple is releasing source code because they honestly want to participate (to some degree) in the open source community, and not for the public relations value only. That has proven to be of dubious value so far; if it was the only motivation then I think they would have closed the kernel source code already.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[nick.ian.k]

By your logic, if someone pulls a gun on you, and you cry "Help!", and there's a policeman around the corner who rushes up and intervenes, you are in the wrong because, while the guy had a gun and seemed to be making some intention to do you physical harm, he wasn't *necessarily* going to do such -could've been a joke gun with a BANG! flag for all you know- and in turn, you've made a false accusation and that's paramount, so disregard all the other facts and conditions accordingly. Here's the most we were given to go on: "Well, we might, and then again, we might not. We're not telling." That's an inconclusive statement that could be interpreted any number of ways. This is a clear case of trying to generate publicity (negative at first, then "Look! We're still good guys!") through controversy. There was enough attention surrounding Apple's WWDC anouncements and launches and they didn't have to do this. Sure, it was successful, but also cheap, stupid, and unneccessary.

Re:Retractions, Please?

[mccoma]

now that is just plain the dumbest interpretation of what I said. I guess it is a slow day in politics...

I'm talking basic printing of something that turns out to be untrue and you come up with some wild PHYSICAL / DANGER TO LIFE AND LIMB scenario involving guns. Scratch that, must be a CNN/FOX thing.

If you print or say something to a group of people and then find it to be untrue, it is generally polite to tell the same audience the new information. This is called a retraction.

Apparently, water is wet, fire hot; details at 11.

[Kadin2048]

It would appear Microsoft is dragging it's feet in accepting Open Source.

Was this some kind of a joke that was just too subtle for me to get? Or are you new to this planet? (If so, try the pastrami.)

Re:First post (from a mac)

[rdoger6424]

You make my g4 mac mini feel unwanted...

Re:OS X

[Overly Critical Guy]

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken.

Apple is a business. If what you say were true, they would be a software company, not a hardware company. They already did the Mac-licensing thing in the 90s.

I would really be interested in what you're basing your claim on that hardware isn't more profitable than software, at least for Apple. Would you tell Apple to stop selling iPods and instead be a FairPlay/iTunes software licensing company? Get real. Even Microsoft saw that approach fall apart with PlaysForSure.

Re:OS X

[Sam Ritchie]

Yes, I think the phrase 'macosx like environment' is telling. I suspect 'macosx like', in most people's minds, is meant terms of Aqua widgets, genie effects and system tools rather than user experience, hardware integration and consistent application design.

That's not to say that a desktop Linus couldn't pop up one day and deliver a truly usable linux via an iron-fisted Jobsian 'I don't like that' level of product control, but I believe the OSS environment is not yet conducive to that happening. I'd also add that I think the organisational structure would be more important to that effort than any code from Apple.

Re:OS X

[Watts Martin]

Massive profit gain, with the only downside being a slight loss in public love when people blame them for their DOA Dell boxen.

Um, no. The downside to selling PC-compatible OS X that people seem to keep forgetting is a company based in Redmond.

Without getting too much into the Linux for the desktop argument, I think its hard to deny that a PC-compatible OS X would be the biggest challenge to Windows thats ever been mounted. Unlike Linux, or BeOS, or even OS/2, Apple has an incredible combination of worldwide brand recognition, reputation for user friendliness, and a broad software base. Right now, Apple and Microsoft can manage to stay in coopetition in the OS market; Apple can take as many pot shots at Microsoft as they want, because as long as OS X only (officially) runs on Apple hardware, Apple is not in direct competition with them. The moment an OS X box appears on shelves at your local Best Buy that Apple intends for you to install on your Dell, HP or Lenovo, that wall is down.

The reason you arent going to see OS X for PCs any time soon has little to do with profit, and a lot to do with the fact that doing so means a fight to the death with Microsoftand no, I dont think Im engaging in hyperbole. In that circumstance, Microsoft would do everything they could to kill OS X dead. No Microsoft Office for Mac. No Microsoft anything for Mac. License changes to make running Windows on Mac hardware illegal. (And this is without suggesting any dirty trick like Microsoft was accused of in their fight with DR-DOS and BeOS, both of which were arguably far less threatening than OS X would be.)

Re:OS X

[Overly Critical Guy]

Other than the built-in cameras, hard drive shock sensors, two-finger scrolling, EFI, light level sensors, backlit keyboards, etc.

Re:OS X

[Sam Ritchie]

When Ars speculated about the likely configuration of the Mac Pro, they stated that Apple couldn't use an off-the-shelf Intel chipset/motherboard due to the lack of support for FW800.

Re:You've got to be sh*tting me.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Meanwhile, piracy is great, down with the RIAA!

I love Slashdot. And its views on freeloading.

Not hardware/software--integrated

[snowwrestler]

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken.

Apple does not sell hardware; they sell computers. Computers are products that are made up of both hardware and software, which work together. The question is not one of raw profits, but of vision and strategy in the computing market.

Yes, I know Microsoft makes a lot of money with operating systems. But first of all they don't cost $350-$1000 (where did you get this number in a discussion of OS??). Also they are literally the only company succeeding with an OS-only (no hardware) strategy. And I think you'll find that the margins on that piece of their business are falling fast, as are the boxed-product sales volumes. The OS is a commodity in consumer products, whether you're talking about a cell phone, microwave, or home computer. It just comes on the hardware and it's built into the price.

An integrated product is what makes the money in consumer markets. It's how Sony and Apple have made the majority of their money, and both companies have been around longer than Microsoft. A good computing experience requires a good OS, which is why Apple works so hard on it. They sell computers (not OS) to consumers (not system builders) and their most relevant competition is Sony, Dell, Gateway or HP (not Microsoft). It's a fundamentally different approach to the computer business that a lot of people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Changing that mid-stream, in the midst of dramatic success and growth, would be phenomenally stupid.

Repeat after me: just because something worked for Microsoft last century, doesn't mean it will work for anyone else today.

No company in the computing business will ever duplicate the MS success, just like no company in the phone business will ever duplicate AT&T's success, just like no company in the steel business will duplicate U.S. Steel's success. Times change.

Re:Not hardware/software--integrated

[Haeleth]

Microsoft makes a lot of money with operating systems. But [...] they are literally the only company succeeding with an OS-only (no hardware) strategy.

Are you sure?

Re:Not allowed by Sun

[Overly Critical Guy]

I choose to blame Apple, sir.

Just like I choose to blame them for iTunes DRM even though the RIAA insisted on it to do business in the first place. I subscribe to looney Slashdot logic, thank you very much!

sheesh!

[free space]

Dude, own't is the contraction for "owns not". Don't you know your English?

Re:sheesh!

[blugu64]

Thank you for making my day just a little bit brighter!

Re:OS X

[Achromatic1978]

My Asus laptop has a built in camera. Google BisonCam.

My laptop's upgraded Samsung hard drive has a shock sensor.

My laptop has a light level sensor.

Sony and Panasonic to name two have backlit keyboards.

I'll grant you two finger scrolling - from making the movements in the air, I could see it being a preferable alternative to the 'right margin' style. Rumour has it that the next software revision of Synaptics drivers will have similar - but yes, Apple innovated it.

As for the rest, again, how are these things "crazy, cool", things only Apple do?

Apple's Teams

[nedaf7]

Browsing through the new MacOSForge.org, I noticed something on the page for the Calendar Server. In a list of compatible clients, it lists "Apple's Teams". I've never heard of this application, and I did a little poking around on Apple's website. I noticed a page describing OS X Leopard Server's built in Wiki Server, specifically the repeated mention of teams using the Wiki server to collaborate on projects.

This along with the iCal Server leads me to believe that OS X Leopard will include systemwide collaboration functionality that will integrate with any Apps that are programmed to use it. More evidence: How come during the demo of iChat's ability to share Keynote presentations, photos, videos, etc., we never saw the interface for the person sharing the documents? I would guess it's part of Leopard's collaboration system, named Teams.

Re:Apple's Teams

[WasterDave]

Never mod points when you need them. Nice post.

Dave

Re:Apple's Teams

[ronanbear]

Second that. Used all mine yesterday.

I had been wondering about the implications of Apple open sourcing iCal server. It's a huge limitation of any calendering app to be restricted to one platform. Clearly Apple have plans to do something large in this area. What I'm unsure of is whether they want to build iCal integration into other applications or whether Apple plan to release iCal (even Mail.app) on Windows. They reaped the rewards of doing it with iTunes. Since there will be plenty of OS X users on Windows using bootcamp it would make sense to keep those people able to access their iCal calender. I know there are already ways but being Apple I'm positive they'd want to streamline the process so people don't have to figure out for themselves.

Re:Apple's Teams

[David McBride]

See also screenshot on the Apple website:

http://images.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/imag es/indextop20060807.png

Notice the "Teams Directory" window in the background.

Re:Apple's Teams

[nedaf7]

Nice find, this is gonna be a really good feature for increasing OS X usage in business if they pull it off well.

POSIX matters for OS X

[r00t]

The regular end user sure doesn't care.

The network admin cares. The software developer cares.

Regular end users need network admins and software developers. If the admins and developers think an OS is shit, they will avoid supporting it. Windows is in the lead, so the admins and developers usually can't refuse. MacOS is something that can be refused.

With POSIX, the admins and developers actually want the machines. The admins and developers buy Macs for their own personal use, play with them, learn about them... and then accept them in business.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!]

[jkh]

Sigh. Wrong? Some of us like rails just because we like rails, OK? And, for the record, we HAVE helped with the writing of Ruby bindings for Cocoa - anyone who was actually interested in that topic rather than just pulling it out of the air as a randomly chosen example of "why Apple must not really love Ruby" would already know this because they'd have checked out the RubyCocoa project and noticed, surprise surprise, that Apple had donated a number of improvements back. Ruby is an excellent language and one we're happy to see better supported on our platform (and willing to put engineering time and effort towards that goal).

Re:OS X

[bnenning]

The reason you arent going to see OS X for PCs any time soon has little to do with profit, and a lot to do with the fact that doing so means a fight to the death with Microsoft

Exactly. I believe this is also the reason iWork doesn't have a spreadsheet, so as not to directly compete with Office. If they went to a deathmatch, I'd give MS a 75% chance of effectively destroying Apple's computing division (they'd still exist as the iPod company), and Apple a 25% chance of cracking the Windows monopoly. Neither of them wants to take those risks.

Re:OS X

[G-funk]

Pppht! Apple's most assuredly in the commodity market. It's a digital audio player company that happens to also sell (very nice) commodity x86 computers. Do you think Ferarri is in the car business, or the racing business? They're in the clothing business, and they sell expensive cars and race in order to promote their brand.

Anybody who wants to run OS X but doesn't want to pay the apple premium (or already has hardware, like myself) can. And does. Therefore "the ability to run OS X" as a stand-alone product is no longer driving sales of their hardware. The strength of the brand, the ipod halo effect, and the "end-to-end package" is what sells Macs. Anybody who wants the complete end-to-end package will be buying a Mac wether or not you can get OS X on a shelf. These are the people who buy a Dell even though they can get the same thing for $100 less at the local computer store.

Some people would like a legal version they can auto-update and feel good about. Right now, they're stuffed.

Let me remind everyone....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

It's a good thing that Apple have re-opened XNU, however, let me remind everyone what daveshroeder said about this when XNU was closed:

Darwin x86 *as an OS* is dead. The actual part of the Darwin strategy people cared about, i.e., the Darwin OS *components* being open, and all of the projects (like WebKit), etc., are all open, alive, and well on x86 and PPC. Apple releases parity Darwin source releases with each Mac OS X release.

So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS? and that noone is interested in the XNU source?

Re:Let me remind everyone....

[daveschroeder]

So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS?

Yes.

Unless hobbyists want to run yet another BSD.

(Let me be clear: by this, I mean Darwin *as a bootable OS*, and not just on x86: on PowerPC as well. What benefits can you name to Apple and Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server customers from being able to run Darwin as a standalone, bootable OS?)

and that noone is interested in the XNU source?

I never said "no one" was interested in xnu source. I said that the majority of the utility of Darwin for people who use Darwin sources comes from the sources for individual components, and mostly NOT the kernel at that, and also not from the ability to build Darwin as a full bootable OS.

In other words, everything I said is still accurate, including my assertions that Apple had not made a decision to "close" the Intel xnu source, but rather just hadn't opened it yet and announced the direction going forward.

Then and now, I believe there could have been far better communication on Apple's part so it wouldn't have seemed like Intel xnu source releases were in limbo, as they essentially were for eight months.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!]

[gnufied]

Oh really sir,
So, I will shut the fuck up, if apple did contribute to Ruby bindings for Cocoa.

Almost right.

[LKM]

It's only a matter of time before they open source OS X and everything else they have software wise, Apple is a hardware company.

Half right. They are making money using hardware, which is precisely why they won't open-source all of their software: Having it only on their hardware is the very reason why people buy hardware from them. Open-sourcing it would kill their hardware business.

Uhm...

[LKM]

You're conveniently forgetting that most people would simply not buy Mac OS X for PCs. Yeah, the margins are higher for software than for hardware. Doesn't matter if you ain't selling any.

And even with the high margins, Apple makes more money on each Mac sold than on each Mac OS X box sold if the box is priced below 400 US$.

Look at Be OS: It was free, and people still didn't want it.

Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

OK - let's see the rush of support for Apple that's roughly equal to the bashing they took when Intel XNU source went dark.

Your chronology is incorrect. Actual timeline:

Feburary - the rumour: Will MacIntel Kill Apple Open Source Efforts?: - Denial from the Fanboys - silence from the rest.
May - the confirmation: Mac OS X Kernel Source Now Closed: - Mixture of denial & shame from the fanboys, bashing from the rest.

And now, we have the announcemenet that its open again! (for now) - much celebration & support for Apple from everyone.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[jcr]

May - the confirmation

That was not confirmation, that was a reiteration of the same jump to conclusions.

-jcr

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[GaryPatterson]

I remember that second 'confirmation' article, and reviewing it just now reminded me that there was no actual substance in it, just rumour and supposition.

Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.

I recall seeing people linking to a statement from the technical lead at Apple who said they would release the source, just not yet. I can't find the links now, unfortunately.

Perhaps the story was just another beat-up to get more links to blogs after all.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.

It doesn't really matter what Apple say - if you can't download the complete source for a product, its not Open Source. Apple PR calling the OS X core open source was deceitful from that point on. (although corrected now)

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[GaryPatterson]

So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?

Methinks you protest too much.

The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff. That reason requires the least extra entities and seems to satisfy Occam's Razor. In a logical sense, any other position requires actual evidence, and in the absence of such (and you provide none), this is the best position.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?

Not too sure where you got that from - perhaps you accidentally replied to the wrong post?

The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff.

I am sure there reasons were... well reasonable - for them (and probably me, if I knew what they were).

My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source when it wasn't (coz you couldn't download the source).

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source

sed/OS X/Darwin/

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source when it wasn't (coz you couldn't download the source)."

You silly tit, you could download 99% of it. "OMG! WTF! How DARE they! Hypocrisy! Clutch the pearls, I've got the vapors!"

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[ceoyoyo]

So when Debian has one of their periodic incidents and they shut their servers down to clean them does that mean Debian ceases to be open source until the server comes back up?

I don't recall Apple specifically saying that Darwin Intel was open source during the period when it wasn't available. They have said that Darwin is open source, and it has been, just not the Intel port of it. Now the Intel port is open source too.

I think advertisers should be held to MUCH higher standards, but picking on Apple because they delayed releasing the source to a port of their kernel until they'd finished a big product announcement seems a bit unfair. There're lots more blatant abuses in advertising to pick on.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[jcr]

picking on Apple because they delayed releasing the source to a port of their kernel until they'd finished a big product announcement seems a bit unfair.

As ithappens, it wasn't even a matter of a policy decision to delay until the announcements on Monday (as I had assumed), it was just that the people involved in Core OS were too damned busy working on the WWDC build to deal with reviewing the code to release it. They were heads-down until the middle of last week, when the image went to pressing. So, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there's no story there.

-jcr

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So when Debian has one of their periodic incidents and they shut their servers down to clean them does that mean Debian ceases to be open source until the server comes back up?

If they released binaries with no corresponding source, then yes, yes they would.

*shakes*head* I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

If you distribute binaries, with no source, then you're not open source. God!

There're lots more blatant abuses in advertising to pick on.

I hold Apple to a higher standard than most companies. Don't you?

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

it was just that the people involved in Core OS were too damned busy working on the WWDC build to deal with reviewing the code to release it.

You're kidding - they released the intel version of OS X without doing a code review? Sloppy.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[ceoyoyo]

Once again, I don't recall Apple saying Darwin Intel was open source during the short period when the source was not available.

Perhaps you hold Apple in TOO high a regard. They are just a company, you know.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You silly tit, you could download 99% of it.

I consider the kernel a mildly important bit... *shrugs* you of course may not...

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[jcr]

Don't quit your day job.

-jcr

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Don't quit your day job.

This is my day job.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"If they released binaries with no corresponding source, then yes, yes they would."

Er, no. "Open Source" doesn't include a SLA for a specific website.

If the current source is available, say from an independent mirror or torrent, that is sufficient.

Re:Chronology incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If the current source is available, say from an independent mirror or torrent, that is sufficient.

But I said (and you even quoted it):

with no corresponding source,

Re:OS X

[Eivind Eklund]

It is basically not possible to provide the full experience without controlling both hardware and software. There are too many possible interactions.

My background (authority) for this claim: I've been an OS developer (FreeBSD and briefly OpenBSD), I've done various forms of embedded systems work (from minature through games to providing systems based off FreeBSD), and I've tracked operating systems integration for about 20 years.

Eivind.

Low end performance

[andersh]

I dont agree with you on the low end hardware issue - have you ever seen OS X on a G3 400Mhz iMac? I have a couple of them and they run just great! At first the machine had only 128MB of RAM and the performance was just fine. I added another 512MB just for fun - and I was amazed. The speed of OS X on that old machine was comparable to any modern Windows system! The fact is that OS X runs great on even the slowest hardware available - and it will certainly run great on even the cheapest system from Dell today. The experience was enough to convince me to purchase a MacBook Pro.

And I believe if Apple wanted to they could just specify what Dell systems would be supported and sold with Mac OS X. They dont have to support every Dell system and price range you know. And for hardware I guess all it would take is EFI support on those Dells Apple wanted to support. I think its very likely that they could do it - if Apple wanted to.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!]

[GaryPatterson]

http://rubycocoa.cvs.sourceforge.net/rubycocoa/src /ChangeLog?revision=1.255.2.38&view=markup

Read the email addresses, and note that Laurent Sansonetti is one of the five RubyCocoa developers (lrz).

I guess you'll be wanting to apologise to the previous poster.

And DTrace get in to Leopard

[hlge]

They ported DTrace from OpenSolaris, one of their new tools Xray is using DTrace to get information out of the system about the behavior of applications. Looking forward to take Xray for a spin when it gets out.

"Many such Xray instruments leverage the open source DTrace, now built into Mac OS X Leopard"

Cheers

Re:OS X

[Tom]

People are drawn to, and continue to use Macs because of the way the userspace functions.

Amen to that. I speak as someone who has just switched from Linux to OSX. I love Linux, and I still have a bunch of servers and a couple desktops running it, but my main machine at home is now an MBP running OSX and I was astonished at the amount of perfection that went into making sure everything works with everything.

OSX isn't just an OS or a desktop system like Linux and KDE/Gnome. It conveys the impression of one seamless whole. On Linux, Firefox and Thunderbird are clearly two different applications doing two different things. On OSX, Mail and Safari work very close together. Stuff in your addressbook is available in your mail, in your calender, everywhere you need it as if it belongs there. Drag&Drop works, and I mean absolutely everywhere with everything. Things just work. And that's what sets Apple apart from both Linux and windos, where you, the user, have to work first in order to get things to work.

However, I must admit that Linux is making more progress in closing the gap than windos does. The future will be OSX and Linux. 10 years from now, windos will be roadkill.

Re:OS X

[hunterkll]

They'd increase sales profitibly Increasing sales and decreasing profit? NOT SMART?

According to capitalistst...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of anything in a competitive free market tends to the marginal cost of production. E.g. bugger all.

This is not the case with copyrighted software because it is no longer a competitive free market. Copyleft makes it a competitive free market because once the code is done, it will go down to the marginal cost or the market acceptable cost (e.g. buying from RedHat costs because it is RedHat, but CentOS doesn't have the cachet or appearance of stability in the business world, so some user RH over CentOS, despite the higher cost).

The principles of FSF are far more compatible with what the market is *supposed* to be than the CSS world philosophy. CSS is more communistic in effect. FOSS is NEVER communistic, the state ownes NOTHING that is FOSS. FOSS is, if anything political, utopian.

Remember, there are two extremes of political system, neither of which are wanted: communism and capitalism. Marx posited the idea that you had to move away from a capitalist system to communist to remove the concentration of power and money from the elite to a state-owned system (the state has more power than any individual, so would be the ONLY entity that could force the elite to back down). When the communist system fails, as Marx predicted would happen because of systemic corruption, the best of both systems would be arrived at in a utopian society. This society would not allow anyone to concentrate power or money in any individual or group, because they knew what evils that would produce.

Please read rather than take the soundbytes as gospel.

Re:OS X

[hcdejong]

Please. The middle is, by definition, not an "end".

(/usage nazi)

Other software is the compensation

[Nurgled]

I write open source software. However, I am interested in quite a narrow set of projects, due to constraints on my time, my knowledge and my interests. I feel that the compensation I get from working on something that interests me is that someone else, who has different interests and skills, will write something that I need but which I don't necessarily want to write.

Compensation doesn't have to be in the form of money. Of course, this philosophy doesn't work so well for a business, but as a person I'm happy enough with this arrangement and I'd guess I'm not the only one given the large number of open source projects out there.

Great idea Steve,

[MrCopilot]

Great idea Steve,
No way Bill will copy this one.

My freedom is more valuable than some discomfort

[jotaeleemeese]

If your most valuable time is spent doing slide presentations and writting a few documents I just don't see how the current state of Linux can't provide for this.

I have been working with whatever Linux has to offer for 10 years, 3 of which I used it exclusively for my Masters degree (including all kind of documents that were suppossed to be created with MS Office).

My time is so valuable that I moved to Linux. Maybe OS X is up there with Linux in terms of usability and application support. But at the end you are still hostage to the whims and tribulations of what Apple decides, your data and methods to access it remains in many cases still hostage to Apple.

YOu may like that, I don't, and that is cool, but putting this little label of Linux as a system in which you have to invest time for things to work is a myth. This was true as recently as 2 or 3 years ago, but now it is frankly scaremongering.

Containers (aka BSD jails) are old news

[Monx]

Solaris containers are slightly upgraded BSD jails, which are essentially a extension to chroot.

BSD has had them for a long time. I know that some linux distributions can do jails as well. For example, SLES 9 does jails. Sun's containers are essentially BSD jails plus some additional namespace splitting and a really great marketing push. I used to use a hosting company that used BSD jails to separate their virtual servers on shared systems back in 2000 or so.

More about jails:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/a rch-handbook/jail.html

Re:OS X

[tehcyder]

Apple is really a solutions company

Indeed, and they achieve this by synergystically leveraging the key core competencies of both discipliens at a granular level via a repurposing strategy to provide tighter integration and deeper multi-work-flow patternization in collaboration with ballpark enterprise functionality.

Re:My freedom is more valuable than some discomfor

[NDPTAL85]

Its not scaremongering or a myth. Its the truth. Linux is harder to use than either OS X or Windows. How you can't understand that is beyond me. I run Ubuntu and OS X. Ubuntu as far as it has come is still no match. It didn't even come with WPA Wifi support enabled by default. WTF.Way too many naggling things like that keep Linux from being "easy to use".

And freedom? Come on man. You aren't Martin Luther King here trying to free some oppressed people. You just don't want to pay money to enjoy the fruits of what is a very difficult profession that requires a lot of skill to do competently, making software.

Re:OS X

[TrippTDF]

To shrinkwrap OS X & sell it to the Dell users of the world, they'd have to either develop & test like crazy on the lowend hardware (and pull out their hair when asked why low-end systems can't do some of the really cool stuff) or they'd have to specify minimum system requirements which the average user might not be able to see if they meet.

Not if they don't want to. Apple is still in control here. They can still be a premium operating system that needs more than a low-end Dell to run. Who says they have to meet the lowest common denominator? If Dell wants to ship machines with OS X, than it can bend over and let Apple dictate hardware requirements.

Re:OS X

[topham]

You've been sleeping with your business techno-jargon word-a-day calendar again, haven't you?

Re:OS X

[sgtrock]

Welllll, it's true that many users are drawn to OS X for the user experience. Frankly, I find the damn thing gets in my way.

Now, before you slag me off as someone who just hates Macs, Apple, and/or Steve Jobs, I'm not. I was pleased as punch with the introduction of the first Mac. Until I saw the lack of expandability. Later on, I worked for a printing company and supported bunches of them for our graphics artists. They loved them, and I certainly preferred setting them up to PCs. I rarely had to go back to them after the fact. Even then, though, I wasn't really thrilled with the Apple way of handling running apps, and selecting tasks. I always preferred a clean separation between the OS, UI, and the app. Apple always wanted to hide it.

I hated AppleTalk with a passion, though. At least Apple finally made it routable before it was eclipsed by TCP/IP.

Anyhow, years later, my Mac loving cousin and a friend of mine have both asked me for help getting them set up to do rather unusual things (for them, anyway). Again, I was struck by Apple's apparent insistence of blurring the lines between OS, UI, and the app(s). It drove me absolutely nuts.

So, when you say that some people flock to Macs for the UI, you are absolutely right. There are many of us who /don't/ like it, and will avoid it whenever possible. That doesn't make the Mac UI wrong, nor does it make the standard X display or Windows display right. We need multiple UIs to address the way that different people think and work.

Appletalk...

[kevinthered]

was originally designed as a no brainer peer to peer solution for connecting multiple users to, at that time, expensive laser printers. It was also useful for file sharing. The fact that it stayed on the market so long demonstrated how sucessful and useful it was for its original intended purpose. It was at least a couple of years ahead of MS Windows built in peer to peer networking (probably longer but I am too lazy to do any research). Appletalk just worked. I used it for my home network until ethernet support and devices were cheap enough to justify purchasing for home use. The fact that the protocol was not routable was not an issue for its original intended purpose.

Re:Appletalk...

[sgtrock]

Oh, I know what it was originally designed for. That's not how it was sold to the company I worked for, though. We had a multi-site, multi-city network environment. You ever try to explain to a graphics artist sitting in St. Paul why she just can't see the printers in Chicago on her Chooser? "But I can see them when I'm there! Why can't I see them when I'm here?" :(

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but

[Durandal64]

Actually I thought it was a gcc compiler flag at first.

Re:OS X

[Princeofcups]

> If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more
> profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken.
> If Apple were smart (which they are) they would rather sell you
> $350-$1000 dollar software and make TONS of ROI rather than try
> to compete in the tight hardware market which is currently on a downward trend.

> No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon
> as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware --
> but it'll happen. Because Steve is smart dude.

Please do a google on NeXT computers, and you will understand why Apple wants to remain a hardware company. If you had used NeXTStep on x86, you would realize that the biggest stumbling block to becoming a commodity OS vender is driver support. Right now Apple controls the hardware, so they only have to support a limited amount of hardware. If they tried to support even a small percentage of all possible PC hardware, they would be swamped with additional development and testing. M$ gets away with it because they are monopoly; they rely on the hardware manufacturers to write the drivers themselves. Everyone is forced to support Windows. To do otherwise would be suicide. They have no reason to support a niche OS. The Linux (BSD, etc.) community gets by with their reverse engineering efforts and the odd vender that supplies APIs, but it is hard for Linux to support the latest and greatest, which is Apple's bread and butter.

A single license of NeXTStep cost onwards of $4000, in 1995 dollars. Apple could not license OSX to Dell at a price that would keep them in business.

jfs

Re:OS X

[blugu64]

What you are suggesting is like a Saab made by an american company!

oh wait....

Seriously though, who thought the 9-2x was a good idea??

Not in Switzerland

[theolein]

Here, in admittedly tiny Switzerland, we have the highest percentage of Mac users anywhere, period. While I'm one of those and also work with Linux and Windows, the fact is that Macs are incredibly popular, and if people have money (Switzerland is fairly well off), they will buy them. Sweden, for example, which is also fairly well off, also has a high percentage of Mac users. The fact is that Macs are simply a bit simpler to use and somewhat more robust against user wear and tear than Windows.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!]

[jkh]

Ah slashdot, all the decorum and wit of a nursery school recess... Ruby works fine on 10.4.7, including the pack and unpack functions. Yes, there were bugs (that nobody "went out of their way" to cause - we have better things to do) and it took us longer than we'd have liked to fix them. That experience, in fact, is what led us to devote more resources to ruby going forward. Gah, posting on slashdot is like going to a sleezy strip club, isn't it? It's always against your better judgement, you feel slightly dirty and sad afterwards and you always swear never to do it again. I guess this takes care of any prurient impulses I might have had for the year. :)

Wrong

[bogie]

Don't confuse your need for conpensation with the reasons that others get involved with OSS. Do people volunteering for the Red Cross to help Katrina victims deserve compensation? Do people who volunteer every week at the local food bank deserve compenstion?

You got it wrong buddy. The idea that the work is useful to others and that you are helping people for Free IS the compensation with OSS. You cannot put a value on that and you cannot demand something in return for your work.

If you only want to do work that has immediate compensation stick to a regular job with a salary. If you can find an OSS job where the person who benefits from your code happens to want to kick back to you then fine, but don't go trying to turn one of the greatest things going into a quid pro quo situation. That is selfish and goes against much of what OSS stands for.

Re:Retraction?

[gerbouille]

Actually, douche is also a French medical term for the action of introducing water in an orifice for hygienic reasons (I don't know the medical term in english and I don't want to know, don't ask, I'm not a doctor), usually with an adjective describing the orifice in question: "douche nasale", "douche vaginale" (I don't need to translate those, do I?)

However, the instrument -- the douche bag -- used during such "activities" is usually called a poire (literally a pear, metaphoric)

Oh God, I can't believe what I've just written...

is an honest corporation really that scary?

[argent]

Did it ever occur to you that Apple's recent release of the sources comes well after the kernel was hacked to bypass the TPM AND due to the outcry from their userbase and others alike?

When the "missing sources" were first announced *last year*, well before any of the current flap, Apple representatives said that they hadn't withdrawn XNU... they just hadn't released it yet.

Did it ever occur to you through all the subsequent chest-beating that Apple was actually telling the truth? Why doesn't it occur to you now that they might have been? I realise that like all public corporations they are practically required by the SEC to act amorally and unethically, but their track record has been pretty damned good up to now... and it seems like it's continuing that way.

Is the idea of an honest corporation really so scary that you've suppressed your memory of the facts?

Um, Apache 2.0 License?

[api]

I am not a lawyer but...

Both GNU and OpenBSD take issues with the Apache 2.0 License:

http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/07 /1621254 (Weak!)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GP LIncompatibleLicenses
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2004060 7133603&mode=expanded

Anyone want to explain the contention better?

My EUR .02: Dual license it perhaps like Pike (GPL/MPL)

MD

Re:Um, Apache 2.0 License?

[argent]

I don't know the OpenBSD reasoning, because it seems like having language in the license to explicitly defang "sneak patents" in Open Source software would be a good idea. The FSF seems to agree:

(We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

The fact that a license is incompatible with the GPL is simply a fact. It may be that the GPL has a problem, it may be that the other license has a problem, it may be that copyright law itself has a problem.

Beg pardon?

[argent]

Apple had the opportunity to correct people on those statements ahead of time and didn't.

Um, sure they did. They said that they weren't closing the source, they just hadn't released those components yet. Now they have.

I was skeptical of Apple, too, and after a quick run through of the seven stages of grief I ended up accepting the conventional wisdom that Apple was going to let the source releases end with a whimper.

I was, apparently, wrong about that. I'm glad I quit mouthing off about it in the middle of "Denial", and didn't get stuck on "Anger" like some of the community. :)

Minus ten yards for stupid analogy!

[argent]

Apple didn't pull a gun on you. They didn't even pull a cellphone on you.

I'll tell you something, if a genuinely *professional* police officer mistakes a cellphone for a gun, even if he's in the middle of an arrest and so has reason to be jumpy, he *will* apologise. Have some class and do the same, eh?

Re:OS X

[facelessnumber]

like putting a paper mache Ferrari on a Malibu.

Dude, have you actually used KDE? C'mon, be fair. There's at least a Viper under that paper Ferrari.

Re:My freedom is more valuable than some discomfor

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

My time is so valuable that I moved to Linux. Maybe OS X is up there with Linux in terms of usability and application support.

Sorry, I use Linux every day, but OS X isn't "up there" with Linux in terms of usability and application support for a workstation, it is head and shoulders beyond Linux. I'd rather use a free and fully open source OS, but I am much more productive on OS X. It requires less messing around. Upgrading to a new laptop entails plugging a firewire cable between the old machine and the new and clicking a button. I can IM or e-mail working applications to people or run almost any program off of a USB drive. I can use my spell checker, grammar checker, scripts, encryption, language translations and other services in all my programs and use the best one for everything rather than a different implementation for every program. I can run both GIMP and photoshop easily. Sorry, but unless Linux catches up on these and many other fronts or until Apple does something that affects my everyday work, Linux is a distant second or third choice as a workstation.

Re:Retraction?

[Lord Kano]

Actually, douche is also a French medical term for the action of introducing water in an orifice for hygienic reasons

I'd imagine that that eye-wash stations are known to the french as "douche d'oeil", but the meaning of douche remains unchanged. "Shower".

LK

Re:First post (from a mac)

[Nataku564]

That the PowerPC architecture is superior to that of the X86 ... yeah, pretty well grounded in reality. If you read up on the specs for each you should come to the same conclusion. True, the consumer money wasn't ever really behind PowerPC, so you didn't see the same leaps in speed that you did on the Intel side of things - but really, it was just a much better designed system.

Didn't affect last year's WWDC

[jdbartlett]

My point was that Apple gives too much attention to its other products to be rightly called a "media" company. The accusation that they are a "media" company has only become popular because of the attention given to iTunes and iPod of late. Check out the first 10 minutes of last year's WWDC keynote:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

I don't mean to contradict you, but in the WWDC keynote address, Apple talks about what they've been developing--what has been directing their attention. Last year, it was mostly iTunes and iPod. This year, Apple has become more interested in Leopard and the Intel transition.

iPod and iTunes make Apple no more a media company than Google Maps makes Google a cartographer.

Re:Didn't affect last year's WWDC

[TheGreek]

I don't mean to contradict you, but in the WWDC keynote address, Apple talks about what they've been developing--what has been directing their attention. Last year, it was mostly iTunes and iPod. This year, Apple has become more interested in Leopard and the Intel transition.

At last year's WWDC, the only real good news was:

1) Hey, Tiger shipped!
2) iPod and iTMS are doing really well!

Which was to soften the blow for

3) We're moving to Intel.

The move has ended up being almost overwhelmingly positive, but a lot of developers were scared shitless.

Re:OS X

[Haeleth]

Do you have the slightest idea about business?

Yes. Do you?

They rather increase sales in anyway possible.

If they dropped the price of a MacBook Pro to $1.99, sales would rocket. Are you trying to suggest that that would be a smart business move?

Re:OS X

[Haeleth]

Anybody who wants to run OS X but doesn't want to pay the apple premium (or already has hardware, like myself) can. And does.

Nonsense. Only a tiny minority of people who want to run OS X but don't own Macs are sufficiently lacking in moral fibre to succumb to the temptation to break the law to run it. The rest are capable of overcoming their greed and accepting that they'll have to stump up for a Mac or do without.

Some people would like a legal version they can auto-update and feel good about. Right now, they're stuffed.

Buy a Mac. If you don't want to pay "the Apple premium" (whatever that is), then buy a second-hand Mac. Just don't run OS X illegally and then whine that Apple's being mean by not playing the way you want them to.

Re:First post (from a mac)

[mrchaotica]

Ah, well, I was assuming that the criteria by which people chose to like a chip was based on speed, not design.

Besides, the design advantages of PPC nowadays are limited only to the elegance of the instruction set -- chip designs have become so complex (what with micro-ops and all) that "CISC vs. RISC" is basically meaningless.

Re:BeOS

[MyDixieWrecked]

Thanks for posting the details. =)

Re:APPLE ABUSES THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY

[sickofthisshit]

Um, Darwin is the part Apple wrote.

Re:OS X

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The moment an OS X box appears on shelves at your local Best Buy that Apple intends for you to install on your Dell, HP or Lenovo, that wall is down.

In terms of the market for desktop OSs, this is not enough. The pre-installed market makes up probably 90% of said market. Unless Apple can get several major manufacturers to pre-install OS X, they will not be successfully entering that market. What they will be doing is gutting their hardware business.

The reason you arent going to see OS X for PCs any time soon has little to do with profit, and a lot to do with the fact that doing so means a fight to the death with Microsoftand no, I dont think Im engaging in hyperbole.

While MS might do all they can to kill OS X in said situation and Apple likewise for Windows, that does not mean it is a fight "to the death." There is room in the market for multiple, competing systems. Both would probably continue to exist and in fact would likely get better as they are forced to compete with one another. Thus, all the tactics that involve screwing over users would backfire.

All of this, however, is academic. No one risks a successful PC business by gambling the whole thing on one roll of the dice and pre-installing OS X, unless they have MS's blessing, which would only be given if it was a planned double cross. Apple knows it and so does Dell and Lenovo and everyone else in the space.

Re:First post (from a mac)

[Nataku564]

Indeed - speed is nice, but if people got behind it enough the speed would have followed. The platform architecture itself was far better on the IBM side of things. Being able to add/remove processors at runtime is a sure sign of people thinking right :)