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.

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

[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: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

[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.

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: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: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.

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.

(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.

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

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.