Google Gets Serious About Open Source Mac Projects

mjasay sends us a link to a CNet story, which begins: "In the '20 percent time' that Google employees have to work on projects of personal interest, it turns out that an increasing number are spending time writing open-source projects for their Macs. Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows. It is in the 20 percent employee development time, however, where this statistic becomes interesting. At Google, development time translates into products. The more Mac-friendly employees, the more Mac-related development. The more Mac-related development, the more Google-sponsored Mac-based open-source code. As Google's Mac Developer Playground demonstrates, some of this code is quite interesting."

Comments

I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM

[rs232]

And Google is really evil, really .. :)

Re:I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM

[Ilgaz]

Google can get very evil unless you don't trust them based on their motto "Do no evil".

Google Desktop search is an example how to spare thousands of engineer hours needlessly just to duplicate spotlight and make those "maccies" extremely paranoid.
http://daringfireball.net/2007/04/google_desktop_installer

John Gruber isn't a tinfoil hat and I don't know if Google fixed those horrible dangerous method of installing. Rule number 1 on OS X: You never, ever write to /System

Google should ask their Apple buddies one, simple question: "Why do you code spotlight in a way that it never, ever connects to internet". It is still same on Leopard, Spotlight connects _only_ to XServe on local network if it is configured to do so. It is also the framework which Apple uses every kind of counter measure for security whether they are ready for third party or not.

Re:I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that really is evil. Makes that whole holocaust thing seem like fluffy kittens in comparison.

Re:I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM

[AngryLlama]

This is the most interesting post I've ever read on slashdot. Modpoints anyone??

Re:I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM

[Ethanol-fueled]

I prefer the library bathroom one, myself. Grandparent: please post the bathroom library one again!

Open source on non open OS?

[kipman725]

To me open source on a non opensource OS (apple has a patchey history with opening bits of OS) has always seemed a little contridictory and defeating the purpose of running a free or opensource system.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[FinchWorld]

Why? Surely if its open source anyone can take it, compile it, and use it on whatever they want. How much propriety software lets you do that? By limiting open source software to only play nice with other open source software (OS, whatever), you become a little bit like Microsoft.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[ColdWetDog]

To me open source on a non opensource OS (apple has a patchey history with opening bits of OS) has always seemed a little contridictory and defeating the purpose of running a free or opensource system.

That's just plain silly. You don't have to have the source code for every tiny little bit on the computer for source code to be useful. Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel, be it Windows, OS X or Linux?

Sharing code is useful at the application level. You should re examine your zealotry, son. It's gonna cause you some grief. Mark my words ... You'll grow a beard, be shunned at parties. You will want to put posters of RMS on your wall. Your mother will disown you.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better than closed source software on a proprietary OS. Most people don't use an open source OS anyway - at least this way, they can still get some of the benefits of using open source software.

And, unless the software is really Mac-specific, it can move with users over to a free OS (or any other OS, for that matter). One less thing to keep them tied to a specific OS, especially if they use the software instead of a proprietary one.

Some of it, like MacFUSE, is actually a port of stuff that originated on Linux anyway.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Ilgaz]

You should have waited for the "how evil is Apple to hide /bin from Finder and how it proves OS X is not open" comment like people doubleclick ls command via GUI on other OS'es which shows it. :)

One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your misunderstanding the commenter. It's a shame that people are doing OSS work on proprietary OSs because it gets tied into non-free libraries and then becomes useless.
Can you really call

void main() {
ProprietaryFunction();
}

an open source program? And even if it can, is it useful with out the proprietary part?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[MMC Monster]

I don't know. Is Firefox on MSWindows useless? At some point they'll have to call a proprietary library.

The nice thing is that they can put wrappers around the proprietary function call bits and potentially make the software run on multiple OSs. (As Firefox does.)

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[maxume]

There is one purpose of running a free or open source system?

I generally use open source and free software because it fills a need I have and doesn't cost any money. Is that why you use it?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Znork]

Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel, be it Windows, OS X or Linux?

Well, it's a fair number, but it's not necessarily the number of people, but the _right_ people we need to be dinking around with the kernel. Unfortunately, with proprietary operating systems, it seems the right people are not necessarily doing that.

I don't personally dink around that much in the kernel (altho I've bypassed a bug or two in drivers), but I certainly want the genius with too much free time and the same hardware that I have who can fix the bugs to have access to the source. I dont want to hack my own paravirtualising hypervisor, but I'm very pleased to use xen technology, which would have been very difficult to implement without open source.

As a user of programs and operating systems I usually dont need the source. But I do need many improvements made by people with similar interests to me; interests that may overlap very much less with the strategic thinking of a single monolithic corporation.

Sharing code is useful at the application level.

Free software is useful at any level you want to have improved. Which is pretty much all of them. Personally I dont have the patience for proprietary products anymore; I find most tend to have issues that would never survive a few iterations in an opensource product. With free software products I know that if it annoys me enough it'll annoy someone else enough to fix it.

Now go away. I have a beard to tend to.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[MMC Monster]

Wow. Switch to decaf. :-)

If it wasn't for firefox, I would never have switched from WinXP to Ubuntu.

If there are no similar apps between free OSs and proprietary ones, how would you expect anyone to switch?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Eighty7]

That's just plain silly. You don't have to have the source code for every tiny little bit on the computer for source code to be useful. Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel, be it Windows, OS X or Linux?

You really think it's just the kernel? Jobs (goes for ballmer too) has complete control over his platform. Are you going to make all your users pay for 10.5? If he stops supporting Carbon, what can you do?

My biggest gripe is with repositories. It would be absolutely trivial for MS to set up a repository & kill off 90% of the malware. Apple supposedly cares for its users - an add-remove button like ubuntu's would go a long way towards providing quality applications. I'm sure it's possible to add a repository afterwards, but it's nowhere as easy (popular) as ubuntu's default. When you find yourself having to explain to yet another person that legal, free, world class software actually exists -- remember that you're doing it because you're on someone else's platform & they want to make it difficult because they're in the business of selling proprietary software.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Tranzistors]

Operating systems seem to come with culture. Linux comes with "free" culture, and if one uses Linux (forgive me, RMS), one tends to adapt the culture and consider free soft natural state of things.

On MacOS, however, the culture goes like "you pay for everything". Apps are crippled and if you need something good - you pay. In this environment you consider being paid for software natural state of things.

Note, I have never in my life used MacOS. What I have just said is more like theoretical observation.

On windows front this issue is very unclear. People expect everything for free, but it should have a price tag, or it is shit.
I have no idea what developers think there. Do they?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[mdwh2]

Agreed, and why don't we see anything in the article about Google employees spending time on open source projects for other platforms? That might be an interesting story, far more so than what platform they happen to write for, but it seems to be yet another case of giving a free advertisement just for Apple.

Of course, I'd expect MacWorld to focus on the Apple products, but this has misled CNET into thinking that Google has a special focus on the Mac, just because it can list a handful of pet open source projects that Google developers work on in their 20% time.

The headline should be "Google gets serious about Open Source", not "Google gets serious about the Mac".

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[mdwh2]

One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.

Actually, most of them are using Windows.

Is this proof that Windows is the best, then?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

On MacOS, however, the culture goes like "you pay for everything". Apps are crippled and if you need something good - you pay. In this environment you consider being paid for software natural state of things. Note, I have never in my life used MacOS. What I have just said is more like theoretical observation.

From my perspective (I use OS X, Linux, and Windows desktops daily) the freeware community for OS X is just as diverse as on other OS's. I just did a search for freeware titles on my favorite OS X application tracking site. It came up with 7800 links to free software applications for download on OS X. This does not include CLI applications, where there are plenty more. Some of that software is very high quality. In comparison, it came up with 7900 links to payware.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[mrchaotica]

Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel... Sharing code is useful at the application level.

That's a bad example to use in this case, because for Mac OS the kernel is actually one of the Free Software bits! In fact, it is the application-level libraries (e.g. Cocoa) that are not Free.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

My biggest gripe is with repositories. It would be absolutely trivial for MS to set up a repository & kill off 90% of the malware. Apple supposedly cares for its users - an add-remove button like ubuntu's would go a long way towards providing quality applications.

I think what you're talking about is centralized package management. I agree Apple should add it into OS X, as they are doing with the iPhone. There is even some indication they might be planning to do so in the future.

I'm not sure, however, that this is a one sided argument. Package managers are great and useful, in some cases, but all the current ones fail miserably for other workflows, sometimes in ways Apple has already solved. Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers. They also suck for installing software on remote drives for access by multiple systems, installing on removable media, easily moving installed applications to other systems, and installing from a Web page.

Right now I'd say Apple has about 50% of the solution we all want, while Ubuntu has the other 50% and neither has gone and integrated the half the other vendor got right. Apple has their half right because they have one, centralized authority willing to make hard decisions and break compatibility with others when needed to make a real advancement. Ubuntu has the other half right because they have diverse contributors and a somewhat democratic, mob like way of making decisions that work for most people. That said, want to bet that Ubuntu gets drag and drop installs and all the other benefits they could get from GNUStep before Apple adds a centralized package manager and repository to OS X?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a somewhat related example: In OS X 10.4 Apple decided to arbitrarily and without explanation change the AIFF file format - the standard format for when you simply drag and drop audio from a CD - so that the header's byte order was reversed, but without any sort of tag to let you know. In 10.5, they kept the reverse byte order but changed the type to AIFC (but without using the 'sowt' compression type tag, IIRC.)

If OS X had been open source, there would have been a visible process to us outside engineers, and most likely the 10.4 format mess never would have happened because they would have stuck to an official standard rather than pulling something out of their ass.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Homer1946]

It this the time to point out that Apple's kernel is open for interested users to "dink" with.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most of them are using Windows. Not in any engineering office. For engineers, desktops are about 90% Linux, with Mac and Win picking up what's left. Laptops skew the picture significantly, with about 75% macbooks and 25% Win thinkpads. Linux is not significant on laptops because employees are encouraged against using Linux on laptops (I guess to simplify support).

If you add in the many customer service reps, HR, etc, that any big company has, that skews the picture toward Windows and Mac. They would rarely write software, and most don't get 20% time either, so they wouldn't factor in to the article's thesis.

What does this "prove" if you go only by numbers? Linux is great for code development on desktops, Mac makes great laptops, and non-developers like to cling to Windows.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Eighty7]

I think what you're talking about is centralized package management. I agree Apple should add it into OS X, as they are doing with the iPhone. There is even some indication they might be planning to do so in the future.

Honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Did you see what apple made of the iphone attempt? And it costs $99 to get a cert? I've seen devs on ubuntuforums.org get approached by maintainers wanting to package some minor app for the repository. Apple certainly isn't poor. There's a conflict of interest here.
And this supports my initial premise that OSS on non-OSS is no fun. (I know you weren't disagreeing with me)

Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers.

You ask most ubuntu people they'll probably tell you it's working as intended. If it's not free it's not GPL & probably not OSS either. Chances are it's a binary blob & that opens up a host of issues. Is it "zealotry" to actually want control over your own computer?

...and installing from a Web page.

Yeah they're working on it. Did you see the new apt:// protocol?

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Free the Cowards]

Weak. Running an open source OS on closed source hardware is defeating the purpose of running an open source system. Call me back when your BIOS is open and the design of the CPU and every other chip on the motherboard is made available for tweaking.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Did you see what apple made of the iphone attempt [slashdot.org]? And it costs $99 to get a cert?

Actually, $99 i pretty low for development fees for cell phones, actually really low. It would be nice if Apple did not charge at all, but I'm not upset either.

Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers. You ask most ubuntu people they'll probably tell you it's working as intended. If it's not free it's not GPL & probably not OSS either. Chances are it's a binary blob & that opens up a host of issues. Is it "zealotry" to actually want control over your own computer?

I'm of the opinion that trying to make things hard to do as a security measure, is asinine. People can and still do install "binary blobs" on Linux. They just don't get automated updates to those blobs, so they are more likely to be insecure. They also get people in the habit of running binary installers, which are less secure than a "drag and drop" package that is self contained, like Apple uses. Or, more commonly, people don't install blobs on Linux, they just use Windows instead... which incidentally introduces lots of artificial problems with Windows and ends up hosing networks left and right screwing with people who are using Linux.

Trying to engineer people's behavior by making things people want to do (install closed source games or publishing software) causes a lot more problems than it solves and is wholly ineffective. The proper solution is to make everything users want to do both easy and secure and it's a lot easier to secure closed source software when it is coming from a centrally controlled repository and implementing DRM/registration via an official and OSS channel instead of via dozens of different closed source, proprietary channels. Trying to stop people from running closed source software, is zealotry, by the way. It is trying to impose your decision upon others, despite their wishes, instead of trying to convince them your way is better.

Yeah they're working on it. Did you see the new apt:// protocol [linuxhack3r.com]?

Yeah, there are numerous solutions, but no standard and nothing implemented by multiple distros (who can't even standardize on a package format I might mention). So far the most common workflow for installing software (research on Web then install based upon the info found) is still pretty mythical. A few developers have Web pages that will allow for fairly easy installation, if you happen to be using the right distro, otherwise, it's worse than Windows.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Schnoogs]

Your post is hardly insightful.

To suggest that Windows or Mac users shouldn't benefit from Open Source just because their OS isn't Open Source is just plain loopy. So you're logic is that because I paid for the OS, or in my case, my work provides it for me I should then have to go out and pay for everything else?

I'll inform my boss that we should abandon Java and Netbeans tomorrow because we're paying for Windows. According to you it makes no sense to use free software so we should go out and pay for a closed source language and IDE.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Entropy2016]

If ProprietaryFunction() is a GUI-related function, then who cares? You were gonna have to change the GUI code anyway. Even if you're porting between different open-source operating systems it can happen.

And if it's not GUI-related, but actually something that does substantial work?
Just replace ProprietaryFunction() with an open-sourced alternative.

It's only useless if you're not willing to contribute to his open-source project. (And if that is the case, you would be the leech).

Chances are the original programmer knew that ProprietaryFunction() wasn't the ideal solution, but he lacked an open-source alternative. Maybe he's strapped for time. Or maybe he doesn't have the skill to code a replacement for ProprietaryFunction(). Maybe his primary concern wasn't OSS-ideology, but rather, getting the software to just simply work because "purely"-OSS that doesn't work yet is not going to help anyone (including himself) anymore than "mostly"-OSS that does work.

There isn't an open-source library that has a function that's able to do the same thing?

If your proprietary competitors have better libraries, for which you can't find some generally-equivalent function to replace ProprietaryFunction(), your libraries need work. No, it doesn't help you in the short term, but it does help you in the long term by forcing the realization upon you that that OSS library needs that particular feature enhancement. Open source OS'es like Linux are trying to be competitive. More power to 'em, go for it. But they're not going to be as-good alternatives if they aren't willing to have libraries with as-good functions for developers to utilize.

At least the guy (or team) that started the project on their proprietary OS gave you any sort of starting point. They could have kept the whole darn thing close-source.

Quoting the commenter ...

To me open source on a non opensource OS (apple has a patchey history with opening bits of OS) has always seemed a little contridictory and defeating the purpose of running a free or opensource system. I'd like to point out that the commenter's alleged contridiction is only true depending on what you deem to be the purpose of running a free (as in rights) OSS system. If that purpose is to rely upon only ideologically-pure OSS solutions for your computing tasks, then yeah.

But if the purpose of running a your free or opensource system was because it was easier to get, or easier to get legally, or because you prefer the user-interface, or its stability, or because you believe it's more secure, or because it was free (as in beer), or because you believe your OS is just-plain-better, or because you like to be able to tinker with a kernal and system level things ... then no. The purpose of running your free opensource system was not defeated. Some people have lofty ideology they wish to satisfy. Some people are trying to simply accomplish their task as efficiently as possible.

Rarely is the easy/efficient way also the ideologically superior way. The purpose of trying to use OSS is free (as in rights) for anyone to determine for themself and shouldn't not be assumed to be the same purpose for everyone.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Bert64]

The byte order?
Does it use the reversed byte order on PPC or just Intel? Perhaps this is simply a bug with the port to x86...

OSX also wants the IP Offset and packet length fields in host byte order when constructing raw packets, whereas every other OS seems to want them in network byte order... This was never an issue on PPC since the host and network byte orders are the same, but it broke a lot of apps when ported to x86.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[RiotingPacifist]

Yeah, there are numerous solutions, but no standard and nothing implemented by multiple distros (who can't even standardize on a package format I might mention). Actually there is a standardized package format, RPM (or more specificially a restricted supset of RPM that is gauranteed to work with alien) which is compatible with all major distros.

So far the most common workflow for installing software (research on Web then install based upon the info found) is still pretty mythical. A few developers have Web pages that will allow for fairly easy installation, if you happen to be using the right distro, otherwise, it's worse than Windows. Almost all developers offer both a tar and source, if you cant install software from one of those two your doing it wrong. Most developers also host a RPM or a deb too, i dont know if RPM bassed distros can handle debs but for debian based systems you have 4 different ways of installing it in no more than 3 commands. OFC using tars means you lose out on package management but you dont even get that on windows.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[mdwh2]

Your references for these numbers, Anonymous?

Though actually these numbers just mean that the OP I replied to was even more incorrect than I thought, since he said: One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.

So most people use Linux, and not OS X - and whether it's Windows or Linux that is most used, either way the Mac is still a niche platform even among developers.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Finder press Command (sometimes referred to as the "Apple" key by non-specialists)-Shift-G (the shortcut for the Go to Folder command, from the Go menu). Type in /bin. There it is.

That's like complaining that your car has an engine compartment, instead of leaving all the innards exposed for any passerby or cat to crawl around in. Don't blame me if you don't know how to pop the hood.

Re:Open source on non open OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Actually there is a standardized package format, RPM (or more specificially a restricted supset of RPM that is gauranteed to work with alien) which is compatible with all major distros.

I don't think a program to convert between package formats qualifies as distros supporting that format. In reality, a lot of software comes as Deb or RPM, but not both and that really sucks for end users and developers trying to reach general Linux users.

Almost all developers offer both a tar and source, if you cant install software from one of those two your doing it wrong.

It's not easy enough. Sure I can do it. I do it regularly and it even works, most of the time. As a developer, however, it's a shitty way to get software to normal users, since many can't build and install it without help.

OFC using tars means you lose out on package management but you dont even get that on windows.

So if you lose out on package management, how is it superior to Windows again? More importantly, how is it close ot as useful as GNUStep bundles, like the ones Apple uses?

The fact is package management is a great idea, but current package formats are weak and not standardized. Current package managers suck for many use cases and have to be ignored for much software. And convenience and ease of use for software installation is dreadful on most Linux distros for a large number of use cases. This is simply not a strength of current Linux on the desktop distributions.

Developers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!

Seriously though, developers = applications. And more Mac developers means less Windows developers.

Only 2 operating systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows."

So you can only use these 2 operating systems @ google? I was expecting a bit more accuracy from the article...

Re:Only 2 operating systems?

[Lars T.]

"Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows." So you can only use these 2 operating systems @ google? I was expecting a bit more accuracy from the article... Yeah, obviously they meant to say "... opting to use the Mac over Windows and Linux." - Happy now?

Re:Only 2 operating systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was expecting a bit more accuracy from the article... When did you acquire this taste for luxuries?

Re:Only 2 operating systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, GNU/Linux you insensitive clod!

Long fondness?

[Capitalist Piggy]

Google has long had a fondness for the Mac

What? Wait, 2 years? Come on now.

Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Mac

[Ilgaz]

When you write a story about open source and Google on Mac, you don't miss QuickSilver.app which is a record breaking download which turned to open source and Alcor, the developer is a Google employee.

See the numbers just at its versiontracker page
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22549

Also here is its source along with various Alcor programs:
http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/

There is no chance you miss a 200.000 downloaded (just a single site!), used by newbie to advanced developer profile utility. Unless you have never used Mac regularly and sit there and write a story about Google and Mac code of course. Another thing to include in that story is the fiasco of Google Desktop search which seriously made everyone paranoid with its method of install, method of running and the idea of shipping that Windows wonder to an OS which invented dynamic/extended search in its core.

Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true for "open source" OS X software. Developers on this platform are generally opposed to cross platform application development and Apple works hard to ensure that applications written to OS X will not easily be ported to other platforms.

If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?

This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac. And that makes them a lot more like Microsoft than the person who asked the original question.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not desktop apps, but Apple has a put good effort into OSS server and network apps.

http://www.macosforge.org/

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[GalionTheElf]

If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)? Handbrake.

Please note though that I'm not particularly up on the politics here, but handbrake is a brilliant, once mac-only, video conversion tool.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

handbrake?

Though I guess it doesn't count since it started on BeOS I think...

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[cleatsupkeep]

Transmission.

http://www.transmissionbt.com/

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it would be nothing without all development of the libraries it uses(ffmpeg, x264, xvid, lame, etc) etc that was definitely not started as mac only.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Not desktop apps, but Apple has a put good effort into OSS server and network apps.

http://www.macosforge.org/ Yeah, OSS server and network apps ported just so they'll run on OS X, which seems to be in line with what the AC you replied to was getting at.

It seems to me there's a non-trivial effort required to make a lot of OSS work on a Mac, as witnessed by the need for some Mac developer to custom-build every OSS project under the sun and post the MacThis, MacThat, MacTheOther installers on obscure web pages. The "configure;make;make install" dance never seemed to "just work" for me.

Queue "you're doing it wrong" responses in 5,4,3...

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[0100010001010011]

#include
main()
{
        printf("Hello World");

}
-
Hrm. Seems to work just fine on my Mac and my Debian Box. I guess I foiled apple again.

Or if you mean Apple has their own language, Cocoa, which isn't ported to XP or Linux. Funny thing is, you're not forced to use it.

Since we're on the topic of cross plat form stuff, it's not OSS, but it was one of the best selling games ever: Myst.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[0100010001010011]

And i nearly forgot: launchd.

"The launchd daemon is essentially a replacement for init, rc, the init.d and rc.d scripts, SystemStarter (Mac OS X), inetd and xinetd, atd, crond and watchdogd."

Yeah, it's open source and even written by Apple themselves.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Randle_Revar]

Cocoa is not a language, just as Win32, GTK and QT are not languages.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Paradise Pete]

This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back.

I think you misunderstand how it works. The original author rarely ports it to a platform he doesn't use. He makes the source available, and someone who is willing and able to make it work on another platform can do that. You even said it yourself - "They've ported." If few Mac open source projects have been ported to a particular platform, blame the users of that platform, not the people who don't use it.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[RiotingPacifist]

by that definition mac didnt start on mac.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[slarrg]

Ruby on Rails

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "configure;make;make install" dance never seemed to "just work" for me. Well of course it doesn't work!
You left the "shuffle;hop;turn" out of your dance

The full dance goes like this:
configure;make;shuffle;hop;turn;make install

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[larry bagina]

Apple works hard to ensure that applications written to OS X will not easily be ported to other platforms.

Just like KDE works hard to ensure that applications written for KDE aren't easily ported to other APIs? And GNOME works hard to ensure that applications written for GTK aren't easily ported to other APIs? And X.org works hard to ensure that applications written for xlib aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Be works hard to ensure that applications written for belib aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Microsoft works hard to ensure that applications written for Win32 aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Sun works hard to ensure that applications written for Swing aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Open Group works hard to ensure that applications written for Motif aren't easily ported to other APIs? And QNX works hard to ensure that applications written for Photon aren't easily ported to other APIs? And Donald Knuth works hard to ensure that documents written for TeX aren't easily ported to other markup languages? And Intel works hard to ensure that x86 assembly code isn't easily ported to other architectures? And Toyota works hard to ensure that gasoline-powered internal combustion engines can't easily run on hydrogen?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[mdwh2]

Sure, but:

He makes the source available

I think the point is that this is a crucial part of the step. So if it's true that Mac open source software hasn't got ported to other platforms, then it must be that Mac developers tend not to release their software as open source - or the software that does get released as open source isn't good or unique or interesting enough to be worth porting. This is presumably what is meant by "have given nothing useful back".

If few Mac open source projects have been ported to a particular platform, blame the users of that platform, not the people who don't use it.

Yeah it could be that there's some really really good Mac-only open source software that doesn't have equivalent on other platforms, and hasn't been ported, because developers of other platforms are just lazy. Can you give me an example where this is the case?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Midnight Thunder]

Or if you mean Apple has their own language, Cocoa, which isn't ported to XP or Linux. Funny thing is, you're not forced to use it.

I believe you meant Objective-C, and that is cross platform. In fact Apple uses gcc to compile all their Objective-C applications. The only thing that is platform specific is Cocoa. Apple originally had a cross-platform library for the system called "Yellow Box", though for one reason or another it was dropped. More information can be found here:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681-F186A4365805.html

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[blacklint]

Did you actually look at that link? Darwin Streaming Server and CalendarServer are Apple written server applications that can be run on other operating systems, not the other way around. I've personally run Darwin Streaming Server, the open sourced version of QuickTime Streaming Server, on a Debian box.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[blacklint]

WebKit. Not Apple-originated, as it was based on KHTML, but I'd say it's a pretty darn good example of Apple giving something useful back to the open source community.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[g0at]

It seems to me there's a non-trivial effort required to make a lot of OSS work on a Mac, as witnessed by the need for some Mac developer to custom-build every OSS project under the sun and post the MacThis, MacThat, MacTheOther installers on obscure web pages. I think that phenomenon is often attributable to simpleton developers' desire to repackage OSS programs in a shiny shell that they can re-sell to point-and-click Mac noobs for a few bucks.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[aGuyNamedJoe]

How about Squeak?

Of course, if you're already convinced that no good OSS comes from companies that develop proprietary software, it's a waste of time to go on.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck me.

Replying to undo unintentional "redundant" mod, I was trying to mod you up. Stupid web 2.0.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[mrchaotica]

Does anything other than Mac OS use launchd?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[mrchaotica]

Actually, Handbrake used to be cross-platform between Mac and BeOS. Apparently the BeOS version has been dropped in favor of Linux and Windows (a reasonable decision, I must say), but it could very well have been the original version.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Homer1946]

This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. Not that I remotely agree with this statement, but for those in the OSS community that do, why did you choose a license that allows (evil) users to use your code who do not also generate original programs of their own. Why not switch to a license that states that nobody can use your code unless they first release code for their own original project. It would eliminate of large number of those pesky leaches (users).

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[0100010001010011]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Apple's contributing back which is what the grand parent was complaining about. If other people don't use Apple's contributions how is that apple's fault?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[c_forq]

I don't think it is on Windows, but the bittorrent client Transmission I believe started on Mac (and I believe it is also the default app in the latest Ubuntu distribution).

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

I said nothing about Mac users not having the absolute right to port OSS to OS X and give nothing back as per the license. What I am doing is just pointing out how little flows in the other direction. That's why I used the word "leech".

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are joking right? I don't know about BSD, but the Linux world is switching to Upstart which is a far better init replacement than that XML-laden garbage known as launchd. Note to Apple: 20 lines of XML to run a program at 5am on saturdays is 19 steps backward.

And to 0100010001010011: grand parent was asking about significant useful desktop applications (think OpenOffice, Firefox, Eclipse, etc), not crappy init systems or video conversion scripts or bittorrent clients.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never used Qt, have you?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[bussdriver]

OpenStep is similar to Cocoa and with more support it could keep up; it runs on linux. Objective-C++ works on linux too.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[samkass]

This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back.

WebKit gave a HUGE amount back to the community. So much so that, while it started as a derivative of KHTML, now KHTML syncs to them instead. Darwin Streaming Server... iCal Sever, one of the first good CalDAV implementations... Bonjour... llvm's clang... And Apple's use of open source software for everything from their print services to shell have certainly fed quality improvements back to many of the projects they use (which is half the point, right?)

So... I call bullshit.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like KDE works hard to ensure that applications written for KDE aren't easily ported to other APIs?

Nice strawman, but I didn't say "ported to other API's". And that's still a funny claim, because QT and GTK apps (and xlib, and Swing, and almost all your examples) run just fine on OS X, but Cocoa apps run... nowhere but OS X. Hell even Win32 and .NET are portable to Unix/Java if you use Mainwin (who are actually HELPED by Microsoft to do this). Thanks for playing, though.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Lars T.]

OpenOffice? That's not a real OpenSource project, but started on the Amstrad CPC as a commercial app, and was actually on the Mac before it was available for Linux. Go suck a lemon.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Nossie]

and as an AC you do soooo well at justifying yourself...

What do you mean OpenOffice was Mac first? cant be right? I mean what OTHER linux app is more significant than O.O?

STFU and stop trolling, your whole argument is full of shit.. OSX has been out for less than 10 years, Linux has been out for almost 20 and Unix (dont get me started on how much you bitches have given back to unix) has been out since forever... and been 'taken' from for about just as long.

ONE point in your favour is that MAYBE those more inclined to develop for the mac would rather not do open source in the first place... maybe you should just be glad all of them dont feel that way.

how about vinevnc ... oh wait, like we really need another 10 vnc client/servers or 20 ftp clients...

oh rEFIt ? wait.... what would you want with an efi bootloader

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[larry bagina]

GNUStep.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Apple works hard to ensure that applications written to OS X will not easily be ported to other platforms.

And you have good evidence that this is the reason for the way they have done things, as opposed to making sure that apps written for OS X simply integrate well with the system to provide a good and consistent user experience?

In a world where most apps are written for Windows, it doesn't really make sense for Apple to try and make it hard to stop people from porting Mac apps to other platforms. Apple aren't stupid.

This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac.

Or perhaps they are only interesting in creating apps for OS X? I mean, if they take from the OSS community to begin with, then how can they consider it their software? How do you know that they simply don't consider themselves porting software to OS X for the benefit of OS X users? What would they contribute back, anyway? remove all the OS X parts and give back what they took in the first place? You're not making much sense.

I think you are simply being paranoid or have something against people who use Macs.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't have a choice on the matter. They HAD to give webkit code back, it is required by the license of KHTML.

Apple will never willingly release code worth a salt if the license doesn't require it. They open the code to things like launchd because they know it sucks so much no will care about it.

That's Jobs politics for you btw, when Steve Jobs was at NeXT, he tried to get cute and don't contribute the Objective C compiler code back to GCC which they used as a backend. They didn't distribute the source code and the FSF opened their fangs on them until they respected the license and gave back.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am bored of hippies like you who thinks Apple opens anything of value. They are not Sun. Sun opened Java, OpenOffice and the whole Solaris/DTrace/ZFS.

Squeak is one of the crappiest dynamic language implementation ever made on earth. The virtual machine is DOGSLOW, far far far from the speed of something like VisualWorks and don't even get me started on the JVM.
Compare that to what Sun did. They opened the Java Virtual Machine, industrial grade, insanely fast Just In Time compiler. It's not the fastest of the world but it is pretty close to being one of the fastest and most practical virtual machine conceived.

Squeak is a fucking toy.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Disco Hips]

pretty sure Handbrake began on BeOS way back http://www.bebits.com/app/3478 But I take your point, I think it's been pretty much recoded to be as OSX native as it can be.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[onefriedrice]

Exactly. Objective-C is the language, and, oh yeah, it has excellent support in gcc thanks to Apple giving back its improvements in that area.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[PPCAvenger]

I don't get the attitude being displayed here.

    All open source software is licensed and that license dictates the terms through which the application/source can be used. If the license effectively says, "feel free to use it anyway you want, just credit the original authors" and Apple (or whomever) abides by the license then this is not "leeching" it's using the code exactly as the author(s) had intended.

  Despite your perceptions, Apple does contribute a lot of changes back to the community. Their Webkit is based on KHTML and they did a bulk of the work in fixing it up to make it what it is today; One of the most standards compliant renderers available and one that is finding increasing popularity on phones and other embedded devices.

  Your beef seems to be that they don't open source their platform specific products (iApps, Pro apps, the OS) but why in the hell should they? They are a for profit entity who still makes a bulk of their money selling hardware. The software promotes the sale of the hardware. It's ridiculous to expect them to open source it.

  The spirit of most OSS licenses seems to be that open code results in higher quality and more rapid evolution. Only RMS and the followers of his philosophies seem to think that OSS means that once it's open then it and anything ever based on it till the end of time must also be open and thus available for free (as in beer to anyone who can work a compiler).

  Licenses exist for a reason. For profit entities like the BSD and LGPL licenses because they provide a good starting point and don't damage their ability to make money.

  The authors of the licensed code should be happy because what they wrote and shared finds use on the desktops and in the hands of millions of people.

  The OSS community as a whole should be happy because the improved code usually does become available to the community to do with as they please as per the license terms.

  It seems to me like everything is working as intended and working well.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[zzottt]

I love rEFIt

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac Or port it to your platform of choice, just as they did, that's one of the ideas behindopen source, isn't it?

They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. Many a Mac user would argue that porting siad software to the Mac is, itself, a useful contribution. What you're saying essentially, is that they're assholes for porting software that was not developed for the Mac to the Mac, and giving them hell because they develop software for the mac. You come off as someone who just wants everyone else to do the work for you, and be spoonfed software.

It's open source, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from porting OSS mac software to whatever platform you wish, why should someone who doesn't use your platform of choice have to do that work for you?

The same assertions you make about the Mac crowd can be made for the Linux crowd. Do you think packages developed initially on Linux find their way to , say FreeBSD or Mac OS because the original Devs working on it ported it to these platforms themselves? Fuck no, They're ported by people who use those platforms.

Again, you want the software that badly get off your arse and port it, rather than whining about other people not doing it for you.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you know, they were bound by the BSD license to release Darwin code, right?

And they were forced by license to leave XNU open for a while, right?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Daengbo]

Oh the irony of the troll moniker....

OO.o was not Mac first. OO.o was released by Sun from the StarOffice code base. Before that, there was no OO.o.

"...How much you bitches have given back to Unix..."

Yeah. Just about every modern desktop environment used on Unix ... unless you don't consider BSD or Solaris Unix.

The sign of a troll is parading half-truths around as fact.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Nossie]

and it was open sourced on the mac first I believe? the since the software was proprietary first I dont think that counts for the trolls open source bullshit

AND ...

If everything is based on unix, then what the hell is the AC going on about? BSD, Solaris, NeXT and far many other companies have thrown stuff at the open source community... if some linux troll wishes to try and pretend just because it's on their platorm therefore it must be theirs then let them burn for it

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Daengbo]

All this KHTML talk shows that Maccies have a short memory or weren't following when it all happened. Let me shine a light on it for you

Apple didn't release their changes to KHTML for a very long time in violation of the license. The KDE folks got really pissy at this and insisted. Once WebKit was finally released, the changes weren't fed upstream as is common and good etiquette with Open Source software. Instead, a fork from two minor versions before was released without a decent changelog.

People claiming that KDE took Webkit from Apple to use it are high. The people like you who think thaat Apple did the bulk of the work are also wrong. Apple took a mostly completed project, forked it, didn't release the code for a couple of versions, then went into compliance by dumping code onto the community.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Daengbo]

"and it was open sourced on the mac first I believe?"

No. It was cross-platform as a proprietary app. It was cross-platform when it was released as OSS. You drank the kool-aid and believed what everyone told you.

For the record, I don't hold OO.o up as a great open source app. It's not. It was closed source, then opened, and the community is too small and the code base is not conducive to new developers joining.

> Mozilla deserves more credit because they basically rewrote Netscape from the ground up, but I still don't want to hold them up, either.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Nossie]

reeeeeeeeeel..... one troll bagged :) thanks for playing

o.o sucks as an app :-| sadly it is all we linux users really have. Lotus symphony looks nice, but I just cant bring myself to use the old o.o codebase.

Break up MS and force them to compete fairly... petition MS office for linux now! ... bleh its about the only MS application I have any respect left for.

We need more companies like Mozilla, regardless of themselves as a company their cross-platform applications have welcomed windows switchers to linux with open arms. Bring us Photoshop and a decent office package and we'd be sorted... what is corel doing these days? you'd think we'd see another release of word perfect for Linux, a perfect marriage (not suggesting its better than o.o but its still another choice at least)

bleh, even serif! http://www.serif.com/store/index.asp

I can dream with tearful eyes :-| until then I have my mac.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Reality Master 201]

Yeah, that's great.

You still suck it.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Daengbo]

Did you forget to post this one as AC, too?

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[Reality Master 201]

Nope; the AC comment on my last post wasn't made by me. I've got no problem telling people they suck it with my real UID.

And you suck it.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[mmkkbb]

The "Yellow Box" was the NeXTSTEP layer, which was later renamed to Cocoa.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[cp.tar]

Not true for "open source" OS X software. Developers on this platform are generally opposed to cross platform application development and Apple works hard to ensure that applications written to OS X will not easily be ported to other platforms. If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?

I don't know whether Transmission works on Windows, but otherwise it fits the profile.

Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform.

[angel'o'sphere]

If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?


Well my lame answer is: it is open source. Sou port it yourself just as the mac community has ported the non mac software themselves to the Mac.

Less lame answer: why should a mac developer spent his time in porting his app to the ... erm ... lower osses??

And now the significant answer: did you ever "port" something to windows and survived it? I will never port anything to windows ...

angel'o'sphere

The point is

[G3ckoG33k]

Share the code that will hurt your worst opponent most! Pull the rug under him! :D

mac fanboys fanning the flames of proprietariness

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs and all the other corrupters of the free market should be in jail.

Sadly, greedy and selfish people run the roost, so, of course, there is no justice.

Re:Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Ma

[namgge]

There is no chance you miss a 200.000 downloaded (just a single site!),

200,000 is the total of all downloads of all versions. The idea of VersionTracker is that it pushes new versions out to existing users; it is more relevant to look at the per version downloads (ca 14,000 for the latest version).

Namgge

Re:Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Ma

[Ilgaz]

Quicksilver is one of the first applications which easily updated itself from the beginning, without any hassle. If we had Blacktree numbers, it would turn out to be even more amazing.

The 200.000 downloads are coming from mostly people heard Quicksilver from a friend and used VT to download it and people who are Versiontracker Pro service users which auto updates via VT pro application.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[radarsat1]

The appeal, I think, is that Mac provides a pretty unique development environment. Not *my* favorite, mind you (I do prefer using a terminal to XCode, so emacs and Linux are my thing), but I definitely see the appeal of the Objective C thing.

Only, I wish those same people putting all that work into OS X applications would instead redirect their efforts to improving GNUStep, making Linux a place that can have the same set of appeals. Right now it's pretty ugly, but it has so much potential.. it seems to only lack developers. I'd love to see it go somewhere.

Here's why

[NDPTAL85]

The appeal is the quality of the user interface and developer community as opposed to both of those on Linux.

Superior interface, mature developers vs Whatever bad interface you want to use, we got 10 of them and childish political programmers who think what software license one uses is the civil rights battle of our time.

Oh and users. As in Macs have more non-programmer users than Linux does.

When you look at it that way its not much of a contest.

Re:Here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

How does blithering garbage like this get modded up?

Re:Here's why

[Draek]

Why in the fucking world was the above post modded +4 Insightful? Other than the fact that it praises Apple, of course.

First, "superior" is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I'd rather have Linux+Xfce than OSX, even without considering the price difference, but I don't go around claiming it's inherently "superior" (other than for me). And classifying Linux developers as "childish" and Mac's as "mature" is a sure sign of *way* too much kool-aid.

Mods: just because a post praises your favorite OS doesn't mean it's not flamebait.

Re:Here's why

[NDPTAL85]

A post can be both flamebait and true as mine was.

YOU may prefer to use Linux+Xfce over OS X and thats your right. You aren't alone either. There are whole hundreds of thousands of people who use Linux everyday as a desktop operating system, and as their main operating system too. Not just as a rarely used dual boot option when they get bored of Windows.

The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windows and Mac OS X and not so much for Linux. Emphasis on the LARGE in large groups of people there.

The problem with some Linux users is that they cannot see that time has a price value too. If you severely undervalue your time at $5 an hour, then you have about 40 hours to tinker with Linux and get it running properly before it would have made more sense to just shell out the money for a copy of Windows. Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.

Of course if you were smart enough to realize any of this you wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, now would you?

Re:Here's why

[Draek]

A post can be both flamebait and true as mine was.

True, but the proper mod for those kinds of posts is -1, Flamebait, sorry. Check the moderation guidelines if you don't believe me.

The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windows and Mac OS X and not so much for Linux. Emphasis on the LARGE in large groups of people there.

And OSX's marketshare is anything but "LARGE". Yes, it's bigger than Linux's, but only barely, specially outside the USA.

The problem with some Linux users is that they cannot see that time has a price value too. If you severely undervalue your time at $5 an hour, then you have about 40 hours to tinker with Linux and get it running properly before it would have made more sense to just shell out the money for a copy of Windows. Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.

You're basing your argument on two false assumptions: first, that Linux always requires post-install configuration and troubleshooting, and second, that neither Windows nor Mac do. Ohh yeah, and also that a MacBook costs only $1000, which is pretty much false outside the US, unless you want a second-hand G4.

Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.

And again, you're assuming that Windows and Mac will do everything you need them to do out of the box, which unless your name is Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is simply not true 99.99% of the time.

Of course if you were smart enough to realize any of this you wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, now would you?

Ohhh, name-calling, clever. I'll leave you alone to ponder about what it says about yourself, 'kay?

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Capitalist Piggy]

I do. Though it's karma suicide, as my last post got modded "redundant", although nobody else mentioned it, within 30 seconds of clicking submit. You can't bring up facts about /.'s golden children without some neck-beard in his mother's basement trying to shut you down.

You can, pretty much, take Google and insert $SEXY_COMPANY_HERE and expect Google to be best buddies with them when it comes to what's relayed to the public. This helps form advertising partnerships, makes investors balls swell, etc.

The more I've been reading about what Google employees do, the more it becomes apparent that most must be driving new Beetles, wearing "Can you hear me now?"-guy glasses, latte sipping, looking serious while browsing myspace at the coffee shop, goatee donning weeners.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[J'ai Friedpork]

You're not considering the possibility that they might not want the same thing from their computer as you do. Just because I don't need anything bigger or better than a used Pontiac doesn't mean other people might not want a brand new Hummer.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[J'ai Friedpork]

goatee donning weeners Is it bad that I thought you'd misspelled "goatse" at first?

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

(I do prefer using a terminal to XCode, so emacs and Linux are my thing), but I definitely see the appeal of the Objective C thing. There's no "magic sauce" in Xcode. An .app bundle is just a Mach-O executable with some additional bundled resources - a make file can create one just as well as Xcode can. You can even use GNUStep's make files to build apps that use Apple's libobjc and link to Apple's Cocoa frameworks.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software-wise, Mac OS X is no more expensive than Windows. Hardware-wise, it might be, but only because Apple don't make the low-end systems that form the majority of PC manufacturer's sales.

When I bought my v2 Macbook, it actually cost slightly less than an equivalently specced Windows laptop would have.

It could just be that I don't know where to find non open source Mac apps, but nearly every Mac app I've seen that's not a high-end commercial app is open source, a commodity app with plenty of alternatives on other platforms, is a GUI around a cross-platform library, or solves a problem that only exists on a Mac. Sometimes all four.

The availability of open source apps on Mac OS X has actually prevented me from installing Linux on this Mac, since everything I'd be using on Linux is available on Mac OS X. Except Amarok.

There's absolutely nothing forcing me to stay with Mac OS X, and I could easily switch to Linux and lose nothing.

Except the wireless doesn't work, and the trackpad is nearly unusable...

So where is Picasa for the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google is so big on the Mac, where is the Mac version of Picasa? It's been rumored for months. iPhoto's interface is poor by comparison.

Re:So where is Picasa for the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE! Iphoto is making me crazy, I actually boot my mac into xp just so I can use Picasa! Yeesh.

Re:So where is Picasa for the Mac?

[vonFinkelstien]

I second that. I've been waiting for Picasa for my Mac for ages.

Re:So where is Picasa for the Mac?

[radek]

Mac Picasa is currently under works. ETA: this fall.

GCal Sync

[0100010001010011]

Give me a damn google calendar sync. The free one (gcaldaemon) broke under Leopard and hasn't been updated. There are a few but the one I looked at sent the data to their servers and then used that to sync.

Re:GCal Sync

[eggstone]

Good point. I wish Google offers a free calendar syncing app between iCal and google calendar. The current solutions are so expensive.

Re:GCal Sync

[forand]

I just wish they would use standard WebCAL which anyone can use.

Re:GCal Sync

[Ma8thew]

iCal does it itself now, but only if you've plugged an iPod touch or iPhone into your computer, for some reason.

Re:GCal Sync

[Midnight Thunder]

I just wish they would use standard WebCAL which anyone can use

Just to be pedantic, the protocol specification is caldav, and yes I wish this too. I actually looked into what it would take to do this in Java, though the biggest hurdle is trying to understand the basic WebDAV architecture, and the lack of time to be able to truly commit. If there is anyone out the who has started such a project, or has a good understanding of webDAV, I would certainly consider getting back into this.

Re:GCal Sync

[rathehun]

If you're using leopard, Address Book syncs with your gmail account for free.

See: this article on Lifehacker.

Re:GCal Sync

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. When since when does your Address book have your calendar in it?

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Cannelloni]

Because it's a damn good and user-friendly operating system, with a large user base and a vibrant developer community and thousands of professional and home user applications. That's why.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[FishWithAHammer]

Hardware-wise, it might be, but only because Apple don't make the low-end systems that form the majority of PC manufacturer's sales. Yes they do. They just price them out of the low-end market.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[brian_tanner]

I don't really see the appeal to Google.
It has nothing to do with appeal to Google...

1. 6000 of Google's employees choose Mac (over Windows) at the office
2. Developers tend to spend their 20% paid free time working on projects related to their OS of choice
3. There is no 3.

At Google, people get paid to work on whatever they want (some of the time), and those developers (not Google as an entity) choose to create open source Mac software.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe this based on "reading about what Google employees do"? I take it you believe everything you read, then?

I mean, these are the people who wrote a ton of code that pretty much changed the game, and have one of the most stringent coding environments I've ever seen. And you think they're all a bunch of time-wasting hipsters concerned about what's "cool"?

No wonder you get modded down. Not only do you have no idea about technology, but you are profoundly stupid.

Google developers aren't allowed to use Linux?

[Ed Avis]

Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows.

So the choice is between Mac and Windows? What happened to Goobuntu? I thought most Google employees were on Linux desktops.

Re:Google developers aren't allowed to use Linux?

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

He said opting.... which means the users chose to use Mac. Doesn't mean Linux wasn't an option.

Re:Google developers aren't allowed to use Linux?

[Ed Avis]

He said 'opting for Mac over Windows' as if that were the choice.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[abigor]

Because a lot of Google people love Unix, and the Mac is the best desktop Unix environment. That's why.

And do you think Google are so penny-pinchingly cheap that the massive boost in developer productivity they get from using Macs isn't worth the small extra cost over a system running Windows or Linux? Give me a break. What are they spending, maybe $50 000 extra total for the Macs? Google earns that in probably around 5 seconds.

Mac computers at Google

[tristian_was_here]

If google are going to start using Macs throughout their company I might start using Live.com







Only joking!

Moderation Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, modding fail. Looks like the apple haters mod down as hard as the apple fanboys.

... and irony foiled you

[alx5000]

#include <preview.h>

FTFY. HAND.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[harryman100]

Because a lot of Google people love Unix, and the Mac is the best desktop Unix environment. That's why. I'm not sure it's OSX on desktop which is the primary appeal. I own a powerbook because when I bought it, it was the best unix laptop available. On the desktop I still think a more conventional distro of linux is better (but that's my personal opinion).

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[whackco]

3. Profit!!!

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Ihmhi]

Don't forget all the productivity saved on not playing games on the Mac.

Yes, there are plenty

[mario_grgic]

Excel and Photoshop come to mind first... but there are numerous others as well....

Re:Yes, there are plenty

[mdwh2]

Excel and Photoshop are open source?

Re:Yes, there are plenty

[profplump]

No, but they started on Mac, you know, the environment that is supposedly intentionally hard to port from, and were then ported to other environments. Moreover they eventually spawn clones like OpenOffice, some of which are open source. I realize that clones aren't strictly ports, but it's still software that originated on a Mac and is now in wide use on a variety of platforms.

You don't have to like Apple, or use a Mac. But it's ridiculous to claim that Apple intentionally tries to make porting difficult. They may not be interested in making porting easy (though I'm not sure that's an entirely firm point in the first place) but you're assigning intent and malice to a situation that can be adequately described by simple apathy.

Re:Yes, there are plenty

[mdwh2]

The original question was about open source software - the point being about what have Mac developers given back to the open source community. Do any of these exist, and if not, why not?

Moreover they eventually spawn clones like OpenOffice, some of which are open source. I realize that clones aren't strictly ports

What is OpenOffice a clone of? And I think that is scraping the barrel - if I write a closed source commercial piece of software, and then someone writes an open source free software, I hardly get to claim the credit for contributing to the open source community, merely on the basis that both of them are word processors or whatever!

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

(I do prefer using a terminal to XCode, so emacs and Linux are my thing) ... because Macs don't have a terminal and emacs, right?

Oh wait. They have a terminal, emacs, gcc, perl, shell, python, ruby, and a bunch of command line development tools. So that can't be the reason why linux is your thing, can it?

Desktop OS that can't run Photoshop?

[mario_grgic]

or does not have any RAW conversion software for any major digital SLR camera manufacturers?

Thanks but no thanks. With Mac OS X I get the best of both worlds (terminal, UNIX tools, VIM, gcc) but also Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Nikon Capture, and all my Epson printers work with no driver installations in Leopard.

Re:Desktop OS that can't run Photoshop?

[toddestan]

So, it's not a Desktop OS because it can't run Photoshop, a $650 professional level package? I might as well make fun of the platform of your choice since it can't run AutoCAD, which means that it's little more than a shiny toy, etc.

Incorrect summary

[sentientbrendan]

>with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current
>employees opting to use the Mac over Windows.

Actually, Google developers have *Linux* boxes by default, so many of these people are opting for Mac over *Linux*.

Currently, there are way more development tools available for the mac than Linux. Things like textmate, araxis merge, DTrace, etc. Thus a lot of people, inside google and out, use mac workstations to develop software that gets deployed to linux servers.

Re:Incorrect summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect summary and incorrect correction. I work at google and we get to choose twice: on the desktop and on the laptop. Most developers choose a linux desktop and mac laptop. A few choose a windows laptop, but end up installing linux on it as well.

Also, nothing in the company is 'by default'. If it involves how you work, you get asked how you want to do it. If it's not something completely insane, it's usually approved, since forcing you to go work in a way that you're not used to causes loss of productivity until you get used to the new way.

Re:Incorrect summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well in that case, let me re-write the summary:

"Google developers are evil corporate scum for choosing proprietary solutions such as MacOS over good, clean, wholesome Linux! The bastards."

Re:Incorrect summary

[toddestan]

Besides, who's to say that those Macs are actually running Mac OS? I know of a few people who bought Macs to run Linux, though granted that was the PPC days, nowadays you might as well buy something cheaper since it's all x86.

Re:Incorrect summary

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I work at Google. Most full-time engineering developers have both a Linux desktop and a Windows or Mac laptop. It's a great combination, since all of Google's web backend stuff runs on Linux, but it's often nice to have a Windows or Mac box around too, and they tend to be better choices for laptops.

There are lots of exceptions, of course - Mac desktops, Linux laptops, etc. - plus of course everyone whose full-time job at Google is to write Windows or Mac client software.

I don't have any statistics, but my observation is that even more than 30% of laptops are Macs - probably close to 50%. Desktops are 90% Linux.

Anyway, when you consider that most Google developers use Linux as their development machine and they're trying to decide between a Mac or Windows laptop as a second machine, the article is accurate.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[hanwen]

I think the reason that there are lots of macs in Google is that many use the laptops, and the company just caters for the employee's preferences. It's a pity, because the thinkpads are better built and more easily serviced. Despite the relatively good support for linux laptops at Google, using them remains cumbersome:

- wireless crapping out at random times

- suspend/hibernate woes

- poor battery life

I probably would use Mac too if it weren't for the absence of the nipple-trackpoint and the user interface that drives me crazy.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Farmer Tim]

If only that was true

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think the reason that there are lots of macs in Google is that many use the laptops, and the company just caters for the employee's preferences.

It sounds like a reasonable policy to me. It's the same one we had at my last employer. Users choose what works best for them. Since several of those people now work at Google, I imagine they feel right at home.

It's a pity, because the thinkpads are better built and more easily serviced.

Actually, according to Consumer Reports Thinkpads have a higher failure rate than MacBooks or MacBook pros, by a decent margin. At that last employer those were our two pre-approved vendors and our data showed the same thing. As for ease of service, who services their own machines? We put in RAM and the like, which is plenty easy on Apple systems. Anything else, we copied the data to a spare machine (if possible) and shipped the broken one back to the vendor. On site repairs may make sense for servers, but not for laptops. It just isn't worth the employee down time. A couple of spare laptops are a cheap way to keep people working.

Despite the relatively good support for linux laptops at Google, using them remains cumbersome...

I find using them anywhere as a primary desktop is cumbersome. It's come a long way, but there is still a lot of tinkering and hands on work that needs to be done to get them running with whatever infrastructure and keep them that way. I use one daily, but I don't find it to be as painless and enjoyable as OS X for most tasks (although for some tasks it is quite superior).

I'd note most all of the problems you list are probably the result of having a distro not tailored to your hardware. That will hopefully be less of a problem in future as laptop makers customize Linux for their machine and keep it supported.

I probably would use Mac too if it weren't for the absence of the nipple-trackpoint and the user interface that drives me crazy.

Yeah, we all become accustomed to interfaces and the like. I've used ThinPads and they are fairly reliable (number 3 or 4 right now?) but I've never been fond of the nipple-pointer thingy. Over the last couple of years I've noticed that OS X has incorporated pretty much all the old UNIX style interface features I missed, but the big Linux distros are still lacking in reciprocation. Ubuntu still does not ship with an expose clone by default or with two-finger trackpad clicking and scrolling. From what I've seen this has facilitated a large exodus of laptop users away from Linux and to OS X for their primary OS. Where I worked last they went from about 5% to about 70% in the last 4 years, mostly converting Linux people (and a few BSD users). It worries me because a lot of those people are now developing applications and the like to solve problems on OS X and there are even fewer people doing so for Linux on the desktop.

First

[Anonymous Coward]

Post!

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Only, I wish those same people putting all that work into OS X applications would instead redirect their efforts to improving GNUStep, making Linux a place that can have the same set of appeals.

Most people work to solve a problem, either their own, personal itch, or what their employer needs done. Those that care about the benefits of GNUStep have mostly moved to the Mac for the desktop. The rest don't know or care about those benefits. Many angrily defend Linux claiming it is better the way it is now than being more "like OS X" which they believe is obviously inferior (although many have no real experience to make this determination). Others understand the benefits of GNUStep for the desktop, but already use OS X for the desktop and really want Linux to be the perfect Server OS for them, and actively oppose any compromise that might add "bloat" without benefitting Linux as a Server. Finally, there are those that would like Linux to be an ideal desktop OS and understand how GNUStep can help, but pragmatically believe compatibility with other Linux distros is more important than the benefits of GNUStep and at the same time believe it is too hard to get all the major distros to buy in to a better way all at once.

I'd love to see GNUStep match and exceed OS X's implementation through integration with package managers and extending packages for that purpose. Sadly I don't think it will happen. Really Linux needs a hardware OEM to champion it on their hardware and work towards making it an ideal desktop, including feature parity with OS X (and interoperability where possible). Basically what would be needed is an Apple like company that had one executive who could make hard decisions and break compatibility with other Linux distros. They could undercut Apple on price by leveraging all the shared work from other Linux developers. Alas, it is just a pipe dream for now.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who can't comprehend implied sarcasm don't rank very high on the intelligence meter, as well.

That isn't just a bit off topic....

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop isn't a need for the average desktop user. Manipulating RAW certainly isn't either!

However, Photoshop works on wine & Linux has plenty of tools to do RAW conversion for many popular cameras. See rawtools, for example.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Builder]

Off you go then. Please keep us posted with regular updates.

I'm one of those people putting work into OS X applications and I plan to keep doing so until someone makes it as easy for me to do something else.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Homer1946]

The trouble with this is, they would want to do it (as a business) to sell hardware, thus they would be making all those hard decisions and doing all that work on Linux to have software to differentiate and sell their hardware. However since others would be entitled to use their software their hard won advantage disappears quickly.

I may be wrong (of course) but although I see companies making money supporting Linux, or using Linux as a base for their hardware, but I don't see them creating a complete differentiating Linux software stack since that differentiation cannot be maintained.

Slightly Stacked Deck

[Brownian Motion]

You limit to significant open source programs that have to originate on Mac OS X.

That's right, let's compare vs. Linux (1991) vs. OS X (2001).

And, since you said, 'significant', this makes it a bit harder, as to be significant, something generally has to be around for awhile, reducing OS X's ability to produce something.

And guys like you crack me up, as, a bunch of significant open source programs did not originate on Linux - the Gnu tools, gcc, perl, Apache, X11, python, samba, java, and I'm sure the list goes on.

I couldn't find out where mysql started. But that's three letters out of LAMP that didn't originate on Linux. Linux could not have originated ON Linux by definition, and I'd have a hard time counting it anyway, since it owes heavily to Unix in design and implementation. (Note: this is not a knock on Linus, or Linux, just if you're getting picky, w/o Minux or UNIX linux would not exist.)

Apple has made contributions back to open source, the easy example here is KHTML which even ended up changing it's name to WebKit.

Apple has originated open source projects as well. Take a look at iCal Server, which is an open source, cross platform Calendar server written in python.

launchd is open source, and I vaugley recall that it inspired some changes in Linux booting.

Others have noted several user supplied open source projects.

It's hardly a one way street Open Source -> Apple.

Re:Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Ma

[mc moss]

When I had 10.4, I used to rely on quicksilver. Now that spotlight works so well on 10.5, I really have no need for quicksilver anymore. However, I don't really use it to its full extent so I'm sure there are plenty of people who find it useful on 10.5

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[rrohbeck]

Don a goatse? You're sick.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[PetrusMagnusII]

You joke, but that's one of the reasons I bought a Mac when I went to college. Until then I used to build my own PC's and spend all of my waking hours fixing their little hiccups in my Mom's basement.
Now I work in a law office in a major world market. Even if everything that could have gone well did go well with messing around with computers did go well, I still am in a better financial position than I could have been.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The trouble with this is, they would want to do it (as a business) to sell hardware, thus they would be making all those hard decisions and doing all that work on Linux to have software to differentiate and sell their hardware. However since others would be entitled to use their software their hard won advantage disappears quickly.

The advantage is less than for a closed source OS, but then again, the advantage allows them to undercut the price of closed source. Most of the work is already there for them and getting other work, free, from others is ongoing free labor. It is true others could emulate your business model and switch to Linux too, but for stuff you develop you have first mover advantage. You're also more familiar with the code and can thus more cheaply support it and fix bugs. Heck, other hardware vendors may end up paying you to fix their hardware incompatibility bugs.

The main thing is to get over the idea of making the OS your only differentiator from a competitor, just because you're working on it. A lot of people work on Linux already and use it too, on the server, in devices, etc. Companies do quite well using Linux as a component of their hardware sales, and that model could work just fine for desktop computers. You can differentiate yourself with your hardware, added (closed source) applications, and with support and services (anti-malware, software repository, support, other network services, etc.).

Basically, OSS wins on price, but provides smaller margins and less differentiation than a closed source model.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it has potential... then people start looking at the cost/benefit ratio:

They could dump tons of time and gallons of brain-sweat and toil into pimping out GNUStep.

Or they could buy a Mac, get all the stuff or damn near it, that they would have gotten with all that work... and have time to do something else..

Like getting laid or trying to.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Asus coming to the rescue...

Shut the fuck up

[Reality Master 201]

Shut the fuck up you worthless cum guzzling sack of fuck. I hope you bleed to death while getting fucked with a spiked dildo.

Asshole.

Also, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, meant to post that one AC.

Did it wrong.

gSync

[amake]

There is gSync, which works flawlessly for me and doesn't use a 3rd party server.

You might complain that it's not free or open source. That's true; however, it does work quietly in the background when you use iSync or sync an iPod in iTunes, and never nags you as far as I can tell (unless you sync from the app itself). So you could use it for free. It's certainly not open source though.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Cannelloni]

This has been modded up 5 for "insightful", which is nice, but I would have preferred if people would post responses in agreement or disagreement.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you guys have to keep on working on Linux, get your shit in order (one standard GUI, one standard installation method, one way to code apps). Choice isn't always good.

Re:Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Ma

[Ox0065]

another Mac invented it... ...then why did they come second?

having something before Microsoft windows doesn't mean they invented it.

Google engineers' equipment

[LauraW]

>Actually, Google developers have *Linux* boxes by default,

True, on the desktop.

>so many of these people are opting for Mac over *Linux*.

Not true, mostly. Most developers have Linux desktops, since most of us work on server-side applications. (Many of us have more than one, actually. I have an extra one that runs my group's continuous builds and tests.) But engineers who are working on Windows or Mac apps have a desktop box running one of those. Or maybe more than one if they work on multiple platforms. All of us also get a laptop if we want one. We can choose between a Mac or PC laptop. Most of the folks with PCs run XP on them, but some run various flavors of Linux. (I have an XP laptop because that's what I still use at home, mostly due to Photoshop and Lightroom. I dumped the Mach for NT 4.0 back in the days when Macs had no protected memory or hardware multitasking and crashed all the time. Next time I upgrade my home machine I may switch both back to the Mac.)

The reason I said "mostly" is that some people I know run their main monitors off of their Mac laptops and do remote X sessions on their Linux boxes so that they get the best of both worlds: the Mac UI and all the development tools on Linux.

One thing I love about working at Google is that they give us all the tools we need to do our jobs. You get all the computers you need, and primary workstations come with a 30" monitor or two 24" ones (your choice) and a ton of RAM. If you need another software package (say, an IDE) or more RAM, you just file a "ticket" asking for it, and it shows up on your desk a few days later. Most items don't need approval. I just asked for an 8 Gb RAM upgrade for one of my workstations recently (for analyzing insanely large heap dumps) and got it with no questions asked.

-- Laura

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Homer1946]

I don't necessarily disagree. I was really responding specifically to the parents suggestion where he said:

Really Linux needs a hardware OEM to champion it on their hardware and work towards making it an ideal desktop, including feature parity with OS X (and interoperability where possible). Basically what would be needed is an Apple like company that had one executive who could make hard decisions and break compatibility with other Linux distros. I do think that one company taking on a project as focused as the parent suggests would be a company that wanted the OS as a primary method of differentiation, and in such a case would be less likely to choose a completely OSS solution. Obviously a number of companies, such as IBM, Intel, and others, have decided to support Linux as a group with the intention of differentiating based on hardware, or services, with the OS being a shared commodity. I think that is valid as well (as you describe), but that is different than what the parent was suggesting.

As a side note, Apple has a partially OSS solution where they both benefit from the OSS community and from differentiation. That is clearly also a valid business model.

Why is google getting the attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so special about this that it deserves a headline? Many Y! [last I heard well over 6000 at the company] have done the same thing as I know some Microsoft people have as well. Why don't you do posts about their accomplishments?

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a lot of Google people love Unix, and the Mac is the best desktop Unix environment. That's why. I'm not sure it's OSX on desktop which is the primary appeal. I own a powerbook because when I bought it, it was the best unix laptop available. On the desktop I still think a more conventional distro of linux is better (but that's my personal opinion). I run a MacBook for my laptop and Ubuntu on my desktop. I think I agree with the parent on the usefulness of both.

Re: Prior to Mac OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Well one reason that you may not have seen much Mac software porte elsewhere is that up until Mac OS X, the code was highly platform specific. It is not like the code was normal unix code that could be ported in c with a standard library. The code was mostly written in Pascal with very specific language bindings and may not have been convenient to port.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[TwilightSentry]

There are several efforts to make GNUstep look nicer (the current one is called Chameleon), but they're all hacked together. The devs are hoping to have the core GUI library cleanly support themeing within the next few months.

You might also want to check out Etoile (or their incomplete new site), a rather nice desktop environment being built around GNUstep.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Emacs and Terminal work fine on OS X, I use them every day. You can compile apps using gcc instead of the XCode environment, in pretty much any non-proprietary language you choose. If that's the only reason you're using Linux it's not much of one. Now, the ability to run Linux on different hardware vendors' boxes, that argument might have some merit.

Incorrect. You're thinking of Star Office.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a real OpenSource project, but started on the Amstrad CPC as a commercial app,

Incorrect. You're thinking of StarOffice, OO.org's commercial predecessor.

Saying Openoffice is not a real open source project because of StarOffice is like saying Firefox is not a real OSP because it came from Netscape - do you really believe that?

and was actually on the Mac before it was available for Linux.

No, you're thinking of Staroffice, not OpenOffice. The Linux version of Open Office was available over two years before the Mac version.

IOW - you're a complete dumbass.

Re:Incorrect. You're thinking of Star Office.

[Lars T.]

Ohh, right. They took the code and then threw everything away. And saying "Openoffice is not a real open source project" is closer to the truth than all the bullshit the OP said - I didn't see you complain about that; actually you were probably the idiot who said it.

Re:Incorrect. You're thinking of Star Office.

[Anonymous Coward]

They took the code and then threw everything away.

You're wrong, even now years after open sourcing, there's still plenty of original SO code in OO.

I've seen plenty of stupid people post on slashdot - but you need beating with a clue stick more than any others.

What a dumbass.

Re:Incorrect. You're thinking of Star Office.

[Lars T.]

Nobody else could be that stupid - hello WMF.

Re:Incorrect. You're thinking of Star Office.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Metafile? WTF are you talking about?

Stop trying to change the subject dumbass.

Re:Why Mac, though ?

[radarsat1]

Oh wait. They have a terminal, emacs, gcc, perl, shell, python, ruby, and a bunch of command line development tools. So that can't be the reason why linux is your thing, can it? Gee, you got me, you're right. I just like it I guess, what's your *point*?