Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Apple (part 2)
Several people followed up the today's earlier apple
Open Source article by pointing us to
Apple's Official
Website on Open Source. Features Yet Another License, the
Apple Public Source License
but requires a login to get much more than the license and a
faq.
Update: 03/16 07:52 by CT : Virtually unrelated, thanks to
darren wilson,
the original creator of the crystal apple icon there.
It's nice to see Apple making another foray into Open Source. This time it seems to have management buy-in from the top levels, instead of just a small team of renegade engineers like the MkLinux effort seemed to be.
I say we celebrate Apple's most recent move, and encourage them to continue to explore the benefits of Open Source.
No irony. It's a corporation - since they have a funky license, this is their way of CYA. You want to get the software, you have to read the license.
No big deal.
www.publicsource.apple.com seems /.ed to me...
...can't handle a little Slashdot mention. Jees. Such a web-savvy company. Yosemite shcmemity.
AC
what OS is www.publicsource.apple.com running?
The login is free; it's not exactly like they make you pay $1000 to see the source.
Unfortunately, I've looked at it, and I'm not quite sure exactly what Darwin can do at the moment for the average Mac user. The source requires gcc or ecgs, I'm sure. Problem: these tools were never ported to Mac OS 8.x.x. So, basically, as near as I can tell, you have to buy Mac OS X Server to be able to do anything with Darwin...
Maybe they'll post binaries sometime along the line.
So compile on linuxppc, maybe?
I'd like to use this code to back-port OSXS to my older PPCs, since Apple is only supporting G3s.
...and maybe turn off those ghastly huge icons.
I assume we are going to hear quite loudly that Apple isn't doing enough- but remember who's in charge- the king of all closed systems, Mr. Jobs. That this is happening at all is amazing- positive feedback from the linux community might inspire them to go further. Venom might make them wish they hadn't tkaen the first step.
from the press release1 .html)
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990316/ca_apple_d_
"The first release of Darwin consists of the foundation layer of Mac OS X Server, including enhancements to the Mach 2.5 microkernel and BSD 4.4 operating system,
as well as core Apple technologies like AppleTalk®, HFS+ file system and the NetInfo distributed database."
In other words, just about everything but the GUI.
They've managed to one-up the virulence of the GPL! No wonder they called the OS "Darwin". These are interesting times.
After a moderate while of trying I managed to successfully register for access to the source. However, the "projects" page that presumably lets you get at the source itself is yet to pop onto my screen.
Still - I suspect that the source will be of no use to me anyway *if* I can't compile it to a runnable (OS) form...
glad to see apple hopping on the bandwagon. but the reality is most of the source in this 'darwin' opensource project has been available since developer release 2 a year ago, and if you actually were helpful enough to fix code all you had to do was mail wilfredo and he would plop it in the tree...
I managed to get in to the server - they've divided the system into two sets of packages - the "core" libraries which are part of Darwin and all the 3rd party packages which they make available but recommend that people contribute to the original project and let the changes trickle down. Interesting parts of the core include hfs and netinfo code.
From what I can tell, "Darwin" is the free version of Mac OS X, in the same vein as Mozilla vs. Communicator Darwin is the free version that everybody works on and anybody can use, but Mac OS X is the Apple-version with their own stuff added on top. Not bad as a first stab for a company that really hasn't gone this route before (MkLinux notwithstanding).
But to play with the linux code, you have to consent the their license, dont you?
Lots of Objc in here. Hope you have a NeXT or Openstep box if you want to play...
*boggle* just log into the site:
Apple seems to have fogotten they USED to publish FULL source, and FULL schematics to their machines.
Guess Apple I and ]['s don't count.
There is even the Intel source for the kernel.
And I'll be damned if I'm gonna shell out $990 for OSX Server.
>While I think it's a good move I doubt a
>signifigant number of linux users are now
>going to go buy a G3 and start hacking away...
A significant number of linux users (like me) alread own G3s (I own a new G3/400). I've never owned any Intel hardware, I've been hacking MkLinux for years now on my old 8100. Its just an incremental upgrade for me.
This is really a positive step--for a major player (make snickering remarks here about defining major) to go open source with an OS they're betting the farm on is a great step for Open Source. I doubt this will have a major impact on the market share problems Apple faces, but it's encouraging to see an industry leader step into this arena.
Pretty vain, to think that /. users are the only people interested in viewing the site.
Well of course. Don't you know that any slowdown on any website cited by Slashdot, indirectly mentioned by Slashdot, or read by even a single Slashdot user is caused by the /. effect? Duh. Websites don't suffer from normal lag anymore. Slashdot is the center of the universe. All bow down before RMS. Give me your granola or DIE, proprietary-boi!!!!!
I think pride is one of the seven as well.
Let me get this straight - Apple's popularising a stable user-space UNIX on top of a decent microkernel, the guts of which is Free, and they make their living off the GUI?
Doesn't sound too bad at all if you ask me - a port of XFree, gtk and Gnome, and why would we be running Linux?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic - I'm genuinely curious what people think. Strikes me as a very attractive prospect from a ComSci perspective.
I agree. I wouldn't pay $990 to run OS X Server. Of course, since Apple isn't charging $990 for the OS but more like 1/2 that, it's a rather moot point, don't you think?
It also looks like they are reliesing the Objective C fondations as well
this means that for nothing except a little build time, you get a core OS that will soon support X if it doesn't already. i mean, c'mon.
(And I'm sure most of you are students.)
From Apple Press Release
Wait a minute - they haven't even released any source yet - give us a ll a break - you haven't seen it. Most of the stuff is straight C anyway (mach, BSD, Appletalk, etc.) and you won't even see alick of obj-c. Relax my friend for you are wrong.
Try user/password
They dropped the prices ina radical way. You can now get hour hand son it for $250.
FINE FUCKER! It does not cost that much. Update your FUD!
Objective-C has been supported by gcc for a long time, friend. There is gnustep, as well as Objective-C bindings for GTK & Gnome. So linux hackers can (and have been) playing with that language.
From the website:
"Apple is the first major computer company to make Open Source development a key part of its ongoing software strategy."
WHAT THE F?!? What about Netscape, IBM, Oracle, Corel, etc. It seems to me that they are just about the -LAST- company to jump on the Open Source bandwagon! I was excited for Apple until I read this. My new outlook?... "Screw Apple."
Bart "Actually thinking differently instead of being a blind MacBigot sheep" Grantham
It still looks bad to me. Deploy includes any internal use, except for R&D.
Whatever they were running it on at first they have wised up fast. It's now the fastest responding part of Apple's site.
Guess this finalizes all that talk about Apple getting out of the hardware business. They are definitly into hardware. If they open source everything but the GUI it's the only money maker they've got left.
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
... or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
Isn't this what RMS & BP threw up over in the IBM license?
John Waalkes
jwaalkes@edge.net
My understanding is that the definition of "Covered Code" in their license excludes source files that have nothing to do with Original Code, so you might even be able to do proprietary replacements for all the non-free stuff.
So guess what... all you need is to open up the kernel & core subsystems, then see other OSs grow like fungi. BeOS and to some extent Linux itself would have been done this (much easier) way.
But now you get to keep all your applications, and maybe even get to run two OSs concurrently.
Let's just hope the DOJ forces M$ to do the same...
I don't care for section 9.1 (c)
"9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option:...
... or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License."
It appears to be the same thing that IBM did with their OS license.
John Waalkes
jwaalkes@edge.net
Hear us, Apple. Open up the hardware specs to the G3 machines. Let Be compete with your prized Mac OS X Baby. I guarantee BeOS could run rings around OSX when it comes to media development. Open Source doesn't mean shit when your product is only available on one architecture.
man, that's so cool! GNOME sucks!
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure
the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the
Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the
Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
Well they could well be the first box making company to actually contribute any of their owen intilectual Property?
The PC makers just bundle it and outsorce support. The other companies don't make boxes. Apple is tehnically "the first major computer manufacturer to make Opensource part of it's software stratigy" It makes opensorce directly related to it's server os and future desktop.
Be has NO interest in Supporting g3 and apple.
How could you believe anything but? Can you say, large undisclosed stake in Be purchased by Intel.
Be doesn't want to be a multi-platform machine. LinuxPPC has thier OS running just fine on G3. If Be wanted it, Be could to. But they are lining their pockets with VC money from Intel.
Just because it's small doesn't mean it isn't evil.
When Apple's OS can be truly considered Free software (www.fsf.org) I'd care. These companies are just jumping on the open source bandwagen because it's IN.. well so are web-portals. Free software is what is is: Free! This mean you can redistribute binaries and source of the (modified) code if you wish. So when will I be able to download Corel Wordperfect 7 for FREE, full source? Exactly, never! So when will I care about Wordperfect? Never! I'll continue using GNU-tools and you guys/gals go ahead and use restricted-source non-free software.
Unless the code I downloaded is a figment of my imagination, this netinfo source has Obj-C. :-)
Let me clarify, GCC support aside, their build environment is a descendent of OpenStep, so there's a good deal of hackery that will probably need to take place to get this stuff to work nicely with other operating systems. Those familiar with the openstep will have a clear advantage in the early stages.
When Sun first let out java it was nearly impossible to even compile on Linux due to the heavy dependencies on Sun's own Solaris build environment, I imagine the same thing here.
i would guess thats t=www.omnigroup.com
www.omnigroup.com
is running it, as they are (one of the few) major macosxserver developers.
http://www.netcraft.com/cgi-bin/Survey/whats?ho
can't figure out what kind of os they are using
but its a good guess i reckon
Whatever they were running it on at first they have wised up fast. It's now the fastest responding part of Apple's site.
/.ers, this discussion has so far had the best signal-to-noise ratio I've ever seen here! Hope this spreads...
Yes!! I'm downloading "kernel-1.tar.gz" while I type, it's nearly finished... the average speed is about 5x the best speed I've ever been able to get from an Apple server in all the year's I've downloaded stuff from Apple.
I'm very upbeat about the whole Darwin initiative. Congratulations also to you
You're right. I will heed your advice, but it's so annoying. And from a company that isn't exactly known for it's humility, it's extra annoying. But I do plan on taking a look at this Darwin thing. Perhaps we can mutate it into a new creature with a life as rich as Linux.
Bart G
I should have been more clear.
The inclusion of Obj-C in some of the packages indicates that they are likely dependent on the build environment you'd find on a *Step machine, since Apple's own build environment is a decendent. It'll be some time before this stuff can get sanitized for use on other OS's. When sun released java, for example, it was almost impossible to get it to compile on anything other than Sun, since solaris make has all kinds of strange functions which were not in GNU make at the time, of course over time the source was cleaned for mass consumption.
NeXTStep. Ask the GNUStep people.
Hmmm. GNUStep on Darwin??
;-)
What I'm wondering is whether this opens the door to OS X on other hardware architectures. For a while myself and a few others have been contemplating the notiong of OS X on Alpha.
The combination od the power of the fastest microprocessors and the usability of an Apple OS sounds good to me. Besides being high quality it would be about as anti-Wintel as you could get.
Hey Mr. FUD!
She'd shrug it off.
what crack are you on, son?
...they would tell us, and kept telling us, as Apple transitioned away from sealed boxes and obscure or proprietary interfaces, opting instead for more popular standards like PCI slots or IDE drives, and made their systems interoperable with PC floppies and other media.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they keep telling us, as Apple-developed technologies are incorporated into vendor-neutral standards like IEEE 1394 and future versions of MPEG.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," we keep hearing as Apple further incorporates standards and changes not-invented-here into their products...like USB and PC-style monitor connections. Or builds a case that with one finger fully reveals the system's internals.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they tell us, as Apple adopts a UNIX variant as the core of their OS, and makes its deepest internals accessible through open source distribution.
The only things closed here and certain people's minds. Yes, Apple spent quite a few years there in the middle totally full of themselves and blind to the world. But then they grew up. Why don't you?
Evolve. Try www.mammals.org for details.
Just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.
IBM -- is open source "key" for IBM?
Apple's betting the farm on OSX. I think it's really ballsy to release the source. I don't mind giving them a break on marketingspeak.
Because Linux doesn't have an annoying license. You can only modify apple sauce if you have a net connection to post your changes and fill out the form. Apple can terminate your license to use it at any time. Becuase linux is built on the idea of freedom, whereas the Mac is built on the idea of lack of freedom.
You, sir, are a class-A moron. Be would love to support the new G3 machines, _IF_ Apple would fully release the specs.
Saying "Be doesn't want to be a multi-platform machine" is further proof of your stupidity. If they didn't want to be a multi-platform OS, then WHY DID THEY RELEASE PPC AND X86 VERSIONS OF BEOS ON THE SAME DAMN CD?
Hearing "VC from Intel" does not make Be tied to that platform. LinuxPPC has their OS running under G3 through reverse-engineering and probably some doubtful industrial espionage. Be wants full support from Apple, so that Be doesn't get screwed when newer G3 hardware comes out (like you know LinuxPPC will be).
Again: If Apple were truly the "open source magnet" that they say they are, they'd release the full spec sheet to the G3 hardware, so they could get some _real_ competition. And because of that competition, BeOS would blow MacOSX _and_ LinuxPPC out of the water.
VA Research has contributed to the community. They make modifications to the kernel so it'll run on their higher end boxes and release their changes.
I think you're right with this one.
Personally, I'm happy to see it. The important thing is not whether Apple can compete with Linux, it's that operating systems especially should be open source. It's better for all concerned, and it's good to see Apple making somewhat of a statement.
Glad to know you know what Be would love to do. I bet you know this because they told you. Or at least implied it heavily through a web site or during conversations.
It's called marketing spin bonehead. Give them somebody else to hate, and we can move to the intel platform and get more money for our machine.
Like Be wouldn't like to stick it to Apple a little after being stood up at the big dance?
Come on....think for yourself man.
You have been somewhat misinformed about the relationships between the various Apple motherboard architectures.
The PowerBook 5300 and 1400 are 603e PowerBooks, but are totally unsupported in MacOS X. Their chipset is directly descended from 68K machines. They are not PCI machines, and would be very difficult to add support for.
The 2400, 3400, and original PowerBook G3 use the same PCI chipset as the Performa 6400/180 you have. The biggest difference is that they use a different video chip than the 6400.
The 75/76/85/86/95/9600 machines are all closely related.
The PowerMac G3 (beige and blue versions), PowerBook G3 Series, and iMacs use mostly the same chipset.
NeXT was the first. ;-) Although they did drag their feet in propagating their changes back to the gcc tree. I suppose Apple gets to inherit that accolade from them anyway.
I don't have to even read it to know that it has something wrong. What's wrong with it then? That it exists at all. Open Source Defintion seems to have turned into a breeding ground for incompatible licenses, it certainly isn't a good thing that everyone is drawing Yet Another License. It causes fragmentation, and that could potentially kill this whole movement.
Stick to GPL, LGPL, or XFree style license!! There is no excuse to use anything else.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990315S002
--* Begin Quote
Mac OS X Server, priced at $999, will include
support for the widely used Apache 1.3.3 HTTP
server and Apple's WebObjects 4 platform for
developing and deploying Internet applications.
*-- end Quote
No matter what you'd like to think about "Be sticking it to Apple" they're in the business of making money, and keeping a port to PPC architecture will make Be more money, plain and simple. Regardless of marketing spin, there's something known as the bottom line, which is what they'd like to achieve.
If Apple had half the chance they would be exactly like Microsoft. Actions speak louder than words and their destruction of the Mac clone market told me "stay away".
As you very well put it, Be is in the business of making money. A PPC port will cost (quess what) money! Specially if they need to "reverse engineer" some things to get around Apple secretive hardware specs.
Later..
so how do you think apple can charge 500 bux for it?
i can't see why apple can be ahead of NT. not that i like NT or anything.
i think this NeXT thing is just for those graphics publishers to have a little local network or something so that they can transfer thier 500 megs of image files. no biggie.
> IBM -- is open source "key" for IBM?
I'd say that their web server solution is Apache, I'd say yes. Also, Corel is NOT just a software company (ever hear of the Netwinder?).
Also, they say 'computer company'. I consider Oracle a computer company as much as I do Intel, although both only produce a single portion of the computing picture.
Finally, there are dozens of other computer companies (by your definition) besides the ones I mentioned who are making Open Source software a key element of their product line (Sony, Dell, Compaq, etc.)
Bart
now, i can also say that a "significant" number of linux users prefer to use alpha, where is you base on saying something like that??
.. Darwin is probably rolling in his grave.
what if we write a new GUI on top of Darwin? that makes it a new OS, right?
Must be ur lame ass ISP, its quite fast from here
always fine from here, must be ur crap ISP, or is your downlink saturated downlading warez!
And like if you dont distribute it and only use it internaly, like any would know! jeez
Get over it, as if any one takes half these licencee seriously when you arent selling a product.
Not quite. Apple can NOT terminate your license at any time. There needs to be a patent infringment in order for this to happen.
If, on the off chance, there is a patent infringment, Apple has sevral other options available and probably will not termanate your license at the first chance it gets. If Apple chooses to terminate your license it's safe to say that even Apple would not be able to continue distributing it because of the unresolvable patent infringment.
Definitly. Apple's pooped on every entity that
has ever supported them, through the clone market
to the distributors down to the end users.
This stunt's not going to make me believe
they've changed their stripes. As soon as this
"open-source" charade gets them what they want,
guess what they're gonna do. Poop on the open
source community. Watch and see!
I agree.
If this goes well, they will probably release the higher level stuff (they already have relaesed some small apps).
making a Finder replacement? Maybe someone can port X11 to the mac in this form. Personally, I would love to beable to boot into my G3 and choose to boot into the Finder or not. How cool would e or gnome be on a mac??!! (or better yet sheepshaver!!)
some one is already working on alternate higher level stuff.
The G3 is not so complex LinuxPPC has support and they aren't commercial. Darwin means hardware drivers for linux and other unixes for use on apple hardware and also better appleshare and networking on linux. Face Be is snuffed about ppc because of the avalible windows market.
I admit, I haven't read the license myself, but a number of other outlets are indicating that the ~$500 license allows for installations on up to 5 servers, and an unlimited number of users.
G3's are very fast processors and OS X Server is a great os how can they lose.
NeXT's technologies, NeXTSTEP and OpenStep have been ahead of NT since birth. They are based on a more stable foundation, and provide a development environment that is more powerful b orders of magnitude. In addition any applications build with the OpenStep OO framework where portable to NT with a simple recompile. Apple's Mac OS X may not be a success due to a number of market issues (including the wave of Linux support), but it does NT kick ass technically.
Considering 499 gives you a five server license according to macosrumors, Split it with 5 people. Apple is just trying to sell more copies of it's os by bundling them in 5 server license.
Actually, MacOS X Server has an unlimited client licence.
Remember Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit a few years back (yeah, that's right, the one which prompted the FSF to boycott Apple)?
Also, Job's NeXT and the attempted infringement of the GPL (gcc/ObjC)?
And Apple's treatment of their MacOS licensees (Power, Umax, Motorola)?
We already know how bad MS is; Apple is no different. Hardly a company any user/developer can trust...
damn you're an idiot.. i remember slashdot being down CONSTANT-FUCKINGLY this summer.
sg
Nobody ever learns.
Do NOT trust Apple, and most especially, do NOT trust Steve Jobs.
As an exercise, start trying to recall to yourself the names of the companies that have committed their future in any significant fashion to a partnership with Apple, or have staked their revenues on a promise from Apple's management?
Hm. Any names coming to mind? PowerComputing? Motorola? IBM? The OpenDoc Consortium? APSTech? Digital? Any Newton developers in the audience here? Any PowerTalk users?
The one constant of Apple's history, throughout all of their management changes, has been their unstinting willingness to break ANY promise, to shred ANY contract, to LIE, LIE and LIE again to partners, friends and the press alike in their desperate attempt to survive from quarter to quarter. They are the definition of "bargaining in bad faith." They are the incarnation of the closed system.
If the Open Source / Free Software communities lie down with Apple willingly, we will fare no differently than any of the above named, or the many left unlisted -- AND WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE.
But we're smarter than that...aren't we?
I haven't read the license (none of us have;), but somewhere (sorry don't remember where) reported it is a 5 server licesnse for ~$500. Also Apple has been quoted as saying that there will not be a per user license. (Nice no?)
You're not going to do a thing on your open hardware if you don't have an OS to on the other hand. On the other hand, open source will run on any hardware the user has the will to make it run on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isn't the commercial portion of OS X user land software? That is, PPC code making kernel/driver calls? Meanwhile, the kernel and drivers are open? Clone owners should be jumping for joy and profusely thanking Apple. I know I am, with my unsupported 6400.
I know, that sensationalist journalism you all hate. But really, what's stopping anybody from slapping together a ppc box, writing drivers, and shipping MacOS X compatible boxes? The problem before was the MacOS rom. All that seems to be cleanly moved out of the way. Comments?
I downloaded the kernel source and saw a directory called x86. Rhapsody has been running on x86 for years. Why not Darwin?
OS X is based on OpenStep which has run on Itel, Sparc and M68k (i believe). The only thing keeping OS X on PPC is Apple's need to sell hardware. Darwin != OS X because the largest strength of OS X is the OO framework (see GNUStep.org). If Apple can successfully transform itself into a manufacturer of Intel, Alpha, Sparc etc. boxes they might sell OS X on Apple branded systems with those architectures.
Err GNU/Linux HAS A licence. So does *BSD.
None of these are Public Domain.
(The GNU licence doesn't let you lock up your IP, whereas *BSD DOES. Apples licence lets them keep the IP theirs)
OS X/Intel is NOT dead --- just delayed. Here is why:
Mac OS X/x86 is GOOD - very good. I (legally) had the R2 beta, and *I* say it was good. OK? Now...
OS X/PowerPC was not better! It was just as good, which means now you can buy OS X either on more expensive Apple hardware or any old crappy PC. Admittedly Apple hardware "usually" is better than the average PC (open up a blue G3 and see why).
If we can all get the same beautiful OS running on futzy last-years discontinued (fudge) Packard Bell for $799, Apple isn't going to make much money. This is the unfortunate truth.
The GOOD news is Apple now is trying to seperate their hardware and software divisions to make each profitable on their own. Eventually you WILL be able to order a Mac without an OS, and you will be able to order Mac OS X without a Mac...
... except at that time OS X/Intel will be IA64 *only*. Intel wants to kill IA32 as quickly as possible, in order to lock out AMD and Cyrix. Those 2 companies will go broke trying to clone Merced, which is EXACTLY what Intel wants..
Now Apple could fight on on Motorolla/IBM's PowerPC, but why bother? Jump on the Merced monopoly, take Intel's assistance, and let the DOJ deal with what is misuse of monopoly...
Don't forget this... you people seem to think x86 is one of your holy open standards and it is not! Only by reverse engineering and costly court battles do you have Intel clone CPU's today. The information for IA32 may be common knowledge nowadays, but IA32 will be replaced by Merced and Intel will try much harder to prevent clean-rooming of their chips.
And that, my friends, is the future of the Intel platform. So keep an open mind about Alpha and PowerPC Linux, and fight for The Source so those CPU's remain viable alternatives to Linux x86. Because without the source you're locked into Intel forever (as everyone plays Quake3 for Linux on Intel Linux only..)
The problem is not getting the OS to boot. It's getting all that cool hardware for sound and video to work really well that's the problem. Why would someone want a Media OS that barely boots. It was only six or so months ago when LinuxPPC still needed a boot floppy.
Indeed.
Be sure to add CHRP/PreP to that list as well...
Apple Macintosh hardware is the most under-documented I've found - intentionally so. The Apple Technical Library's treatment of hardware is extremely lacking compared to that of MIPS, Sparc, and Alpha. And the tomes of x86/AT specs that you can find in a decent university library.
Let's hope that demand from LinuxPPC users encourage IBM/Motorola/third-party integrators to ship superior well-documented PowerPC hardware as an alternate to the closed Apple offerings.
Sun? Or does the "community source" solaris licence not apply? It does let you play w/the code, after all...
C'mon, this is the usual Jobsian publicity stunt. You think that he's changed from the day he mandated a propriety interface on the iMac, or killed the hardware clone market?
I for one am thankful Apple was never sharp enough to win the OS war. Because M$ doesn't build computers they couldn't give a shit how much they cost -- in fact, the cheaper the better. And thanks to them we have really powerful, cheap hardware for Linux. In an Apple world we'd all still be on the 68030 at 25 MHZ, for $5,000 a pop.
My Comments about WWDC 1997 are gone.
WWDC 1997 - The future of Apple is:
1) OpenDoc
2) Newton
3) YellowBox
All are dead with WWDC 1998.
Why do you think no developers moved to YellowBox, and stuck with the Mac API? A lack of trust in Apple.
If you are reading slashdot, odds are you LIKE what GNU/Linux and *BSD is about. Developing for Micro$oft and Apple isn't gonna get ya to where GNU/Linux or *BSD are.
And B4 you sign up with Apple, remember the corpses of the Newton, OpenDoc, and why there WAS NOT a rush to YellowBox....
First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company, MacOS 8.5 sales notwithstanding.
Hopefully, though, Apple is on it's way to becoming a software company, with nice hardware as an add-on business.
not $990, $450 for a 5 user licence.
If you're really interested in OO application development and tools... consider helping the GnuStep project.
Why bother with MacOS X? After all, Apple has proven to be hardly a trustworthy development partner.
We can accomplish a true (and probably superior) OpenStep compliant environment without Apple.
Maby that's why its called darwin.
> It's just about everything below the GUI.
That's kinda scary. Keeping the UI proprietary allows them to sell OS licenses - just as if it were a proprietary product - "hey, you get the OS for free but if you want the GUI, you have to buy a license from us". Seems like they want to get open source programmers to help with development of the kernel but do not want to make their system truly open.
Mach and Obj-c and do theroecly do distributed-proc using distributed objects.
Weren't they going to port to x86 a while ago? Wait, sorry, that's off subject - You may be right. Apple may only be dipping their toes in the water....
....but wait, maybe their forsite goes beyond what anyone suspects.
If you've got MAC OSx, which is just a GUI running over the top of a set of hardware drivers, and those drivers are freely distributed, and developed....
....hmmm what other platforms could their (money making) OS be ported to?
Is that a win/win relationship? Perhaps they're truely realizing the potential of open source.
Let the rumors fly, and may the truth catch up!
Joe
Go get some in a public school, you mouth breather.
Obviously you never made any of the posts complaining that Microsludge wouldn't even make the HAL OSS.
I've noticed one thing about Linux people: a small number complain too much, and make the rest look bad.
USB and PC monitors simply were market necessities. And the "deepest internals" they are giving out are regurgitated versions of code (Mach, BSD) that has been open and free for years.
No company has an obligation to give up intellectual property rights. But if they claim they promote open standards, they should make their patents relevant to those standards available for free to anybody implementing the standard. Otherwise, it's a closed standard with a convenient marketing arrangement.
I view Apple's open source effort as a good beginning. But Apple is still far from a company that promotes open and/or non-proprietary standards and systems. And after so many years of being nearly religously closed and proprietary, as well as their current economic predicament, all their efforts warrant close scrutiny.
Some of us Mac users ARE Linux users. I work in multimedia. Ain't nothing can touch a Mac for graphics and audio yet. For everything else I use a real OS, Linux. And I passionately hate what M$ is about.
There are many Mac users in this general category. Drop the Linux-use qualifier and there are many millions. This is going to be good for both Apple, Linux/OSS and their (merging) communities.
Actually, wouldn't she feel that every developer is working himself/herself to the bone for the good of others' profit? Anyone who provides anything that helps prop up an unjust (meaning a non absolutely capitalistic) system is working against their own benefit. We should all just refuse to do any work and let the system collapse, then step back in a take what we can and deserve. Or something :)
And I'm not even gonna touch the ~$1000 price tag, that was prerelease, and Apple's announcement puts it at half that.
hoping I got it all right...
\Ben
IBM committed its future to a partnership with Apple? That is some powerful weed you're smoking.
I might ad that in addition to the trailer, MacAddict reports that over 600,000 copies of QuickTime 3 were downloaded in the fist 24 hours after the trailer was released... QT 3 isn't small.
Wait -
The termination clause is there in case there's a patent infringement claim, right?
Well, there's a good chance that Apple will also be using the infringed patent - especially if they've merged the infringing code into their commercial-product's source tree.
Also, consider if Apple begins selling
products on top of non-PPC Darwin ports. WebObjects servers, for instance. Or a
whole GUI package.
Either way, they'd have incentive to fight the case out, or else settle with some kind of patent cross-license that covers patents
used in Darwin.
Okay, the kernel and drivers are open source. The gui is not. What's stopping Power Computing from slapping together some mac hardware, writing some drivers, and selling Mac OS X compatible boxes with Darwin and maybe an X server installed? Well, there is the small matter of bankruptcy, but you get the point. They might even try licensing MacOS X. Even without licensing, there's nothing stopping a user from installing it once they have the drivers. Comments?
It's not 5 servers. That would be under
$100/server - Apple would be either insane,
or shouting it from the rooftops comparing
their price to NT. (Then again, Microsoft
should be the one selling 5-server licenses,
and feeling shame for it.)
It turns out that there is a 5-client
limit - for developers.
Members of the developer programs can
get the OS, with WebObjects, Dev Tools,
etc., for *$99*.
"up to five clients for NetBoot, Macintosh Manager, and/or Apple file services for development, evaluation, and testing purposes"
It looks like they caught this one... user/password doesnt work anymore
The 5 server license is a MYTH.
For $499 you get ONE server license, and
UNLIMITED clients.
Registered DEVELOPERS pay $99, for a version
with a 5 client limit for Apple server
functions (Net boot, network manager,
file serving). The $99 version also
includes full development tools, WebObjects,
etc, but no printed docs.
The 5-server license thing was started
by some numbskull salesdroid at the
Apple Store. It never appeared anywhere
else but on a super-credulous Mac
news site.
Someone make some sense of it for me.
Apple retains all commercial rights and can require additional license payments before you are allowed to distribute a "Larger Work" that incorporates "Covered Code" from Darwin. This is the same as what Netscape does with Mozilla.
Nobody but Netscape can sell a browser or any other product based on code from the Mozilla project.
This means that Micro$loth cannot just steal all of Apples Intellectual Property and charge Micro$loth loving IT bozos money for it.
If you build some non-Apple PPC box or an Intel clone and hack Darwin to run on it you cannot charge anyone for the software. In fact you are required to pay for the facilities to enable anyone to download your modified software.
If Apple decides that you are a significant drain on it's PowerPC G3 systems revenue, Apple can consider your modified Darwin for Intel (or any other CPU) a "Larger Work" and require a ruinous patent license fee.
From Apple's APSL:
"4. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In each such instance, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code or any portion thereof.
5. Limitations on Patent License. Except as expressly stated in Section 2, no other patent rights, express or implied, are granted by Apple herein. Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion."
Actually, the stinky part of the license is that:
- When you contribute code or modifications your license grant is perpetual and irrevocable. Theirs is not.
- When you contribute code or modifications, they are not required to make the derivative (of your code) works they create open.
The internals were BSDish licensed. They didn't have to open up to anybody, but they chose to.
There's no way in HELL clones were hurting apple; the clone makers were willing to pay more $$$ to apple per box; apple could have charged them their own profit margin per machine, and they clone vendors would have played, but apple just wanted them done with.
Apple pointed to 100s of thousands of fewer machines sold, and blamed the clone vendors, who were selling 10s of thousands of machines. So unless people bought 1 power compuing box instead of 10 apple boxen, it was just Steve's RDF.
Fuck the skull of Steven Jobs.
"Apple values their OS as one of their crown jewels"
I think you can thank Mr. Jobs and the NeXT crew - along with lots of nudging from outside.
I suspect that, at NeXT, they learned how
to determine what's really crucial. What's
not. And how to let go of what's not crucial.
At the time, this usually ended up in
permanent solutions like ending production
of hardware. Being small, they couldn't
really afford to keep things on life
support long after their time like IBM,
Microsoft, or the old Apple would do.
Think about that. NeXT started as a computer
company. They wound up letting go of that
part of their self-identity, and sold
off the hardware division. Later, they
started to let go of the OS too, to focus
on NT and web development tools.
That's got to have quite an effect on a
"company ego".
As a result, they may have been well
prepared for this. OpenSourcing the
low-level OS layer is a tiny matter compared
to giving up on a company's major goal
and central purpose.
VAResearch is a great company, but it is nowhere near being in the same vicinity of "major computer manufacturer."
uh, dude... Why would you want to replace NeXTStep with linux????? I sure as hell wouldn't even think about doing that to my NeXT.
Rumors are still flying that internally Apple has kept OS X Server running on Intel machines...
Scenerio: Group of developers spend thousands
of hours integrating some fantastic feature
into the kernel.
a) Apple gives kudus to the open source
developers and makes this feature available
for all.
b)Kudos and feature delegated non-open and for $$ only.
Because I'm willing to bet Darwin runs a bit better on Apple hardware. Linux on PPC isn't too optimized yet, etc. I've been running it exclusively for the last three days strait... And Linux for PPC doesn't run on the new G3 boxes yet AFAIK. (I escaped back into the MacOS to recover from a battle to get GTK+ 1.2 to work correctly... I lost)
Intel invested in Be to get out from under Microsoft. Intel obviously wants and will benefit from BeOS getting more popular. If BeOS ran on G3s it'd mean more money, more market share for BeOS, thus validating Intel's investment. See what I'm saying? Intel benefits from BeOS on PPC as well as x86 because it builds this Windows alternative. Oh, is Intel afraid of losing x86 installlations of BeOS because it runs on PPC? Look at the market breakdown: that's not likely. Anyway, Intel's also got legal problems of its own already and is not likely to do something so hamfisted as standing in the way of BeOS pursuing PPC, too, even if they did have a problem with that for business reasons.
Very well put. I was going to add some things
but you've crystallized the whole damn
thing! Beautiful!
No but they can kill RPM. As for linux the GPL tells you what you can and can't do here, the APSL tells you what you can and can't do, if you like it then use if you don't then don't, but don't belly ache about it.
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time
to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been
published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that
version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of
this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable
to Covered Code created under this License.
The license claims that if apple changes the license you can choose to honor the original license. If Apple cuts all of its developers, so what we still have a License for the code, how can Apple screw anyone over. The only issue is the Termination clause which has been gone over ad nauseum, and it simple seems that apple is covering thier butt
Apple making programs open source is a good thing..it lets companies make in house bug fixes etc...BUT apple/Netscape/whoever making programs opensource just to cut R/D costs and get good PR is a BAD thing.
this is a complete double standard, I guess they should have just kept it proprietry, .
personally, I just want the best damned OS that I can get my hands on.
Remember Jobs doesn't have any financial interest in Apple, he just wants to give you a pretty desktop.
Apple knew what open source meant before
announceing their "involvement." They want
to be associated with it but not obligated
by it. That's deception.
There is a difference between "Free" and "Open Source," but I see nothing in the license that either I or Richard Stallman would disapprove of. It's free software, pal.
Now that everyone is interested in Mach, I would like to say a few words on where all this technology came from, what exists today, and finally, my take on the whole matter.
c h/public/www/mach.html
/ Mach4-proj.html
/
N SE
The Mach3 micro-kernel was worked on at Carnegie-Mellon University and by OSF. Here is a link to CMU's site on their project.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ma
Neither CMU or OSF are currently working on anything Mach related. Both of their works were available under an open source agreement.
Out of this came Apple's MkLinux project. The project started with getting MkLinux running on the x86 platform, and then porting it to the PPC. The work culminated in the DR3 release. This release was made under GPL, BSD-style license, and the OSF Free Copyright license.
http://www.mklinux.apple.com
The development of the Mach microkernel continued at the University of Utah, where they continued to develop the Mach4 kernel.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/mach4/html
This kernel supports BSD Lite, a Mach-BSD combination. The description of BSD Lite is very similiar to what Darwin is.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/lites/html
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~jvh/lites.html
But the students and faculty at the University of Utah did not stop there. The Mach project has now morphed into the Flux project. The Flux project has created an OS Kit that allows you to create a 'custom' kernel. The Kit contains components to support Linux drivers, FreeBSD Drivers, X Display, and more. They provide this kit under a GNU License.
Here are some related links:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/index.html
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/oskit/LICE
So with all this information, what is my reaction to Apple's decision to enter in the open source market?
First, I thank Apple for drawing attention to some good technology that does not get any main stream press. Kernel code isn't flashy like Java or XML, and most people's eyes glaze over when you talk about it.
Second, I think they are dividing an already small development effort in the PC micro-kernel area. I would assume there are more people running LinuxPPC than MkLinux. I would also assume that there are even fewer people running MkLinux on x86. To have an Apple led project might not benifit these groups, since Apple would have control of the code.
If Apple really wanted to make an impact, they would open the code to a GPL style license. Then they would allow an independant organization to coordinate the development effort.
Eric Bronnimann
What after apple lost billions of dollars? FUCK that,they are not allowed to protect themselve?
At the Mac OS X Server introduction,
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative (and author of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") spoke, and stated that Apple's license strictly conforms to the standards put forth by the open source community. To be blunt, he said that Apple "gets it." In fact, Eric stated that Apple's license is much better than Sun or IBM's licenses, which merely mimic open source.
Brain Behlevdorf, co-founder of the Apache web server project, took the stage and said he was very pleased with Apple's decision to bundle Apache with Mac OS X Server and Darwin. In fact, he said Apple has been participating in Apache development in good faith for the past year, not only for Apple-specific issues, but also those that affect the community as a whole.
Nobody owns Darwin now either
Webserver Benchmarks (from Ziff Davis WebBench 2.0. All machines have same RAM, same speed ethernet, same type of disk, same version of Apache):
Dell PowerEdge 2300 running NT ($5000, Steve joked $800 "NT Tax") - 300 hits/sec
Dell PowerEdge 2300 running RedHat ($4200) - 500 hits/sec
Sun UltraSparc 10S ($8500) - 600 hits/sec
PowerMac G3/400, Mac OS X Server ($5000) - 740 hits/sec (basically, 64 million hits a day)
Everyone watched as Apple VP Phil Schiller set up a fully-functional Mac OS X Server machine in just under 10 minutes.
Apple knew what open source meant and what
people percieve open source to be before
announcing themselves as "open source."
Their license does not represent the
general perception of open source. Apple
wants the associations that go along with
open source but wants nothing to do with
the obligations that go along with it.
That's deceptive. Trusting Apple is
illogical.
just remove the 's' and you're rolling
A matter of time?
dozens of other computer companies (by your definition) . . . are making Open Source software a key element of their product line (Sony, Dell, Compaq, etc.)
"key"? compaq? i can only assume you're playing for laughs here. "hedging one's bets" != "betting the farm". i applaud the one tiny little toe that compaq has dipped in the waters (or did they just announce that they intend to dip it?), but i'll jump for joy when and if the time comes.
furthermore, compaq, dell, oracle, informix, etc. have released no code. that's the key thing here. apple is releasing OS source. IBM struck some weird barter deal with the Apache guys, and they're apparently contributing now on the Apache guys' terms -- that's great, and it matters a lot. it gets my attention a lot more than Dell shipping another OS with their beige boxes. still, don't kid yourself that Apache is the core of IBM's product line. IBM has many irons in the fire. they sell very large and expensive things -- including hardware -- to giant companies. i don't know why they do that, but they do, and it's where they make their money.
what apple is doing here is something that hasn't really been done before. they're releasing the code to the back end of a commercially significant, high-profile shrinkwrapped product. it's cool. of course, maybe there's nothing much in there other than the BSD they started with, in which case it's no more of a big deal than IBM/Apache -- which would mean that you have a point.
Also HTML was developed on a NeXT computer.
Power Computing does not exist. Apple shut it down. But s/Power Computing/Metabox/ and you have a point.
That was a troll, sorry. I should have been more clear. The "GNOME sucks!" part was meant to clarify that, but around here it's hard to tell who's kidding, and who's serious
(YAOK) Yet Another OS Kernel. Who cares? If they really gave a shit about open source principles, they'd release the Yellow Box source so we could have some real object APIs running on Linux!
I don't think LinuxPPC runs on 400 MHz G3 yet...might be wrong. None has contributed the update because none has anything to "debug"...
As far as I know, Apple bought Power Computing.
Maybe because this *isn't* Linux???
:)
What Apple open sourced is the foundation of MacOS X Server... you know, OPENSTEP 5.0.
Get the foundation moved over, to any platform, and maybe just *maybe* the PTB at Apple can grace it with the upper levels of Yellow Box et al.
Hell, get GNUSTEP running on this. That should be fun.
Apple has a long history of being closed, monopolistic and proprietar... ooops! thinking "different" that is...
Stuff from the GNU bulletins:
Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against HP/MS:
(1990)
http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull7.htm l#SEC9
http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull8.htm l#SEC8
End of FSF boycott of Apple:
(1995)
http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull18. html#SEC13"
I remember that lawsuit very well - I shudder to think about the impact on graphic user environments in general had Apple won this one.
Investing a lot more money in NeXTStep makes little sense. With Java 1.2, Sun has incorporated equivalents of all the NeXTStep into Java, and Java offers runtime safety, well-defined reflection, and a lot of other features in addition. And, machines are now fast enough to run languages like Java.
amen!
In November 1997, Apple reneged on their MacOS licensing agreement with clone manufacturers Power, Umax and Motorola.
Apparently, Apple purchased Power and effectively dismantled the company, abandoned the Power user base and relegated support to an expensive third-party.
Doesn't do much to inspire the confidence of developers or hardware manufacturers, does it?
With sole control over both the HARDWARE and OS, Apple is even more monopolistic than MS by a great margin.
Okay, so Apple bought Power. My point is this seems to be Apple's way of opening the door for clones again. It seems to be a pretty good way of doing it too, except for the potential revocation of the source license. Everybody gets Darwin for _INSERT_FAVORITE_PLATFORM_, and Apple keeps MacOS users on Mac-compatible hardware (Yellow Box, Blue Box, Carbon, and most interesting stuff above the kernel/driver level seem to be absent from Darwin) Actually, there doesn't seem to be much interesting at all in Darwin. By interesting, I mean very different from what's available elsewhere. Is this Apple's way of inviting the clones back?
Yellow Box source? so to have some real object APIs development application and libraries? Does Apple Computer help GNUstep? I think OpenStep, NextStep, Mac OS is a good GUI. Is Apple Computer going to work on bringing this to Mac OS X Server?
With incredible sales of the iMac and brilliantly-coloured G3 boxes, it's not likely that Apple is inviting clone makers back at all.
Especially in light of their retraction of the MacOS license to Power and other clone makers a couple years back, it seems highly unlikely...
Apple's forte has long been a tight marriage between their proprietary OS and proprietary hardware.
We need commodity-priced PowerPC hardware with standard memory/bus controllers and standard 16550's, etc. (much like DEC Alpha, Sparc) rather than the who-knows-what ASICs and VLSI that Apple use.
Yep Carmack was once a NeXTer - I think both Dooms and the first Quake were developed on NeXT. They switched over to NT for development for Quake II.
yep, microsoft said they might release some source. and they even gave an example of how they're already releasing source. you know what the example was? asp scripts.
gee, ms's idea of distributing source code is including some scripts with their webserver? (for a language which is interpreted?!?!)
Power Computing was going bankrupt. The were beginning to file the papers when they started an add campaign that forced Apple to buy them at an extremely over valued price. Power was dead with or without Apple.
Well - here's a thought - being able to see the inner workings of your OS of choice might just allow you to write more efficient applications for that OS, eh? Certainly you don't believe that stealing code is the only thing open source is good for?
Apple is about as open source as micro$oft.
It certainly sucks to see these Companies
jumping on the open source(tm) bandwagon.
viva la freeware
I use OpenBSD at work and GNU/Linux at home. Why not Yellowbox API, development tool, GUI on other OS too?
OPENDOC
... Steve responded
I attended WWDC in 1997 and OpenDoc was killed at that time. I remember this very well because somehow Steve Jobs managed to do this in an almost-hilarious way.
In the "fireside chat" with Steve Jobs, someone asked him:
- What about OpenDoc?
... five seconds later
- Yes, what about? [laughs everywhere]
After this he explained: 1)That Apple had invested in past times large amounts of time and money in technology without any kind of strategy. 2)OpenDoc was a sign of this. 3)Apple has strategy now. 4)And OpenDoc was killed in front of all. Everybody laughing.
NEWTON
Also, in WWDC 1997 the Newton was NEVER mentioned as a technology with future. In fact Steve Jobs SEEDED DOUBT about Newton's future [almost killing it].
He mentioned that Apple efforts in OS technology will be focused to integrate, not to divide, and that a THIRD platform [referring to Newton OS] was not a smart bet.
This was enough to me. Many people gave artificial-life to Newton for long months after. Sometimes people really does not want to hear the obvious.
Running on 'comperable equipment', a RedHat web-server install handled ~500 hits/sec, while MacOSX server dished out 740. Since I doubt its Mac gui that is speeding the server, it just might be worth looking at Yet Another Unix Clone.
It does exist - it's the educational licence.
Yup. I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable sum for a Mac Workspace Manager. Best revenge would be to install Linux/MacGUI on an ex-Wintel machine (hee hee hee)
This sort of zealotry makes me uncomfortable with the Linux community. If I do switch my primary platform to Darwin (which isn't to suggest Mac users have historically been lacking in zealotry), or one of the other open commercial UNIXes, I certainly shan't miss it.
/SPARC) more attractive.
Apple is a hardware vendor, and its software is just a means to the end of selling hardware. If its new OS is as good as the claims (in terms of performance and reliability), it will help to sell Apple hardware to people who might otherwise have ignored it (myself included). Certainly, there are Linux ports, but Linux is at its heart an x86 OS.
What's true of Apple is also essentially true of Sun. There is Solaris/x86, but I believe its primary purpose is to boost the Solaris installed base, thereby making Sun hardware (running Solaris
Microsoft is a software vendor; the end is to sell software, so its software cannot be opened up without destroying its business model. Those who can't see the difference are either ignorant or stupid.
The poster was quoting Steve Jobs, who said something of that nature to John Scully when trying to convince him to leave Pepsi for Apple.
As to your complaint against Scully, the reality is Apple did far better under his leadership than any of the other non-x86 PC vendors. Where as Apple was on the verge of collapse in 1985, it's really the only non-x86 PC platform still standing today.
Apple's decline (like the collapse of Atari, Commodore/Amiga, Acorn, etc.) was due to the same commoditisation of Intel x86 PC hardware that has more recently been savaging the workstation vendors (and has made Linux a force to be reckoned with). The weakness of NT and the BSD UNIX roots of the Internet revolution may yet keep much of the server market from Intel's grasp, but that's where IA-64 (which is supported by all the UNIX vendors) comes in.
yea
Additionally, I imagine the desktop version of Mac OS X (which will be backwards compatible with the current Mac OS) will be considerably cheaper than the server product.
If the Mac OS compatibility scheme is robust and efficient, the ability to run current Mac applications (including Microsoft Office) on a solid BSD UNIX will make Mac OS X much more useful than either Linux or Windows 2000.
Darwin's also got the advantage of the BSD networking code, which still tends to outperform Linux (and everything else) by a significant margin, regardless of the hardware platform.
It does benefit "the community", even if only because they released the kernel, so that part of their proprietary hardware specs are disclosed which the LinuxPPC people can use (yes, the community does get things back!).
According to the SPEC CPU benchmarks, a Pentium II/450 is actually faster than a PowerPC G3/400.
BSD networking code has always been the best, so I shouldn't be at all surprised if Apple's hype is grounded in reality.
any cvs access?
The biggest advantages of NetBSD are its portability and its open licence. Darwin offers neither of these, and isn't really going after the same user base (Darwin is much closer in terms of target users to LinuxPPC).
Incidentally, the goal of GNU was to clone BSD UNIX, and the Linux kernel is essentially a clone of the BSD kernel (very different to the System V kernel), so Linux systems are very BSDish at the core.
Shut the fuck up man! Not everybody is English you know!
Internally?
I just looked at the source code and there are directories named i386... says alot
I haven't checked if there is code inside tough...
The only reason they are not releasing for intel yet is because they aren't strong enough yet and that they can't make hardware configuration simple enough yet too...
Seems like this could be something to be done with Darwin... and linux BTW...
And also becuase Darwin is the only Unix flavor that has a good shot for the common user... in its Mac OS X form I mean...
Linux insn't just there yet... even with KDE (let's just not talk about gnome yet...) and it has years to go before it offers decent support for foreigh languages (Linux Sucks at this)...
Mach gives a good HAL and I think we could use this as a nice cross platform OS... Linux doesn't work very well for this either... not even across different distributions on intel (I am talking general consumer user... remember!)
I haven't looked at the Darwin code, but the promotional information indicates it's based on a `Mach 2.5 microkernel'. If I remember correctly, pre-3.0 versions of Mach (a BSD offshoot) were still monolithic, so the use of the term `microkernel' is somewhat puzzling.
At to Lites, I believe it's a 4.4BSD-Lite single server which runs on top of several of the microkernel (3.0+) versions of Mach. In that respect, it's different from a monolithic OS which includes elements of both Mach and the main BSD branch (up to and including 4.4BSD).
Darwin actually sounds rather like OSF/1 (or whatever they call the bloody thing these days), and is probably an excellent operating system, with or without the Apple GUI.
They sell mice, keyboards, joiysticks, and I even heard tell of phones. The software thing is just a SMOKESCREEN...
A Nony Mouse
It sounds more like Apple is trying to return its focus to hardware, rather than software.
If Mac OS X provides equal or superior performance to Linux (indications seem to be the latter), access to the OS source code, a NextStep-derived GUI _and_ compatibility with Mac applications like MS Office, why the hell would anyone in his right mind run Linux on hardware capable of running Mac OS X?
If you're a religious fanatic who only wants to use GPL'd software, so be it, but I'd rather use the better OS. With its BSD/Mach heritage and elegant user interface, I suspect that means Mac OS X.
Actually, BSD is not a UNIX clone. It's a branch of the UNIX tree which goes back to the 1970s, and was the source of a huge amount of what defines `UNIX' to most users: TCP/IP, sockets, virtual memory and a terminal-independent interface, not to mention essential user tools like vi.
BSD isn't called UNIX anymore because AT&T owned the name, but it's certainly as legitimate a child of research UNIX as System V.
Linux and GNU, on the other hand, are clones of UNIX. More precisely, they're clones of BSD UNIX.
Linux is neither the only free OS, nor even the oldest. It is, however, the most popular, which tends to boost its status among the ignorant.
The truth is Linux was in the right place at the right time; nothing more, nothing less.
How would your scheme improve sales of Apple hardware? I rather expect it would affect them in an adverse manner, which makes it quite irrational.
Who cares what ELR says.
Linux users have now surpassed Mac users as the most fanatical, narrow minded freaks out there. The bottom line is competition is good. Give Apple a chance. This looks like a great thing to me. Why do most (of course not all) Linux users just want a boring x86 architecture to run their beloved OS on. Let there be splinters and alternate platforms. Use the best tool for the job. In the long run Microsoft will never be able to maintain its current profitibility in the face of the open source onslaught. We all win when that happens.
Considering you are the 1st person to make the statement that at WWDC 1997 the Newton AND OpenDoc was already dead, you must have attended a different WWDC, or were in backrooms eating mushrooms.
You called VMS a Unix? Not only will you burn in
hell for this; 500 former VMS admins who were
already there will be sitting there pointing at
you and *LAUGHING* hidiously, like the way they
did in their life when you called them for
support (VMS admins were the only ones who didn't
take the trouble of concealing the horns on their
head).
xL
> minus stuff that is under copywrite..
eh...every pice of code ever written is under copyright by its author, GPL'd stuff too
How about you dont want to get fucked by Apple again?
Or Microsoft. Or.....
OpenSource keeps you from getting fucked when a company decides to kill a project.
(Newtons with the -10061 bug, hardware Apple promised to support and then didn't)
My understanding is that their version of
Mach is the monolithic kernel, but they
borrowed some stuff from the newer
microkernel designs.
Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end
up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.
I've heard this same argument for 15 years. Apple is deserving of a lot of criticism to be sure. The very fact that they aren't supporting OpenDoc is infuriating.
Nonetheless, Apple has a remarkable history of innovation and risk-taking unlike virtually any other company. Perhaps the most underappreciated technical accomplishment of the 90's was Apple's incredibly smooth transition from 68k to PPC. Apple bet the farm on that transition, and made it work.
Unix has been around for 30 years. I've never seen a Unix GUI that's as good as Windows, let alone MacOS. MacOS X deserves a good solid chance.
I'm eagerly awaiting MacOS X (client), and have already oredered a new machine for MacOS X server.
"It does exist - it's the educational licence."
This is incorrect. The Apple Store for Education
does not mention any such thing. It just says
it's $249.
They would mention it if the effective price
were $50/server.
Except of course that Apple can yank it away from us any time they want to. And keep distributing the code we distributed as part of a proprietary program.
They why does typing in yellowbox at the
main Apple site get you nothing?
Rhapsody gets you hits.
OpenStep gets ya hits.
Anyone can sue Apple for infringement on the whole of the Darwin source. As soon as the claim is made, Apple can yank the code. Even if the court rules that the claim was groundless, there is nothing that forces Apple to rerelease the code.
Why would anyone want to replace the Finder?
Finder is the best part of macOS. It's designed by people who really know how to do good and working interfaces, not by a bunch of nerds, or with a marketing department saying what would be easy to sell.
Absolutely. Read the GNUstep howto at gnustep.org
:-/)
(off the top of my head, i think it's anoncvs@cvs.net-community.org, password anoncvs.... i could be wrong)
Allen
(AC 'cos my password hasn't arrived yet
This session with the then-future boss was really important to define the future of technologies at Apple.
There is a company that sells videos of WWDC sessions, I don't remember the name. I suppose this video is the ultimate reference on this, but I don't have one.
Cheers!
Try "AppKit"
Or "Foundation"
Or "Enterprise Objects Framework"
These are all part of YellowBox.
Look at Apple's actions all through history. They screwed the clone makers, 'cause they wanted all of the pie, and lost a LOT of marketshare as a result.
If Apple doesn't release ALL of its software under Open Source, they AINT Open Source. And coming up with their own lame-o license aint making it either.
I suspect that Apple thinks Linux users are like Mac users, in that they are loyal as the day is long. But they forget that Linux users have a backbone, and don't put up with corporate stupidy for long. Mac users are lemmings; Linux users are a wolf pack.
Sheesh,
Of course Apple is charging fees for Firewire and MPEG, they spent millions developing them, refining them, and promoting them. That's what businesses do. If it wasn't for Apple, you wouldn't have Firewire. Companies are lining up around the block to pay Apple $1 for Firewire on their $800 camcorders.
USB a market necessity? What crack are you smoking? Windows 98 just barely works with it and how many USB devices had you heard about before the iMac? Apple pushed USB out of the nest and into reality.
VGA connectors for monitors _required_? Not with the little mac to vga dongle that ships with most monitors or costs you $15.
You guys should do a little research on Mr. Tenavian (name hacked to hell) at Apple, formerly of NeXT. That man is a friggin genius who could code circles around 99% of the people on Slashdot. He's leading the OS team and he's probably as into Linux and free source as much as the next guy.
People on this group act as if companies can just get you product without costing anything, but consider that Apple had to hire a guy for $400,000 a year from Compaq just to coordinate the manufacturing and build to order work. Linux was coded by college guys who haven't entered the real world yet or by guys in the real world who have a lot of free time when they get home from work. The only way free software and open source works is by having people who care about the particular project they work on. And now, most of the serious coding seems to be happening in companies who believe they can corral the efficient/visionary coders so that they effectively control the software development.
What happens if Linus starts steering the Linux development towards the needs of the company he works for? What about the other coders? It _could_ happen as all of these new Open Source companies start trying to code Linux to their own needs. All of you slackers who use Linux and haven't coded anything but piss and moan on slashdot would be left out in the cold.
I remember a year ago when zero companies open sourced their software and everyone pissed and moaned. Apple is jumping on a bandwagon to be sure, but take heart, it's YOUR FUCKING BANDWAGON. Be happy. You're winning.
Oh, and BTW, Apple killed cloning because when Jobs took over, they were so fucked that they couldn't afford to lose any sales and the Amelio folks wrote a contract that gave the cloners too much leeway on board designs that had to be officially approved and supported by Apple. Motorola and Power Computing had faster machines than mac's coming out, and Apple was going out of business fast. Solution? Kill the clones. Revamp and reengineer everything. Start over again. Once they're on their feet, I predict Apple will clone again. But they've got a brand image to protect, and wholesale cloning is what causes Wintel to suck so much.
Wolf Pack? I guess all Linux users are arrogant D & D playing losers then.
Listen up chuckles, despite what you think, Mac users are NOT lemmings. We make informed choices (who else but consumer conscious individuals would go out of the way and buy a Mac), and are some of the more vocal critics of the company. We love the platform itself, but not everyone loves the company. Apple pulled the plug on the clone makers because it was a matter of survival. It looked bad when they pulled the license last year, but they would have looked dumber if they went out of business and all those clone makers didn't have an OS to install in their machines.
I have no interest in Linux in its current version, because all my work concentrates on high-end usage with applications that work best with an easy user interface.
If you don't think Apple's licensing policy conforms with the OSM, why don't you take it up with Eric Raymond.
Would you rather Apple continue to potentially violate the patents of another company and risk losing billions of dollars in payments? I don't think so.
The Open Source definition doesn't say "once code is released, it is open forever" anywhere. Apple's license covers areas the scope of the Open Source definition.
The license is Open Source to the core, because people can download and modify the code however they please and are obligated to return any bug fixes, enhancements or other changes to the software back to the developer community. This is the true essence of Open Source.
So long as Apple runs no risk of going out of business and so long as you don't do anything illegal with the software, the source code is yours to modify, the glory is yours to be earned and the benefits are to be had by all. This is the spirit of Open Source.
Bear in mind that while Darwin is just the "low level Unix stuff" that fully fledged operating systems run on that low level "stuff". I'll bet we can expect many applications, utilities and possibly even alternative GUI's available for Darwin in the next couple of years.
The point of Apple doing Darwin is because it allows people to begin enhancing the foundation of the future MacOS and the critical accessories that will come with it, like Apache.
What this does is gives Apple access to a huge code base from Open Source BSD OSes, to MkLinux to any other Open Source modifications of the Mach kernel, of BSD Unix or Apache. That will ultimately save Apple millions of dollars in development costs.
Then, the other technologies will also be open for modification or improvement.
Darwin is an incredibly smart move on Apple's part because it allows Apple to continue to add value to the OS, while Apple essentially has thousands more software developers working on a daily basis to enhance the underside of OS X Server.
"There are many Mac users in this general category. Drop the Linux-use qualifier and there are many millions. This is going to be good for both Apple, Linux/OSS and their (merging) communities."
The fact that both Linux and MacOS camps are underdogs compared to Microsoft means that they both have a lot in common. Microsoft is the paid army, Linux and MacOS users are the ones fighting for their beliefs. And Linux and MacOS are going to win the war. Together? Why not, two armies with strong convictions are a lot stronger than one.
I'd think that the number of Linux users owning Macs is quite large. For one thing, there are three different distributions of Linux available for the Mac AT LEAST, if not four or five. That's a healthy sign.
Even better is that one of them is MkLinux, which is quite a different cup of tea in terms of its foundation. That's another healthy sign. And that was started by Apple I might add.
But now with this "Digital ID" thing from Intel, I suspect that those paranoid, anti-establishment Linux users (and there's more than a few of them) are going to consider making the switch because they'll never feel comfortable knowing their machine is identifying them.
I think Intel's digital ID thing is going to cause Linux users to opt for differen pastures, whether that be an AMD chip, or PowerPC or another architecture. But I'd suspect it won't be for the expensive architectures, only PowerPC or clone-X86.
Anonymous, but not a coward.
And now even electronic teletubbies!
Read section 12.1 "Termination"
If anyone files a clam against apple at any time they can force you to remove all copies from your machine and prohobit further distribution but it does not prevent apple from continuing to distrubute it.
This means they are allowed to leech off the opensource community then at any time they can pull the rug out from under us. This is clearly not "Open Source" I prefer the term Free Software anywa.y..
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure
the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the
Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the
Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this
License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or
13.6(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this
License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
Couldn't have said it better myself. All this non-free crap should go away, the sooner the better too.
uhh no this does not rule
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
Yes, it is terminated by YOUR violation of the license. The APSL is can be terminated through anyones actions. Bill Gates sues apple, woops there goes your license...
No, all someone has to do is even threaten with a patent infringement. There is nothing saying the case has to be won in court... and it doesn't matter if apple would do this or not. It's the fact that the possibility exists. What if management 5 years from now doesnt like "opensource"? Then we are screwed.
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement, it says nothing about a court judgement.
I know there has to be a filing first. And this is bad. The license should be terminated only AFTER they have lost a court battle.
"Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion."
You took that sentence out of context. They are saying that while Apple is granting use of any patents they own which cover the code in question, you don't get a free license on all of their patents if you happen to include some of their code in a larger work which would otherwise still infringe on some patent of theirs. Arguments on whether software patents are A Good Thing or not aside, this is reasonable. If you have code which would infringe on their patent(s), including some of their code does not change that.
"or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License."
This would be them covering their asses, and rightly so. If they have infringed someone else's patent in their code, they can't really continue to license it to anyone else, now can they? A more relevant and distressing clause is 12.1(c) (12.1 is the section on ways in which the license can/will be terminated):
"automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple."
This says that if you sue Apple for patent infringement, however unrelated to the current code, you lose any license to use the code. This means that Apple can blithely infringe on any patent held by anyone using their code and, if sued, can sue for copyright infringement on the code covered by their license since the license terminates the moment the (first) lawsuit comes up.
I am much more bothered by this clause than any other. I am not sure if this qualifies as open source or not... the source is free and open AFAICT, but its use weakens the position of protecting one's patents from Apple. Oh, and incidentally, IANAL.
If Darwin is the core of OS X (everything below gui) then what is to stop someone making a Finder replacement? Maybe someone can port X11 to the mac in this form. Personally, I would love to be able to boot into my G3 and choose to boot into the Finder or not. How cool would e or gnome be on a mac??!! (or better yet sheepshaver!!)
2^5
The Apple license is not Open Source. Read the Open Source Definition, read the Apple license, and ignore ESR for a minute.
If Apple is willing to work with the community to make their licenses actually Free Software (according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines) and Open Source Software (according to the Open Source Definition) then there's probably not much to worry about yet and most likely it will not be long before the community and Apple both reap the benefits of the source being truly Open Source.
If Apple is unwilling to work with us on this, we just have one more company trying to cash in on the community without supporting it. I don't know about you, but I don't mind them making money off my efforts provided that they're giving something back. MacOS X has been looking pretty damned cool and it would be SWEET to have an x86 version. It's possible and Apple has come a long way toward that goal already. Yeah Apple, the water's fine, hop in.
I take licenses very seriously. I'm sorry you don't. And I hope you never have to find out the hard way why I am.
Posted by necros coitus:
http://www.stalker.com runs MacOS X, Intel edition on P166 with 32Mb of RAM.
Posted by mkultra:
If you read the specs on OSX SERVER it mentions that Web Objects has the yellowbox stuff plus the web specific stuff yellow box
over&out
"If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the /and/
;)
most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the
Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
your X."
We already do. It's called LinuxPPC. I doubt that anything running UNDER Mach could be as fast as a native monolithic kernel
After all, it's what we do best around here.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Her love of money was always second to her love of productivity and the capacity for creative work. If you want to sell it, fine, give it away, fine.
She'd hate software licences cause you don't get a thing of objective value in return for your money.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
I'm with you.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
You're confusing this with the IBM license. There has to be a filing first, although IANAL. Read the license to be sure.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
The price was cut by 50%. It is $499 for a 5 user license. $250 for edu purchases.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
The price has been lowered over 50%. As cheap as $250. A 5 user license is $500
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
They meant 1st OS company. Netscape doesnt have a OSS OS. Neither does IBM.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Guess what -- that's what would happen anyway! Apple is just spelling out what others leave unsaid.
While Sun's and IBM's licenses threaten to pull entire products if there are IP claims against them, Apple's license doesn't. This is good.
The APSL is praiseworthy, and it is Open Source.
-- Chip Salzenberg, a Director of Open Source Initiative
IBM and Sun pull whole products. Apple pulls a subroutine -- and replaces it.
So, something here is ugly, but it's not a termination clause...
Hey, BSD is cool, but even it can't make a quadra fast =)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
what's scary about it? Don't support it if it doesn't benefit you or entertain you.
Does full support from apple consist of money?
My bet is that funds are tight at be, but that's just a guess.
Ignoring the few license restrictions, if you write a finder then you've essentially got the complete source to a MacOS. Which means that if you're a mac user and your motivated enough, your platform will outlive windows, be, and all the other closed systems regardless of Apple's fate (which looks remarkably good compared to 2 years ago)
We can argue and discuss the limits and the problems (I'm surprised how many people are worried about using up all the OSS talent, like the pool is shallow or something...or like anyone does it for any other reason than because they want to) but if you or your org. uses macs then you can now mold mac to better fit your organization, fill your needs, etc.. I used to use OS/2 and I've wondered if I still would or where it would stand if it was OSSed, I'm inclined to believe I'd still have it on a partition.
We're winning the war. The only stumbling block I can see right now is the potential that MS would wake up and release their source code with an even more liberal license... Fortune 500 would be right back in their camp unless the code is so twisted that it is useless. Congratulations apple and congratulations mac users. This is becoming the only way to compete and competition is good, MS spends a billion dollars a year on OS R&D and they are getting beat by Linux and soon they will be getting beat by Linux and Darwin... If it works, I bet they will open the license even more.
Success requires trust in the people you work with.
Trust requires sacrifice, because no one is completely trustworthy.
Is the solution, then, to completely distrust those who've been untrustworthy in the past? Not by a long shot. It's about taking prudent risk, given an adequate reward.
The power of the MacOS desktop and Yellow Box development environment is PLENTY of reward to consider trusting Apple again.
-Stu
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
You can either be a complainer, or a coder. Pick one.
-Stu
Not as quickly as Apple, though. While I'm in favour of GNUStep and would definitely work on it if I wasn't bogged down with work, I don't believe they'll have as powerful a system as Mac OS X is now, and will be by year end.
GNUStep has been churning for a long time, and it has sort of lost a lot of its glamor because of that.
-Stu
ESR and the Apache team are contibutors to this community in both code & ideas
all I see here is complaining. Show me the code.
-Stu
Excuse me, but Apple *is* going along with the obligations of being an Open Source (tm) company. Or at least OSI says so. It's not exactly an us vs. them situation.
Apple's intention is not to be evasive, it is to embrace the model while protecting their rear-end against shitty software patents.
-Stu
Apple may or may not patent bits of its code and may or may not grant you the right to use that code
If any other party sues Apple for patent infringement on bits of "Original Code" Apple may completely withdraw all license to use this code
These two specific parts are not compatible with the Open Source Definition - there may be other parts which I cannot identify
Nearly the whole dang thing.. Most of the libs, along with the core kernel itself.. Basicaly, nearly everything the OS itself would have, minus stuff that is under copywrite..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I've skimmed the license and it seem pretty okay, anyone did read more and found something wrong or everything seem just fine?
Full Article
Because all of those things are already ported to Linux/PPC.
More generally, I think the question should be "Why use Darwin when Linux already works?"
Apples and Oranges, so to speak. Try comparing with LinuxPPC on a 400 MHz G3 and get back to me.
I would believe that the G3 is faster than the PII. The OS is probably not the bottleneck (at least in the case of Linux and possibly Solaris).
Doesn't the gcc have objective c support now? I thought so. -P
--
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
MauiMail.com is running Rhapsody, which I believe is an early version of MacOS X Server.
Look at what it says. If you violate the license, either your software's going to get legit with Apple's help (possibility A), be modified so it's legit (possibility B) or become illegal (possibility C).
Those seem to be the same things that happen if you violate the GPL. The difference is that Apple's enforcing it instead of the FSF. That and the fact that Apple spells out quite plainly what it will do right in the license, which the FSF doesn't do.
First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company.
Second, consider that this is in fact the first time this has been done with an operating system (Linux and *BSD do not count, since their chief maintainers aren't computer companies).
Third, Netscape did this, but with with a browser which wasn't making money, IBM did it with a Java VM which isn't making money, etc. Apple intends to make money from this. I personally think it'll be a great experiment in the commercial viability of Open-Source software. Even if whoever wrote that press release did, admittedly, word that particular phrase quite poorly.
Apple could have down the Free Softare a _huge_ service by freeing the code of the Yellow Box/OpenStep which will be marginalized in MacOS X anyway. The free Unixes would have gained an open standard, technically supreme desktop which would by far surpass the reinvented wheels of KDE and Gnome. The GNUstep project is trying to accomplish this since years, but it doesn't seem as if their effort would benefit in any way from "Darwin".
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
But I don't see how this 'hits linux between the eyes' (as the cnet story said)...
Mainly Nextstep/Mac developers will be interested in getting the source. While I think it's a good move I doubt a signifigant number of linux users are now going to go buy a G3 and start hacking away...
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
I gave the license a quick once-over, and it seemed okay. What parts did you have a problem with?
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the long run, but I'm quite pleased for now, as:
This seems very reasonable to my eyes, and I can't see how it's anything other than either a positive--or perhaps irrelevant for some--development for the industry. It's certainly not a negative turn of events, though.
But, still, I've got a few comments in response to the various recurrant threads.
Termination and Liability
First of all, regarding the license's termination clauses in case of an intellectual property lawsuit, I do think that you all have to think for a moment about the forces at work. Apple's a large corporation; they have to protect their employees and stockholders. I think that it's clear enough from the license that they would make a good faith effort to work around the dispute if possible. All licenses issued from large companies will most likely harbor similar clauses to protect the company from liability.
Liability from Termination
In that same vein, I believe that it's not especially reasonable to expect Apple to use that clause to terminate your licenses on a whim. The APSL protects Apple's interests, certainly, but it doesn't make it easy for Apple to back out, either. If Apple were to bribe a company to sue for intellectual property violations, it would certainly create a scandal and perhaps even a class action lawsuit. (I am not a lawyer, however.) In my eyes, it would be more likely that, if Apple wished Darwin to go away, it would simply let the project languish instead of risking condemning press and exposing itself to even more liability. The company is under no contractual obligation to synchronize the Mac OS X and Darwin projects, so letting the project die out is not a difficult path to take.
OSS vs. Free (Again)
Thirdly, those of you arguing against Open Source and for Free Software should perhaps take a dose of pragmatism. Apple is has just taken a very large step closer to your ideal; that they have not acheived it yet is an invalid justification for criticsm in the face of the fact that they are working toward that end. Given, they are moving cautiously, but that is as any entity of this company's scale should. Multibillion-dollar corporations do not turn on a dime.
Issues of Trust
Finally, the arguments against trusting the company certainly have their justifications, and I won't pretend to contest them. Apple has a long history of turbulent management. From the Apple II, to clones and PPCP, to OpenDoc and the Newton, there are many instances of about-faces that were damaging to third parties. Looking at more recent history, though, I think that most of you would find that Apple has kept far more of its new commitments than it has broken in the past two and a half years since Steve Jobs assumed the titles of interim CEO and chairman of the board. The projects that died early in his reign were those which bogged down the company, spread its resources, and those which were not profitable. The company's management seems to have stabilized greatly, as Apple's "iCEO" Jobs has lent to it spark, focus, insight, and, not least of all, charisma. While it is not advisable to ignore the past when passing judgement, it is neither wise to dwell entirely there, ignoring in fact the present. In the end, investing even the smallest bit of faith in this company is a personal decision, but it is best to consider both the present situation and history instead of rejecting a concept out of hand.
Concuding Remarks
With that, I'll conclude my discussion. Obviously, I'm fairly upbeat and optimistic about this all. My biases are that, admittedly, I own a G3, I run both LinuxPPC and the Mac OS, and I enjoy following Apple's moves in the market; few companies are as continually interesting.
Before I go, I do have a major gripe, though. There is no bug-tracking service or CVS repository! :) I'm sure Apple will rectify that in short order, though. Otherwise, Darwin might just die immediately. :>
- Mali
Methinks she'd regard the GPL as evil and collectivist, in that it takes away one's right to crush the competition, as Gates (a true latter-day John Galt) does.
See www.moral-defense.org.
The Apple licence, whilst a step in the right direction, has some worrying provisions. For one, the BSDish copyright clause, and the requirements for registering modifications with Apple. And then there's the termination clause, a significant Achilles hell.
If parts of Darwin are integrated into the base of Linux, all it would take would be a patent/licence dispute, and Apple (or plaintiffs) could order all affected code (i.e., all copies of Linux with the Darwin code) destroyed. Linux would recover, after a fashion, but it would be painful, and would make Linux and OSS look unreliable.
Therefore, Darwin should be kept as far as possible from the base Linux tree. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be experimental patches or kernel modules based on Darwin; by all means there should. Use it as an ornament but not a cornerstone.
GNUStep would be a pretty cool alternate UI for Darwin, IMHO.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The issue is not BSD vs. GNU; the issue is mostly the termination clause. If Apple has a change of heart about open-source and decides to revoke its license, it should not affect the base Linux kernel, or anything critical.
I think the operative word is _buy_. Whereas with Linux, you simply need to "get" the OS.
Yes. A few years ago Apple and IBM announced several joint development programs, including Kalaida (sp?) and Taligent both of which died quite ugly deaths.
I've browsed through these comments and here is my take: It is clear that anyone who ever worked with Apple knows what a sucky company it is. Only the naive and truly innocent seem to be enthusiastic about this.
Apple is a company that changes directions every 6 months. Its headquarter's name, Infinite Loop, is quite an accurate description of how the company is run. But I don't think this is a reflection of evil. I don't think Apple screws its developers and partners on purpose. While others might see conspiracy, I see absolute incompetence. Apple has raised incompetence to an art form. I won't regale you with the details of a meeting I had once with Apple. Suffice it to say I left open-mouthed, in awe of the level of incompetence displayed from the minute I walked into one of the Infinite Loop buildings. One amusing anecdote - I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to my meeting, cause the guy had moved desks (as part of one Apple's infinite loo-reshuffles), and the phone system just couldn't deal with it. It was downhill from there....
Why argue over this? Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.
Darwin is an apt name here. The lower life forms will migrate to the loser Apple, and end up as an extinct species. The more realistic and intelligent species will work on the only free OS around - Linux, which will continue to evolve from strength to strength.
...and neither do all of you who are involved in detailed arguments of the license terms.
GNU/Linux is a raving success not because it's open source. Open source is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. Even the GPL is only a necessary not sufficient condition. GNU/Linux has succeeded because everyone who uses it and everyone who CONTRIBUTES to it benefits equally. This is the community benefit factor, and it is the necessary and sufficient condition. It is more important than the exact terms of the licence. I think this is the point RMS tries to hammer home with his use of the term free. Free benefits everyone.
Take Mozilla. Since the browser client is essential to the Internet economy, having a free version of it was critical to the future growth of GNU/Linux. So Netscape's putting it out there had 100% community benefit. The license, while it may not be perfect, is good enough. Even if AOL/Netscape kills Mozilla.org tomorrow, the code is out there forever. The GNU/Linux community will take it over and make it grow, cutting lose any proprietary strings AOL/Netscape might hold. But the key point is the community benefit. Netscape did us all a huge favor and deserves our thanks and kudos.
Darwin is YAUC - yet another unix clone. BSD-variants, Linux, MkLinux, that other Mach project someone mentioned (not to mention all the proprietary UNICES) - these aren't enough? Who needs YAUC? No one but Apple, to get their truly sucky hardware to work. (don't jump on me for this statement: PPC is a Motorola/IBM product - not an Apple product. Apple boxes suck big time). There is zero community benefit from Darwin. So even if the license is pristine GPL who cares? Apple is looking for free developers without giving anything back. Go make LinuxPPC better. Go make MkLinux better. That will at least help the community of people (like us btw) who are stuck with old Apple's and don't know what to do with 'em. But Darwin? Puhleeese!
So in the future, when you see some corporation putting something out there as open source, don't niggle about the license details. If the license is good enough to allow some future fork to be liberated and GPLed that's all you need. The key criterion whether to praise or damn should be the community benefit.
Whose benchmarks are these? From what I understood these come from an Apple arranged demo, not some independent tester. Are you sure the machines compared are indeed "comperable"? Are you sure Apple didn't do some special tweaking to the OS X while leaving the rest out of the box? One benchmark hyped by Apple does not mean this is the "truth." You have to be out of your mind to base any decision based on a marketing benchmark by ANY company.
And I never said you shouldn't look at the code. I just said you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
Because I wouldn't have to shell out $300 for the "Nexstep-derived" GUI and live with the million and one bugs the proprietary GUI wrapper will add to the stable UNIX base. Actually, from what I understand the GUI is MAC-derived. For an open-source Nextep-derived GUI try Afterstep. And as I said in another post those "indications" about performance, are Apple marketing hype, not the real thing. Finally, if you want a really elegant user interface, try GNOME/icewm.
Redhat still has to and does use the GPL. Redhat, unlike Apple and Netscape CAN'T turn arownd one day and screw over the programers. Redhat at can't one day say they OWN linux...and they also can't say what you can and can't do with the code. The GPL is for the good of the people and the software...the APL/NPL or what ever is for the good of Apple and Netscape.
Apple making programs open source is a good thing..it lets companies make in house bug fixes etc...BUT apple/Netscape/whoever making programs opensource just to cut R/D costs and get good PR is a BAD thing.
I have to return some videotapes...
>>Look how scared Sun has been to open Java. Sun >>now talks about opening up Java
>> and Solaris,
They had no real choice if they wanted JAVA to take off. And for Solaris...it's on it's death bed. Sun gets it's money from hardware. So i dont realy think they care if you put Linux or Solaris on their sparc's.
I have to return some videotapes...
Give slashdot a brake. I dont think most webserver's have to do the work that Slashdot's does. Most big websites are run by a team of people with backup servers etc. Slashdot runs on one server, is run mainly by a guy who was in school most of the time, and was/is writing the slashdot server software on the fly!
I have to return some videotapes...
>>Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers...
How so?!? Can i use some of Apple's code in my OWN programs? What ever work i put into coding for Apple "Opensource" has to stay with Apple "open source".
With the GPL i can take some code from emacs or the linux kernel and put it into my program and still be able to release it. The GPL lets companys like Redhat and Bob's Linux computers and bait 'n' tackle release software...and do what they want with it. (as long as it's with the GPL)
I have to return some videotapes...
I for one feel that there's plenty of room in the world for the BSD-style and the GPL-style licenses to co-exist.
I think distributions of NetBSD and OpenBSD have more to fear from entanglement with Darwin, which is primarily a nice BSD distribution, than Linux or any other GPL distro does.
For those of us who prefer a BSD style *NIX, Darwin holds a lot of promise. For those of us who already have Mac hardware, it'll probably be the best straight *NIX distribution we'll be able to get our hands on for some time (though my home server is an OpenBSD Mac68k machine that chugs along quite reliably).
Server: Apache/1.3.4 (Unix)
May be it's still "StarWarsed"
Well, at least it makes good hardware documentation.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So who is going to want to dig through the (x) million lines of code once M$ comes out with their own License? I bet they will try to put more spin on it then this also...."How do you want to commit suicide today?"......Anyone know how big OS X is, lines of code that is? Gotta give Apple some credit.....I think they got big brass ones, and encourage them no matter what.
Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
Finally, some common sense on
I've never seen so many people get so upset for such a stupid reason. You'd think that Steve Jobs himself assassinated RMS or something. What has Apple done to open source? Did they take anything away from open source? No. They are giving the community some of their software. They didn't have to, they could just keep it closed-source. They had every right to keep it closed source. If you don't like their software - DON'T USE IT!!!
>Hear us, Apple. Open up the hardware specs to the
>G3 machines. Let Be compete with your prized Mac
>OS X Baby. I guarantee BeOS could run rings around
>OSX when it comes to media development. Open
Oh, blah. Be isn't keeping their BeOS up to standard on the PowerPC platform because Be doesn't want to. Yes, they make a killer OS and everyone I've communicated with from Be seems to be really cool, but don't tell me you buy this "We are sticking with Intel because Apple won't give us the necessary information to do so" garbage, are you?
C'mon, think about it.
1. Intel has invested untold fortunes in Be.
2. MkLinux, LinuxPPC, and now ANOTHER OS (Darwin) has appeared that works on such hardware. Open source. Since when is Apple 'holding out' on Be? just because Apple isn't willing to subsidize Be's R&D efforts doesn't mean they're holding out.
3. Be used to tout the PowerPC platform as the best thing since sliced bread, a "cutting edge OS running on cutting edge hardware". Now, you can hardly get them to say a decent word about it, instead they tout whatever legacy crap Intel is pushing. If their reason for not staying with the PowerPC is political (bad relations with Apple), how did that make the PowerPC so technologically inferior to the Intel platform ?
>Source doesn't mean shit when your product is only
>available on one architecture.
Too bad Be has practically dropped any future plans for the PowerPC, no? Not to mention it's closed source (not that I consider that a 'mistake' in every situation, but you mentioned it). very shortly, the BeOS will be mono-platform.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Interesting license. Especially this part:
2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each instance:
b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site) You must continue to make the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer;
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.h
Deploy, from earlier in the license seems to mean any production use at all within your company, with any lines of code changed.
This is quite a bit more anal than the GPL in that regard, since the GPL only stipulates that you must make the source available if you distribute it.
There's got to be more in here that stinks. I just haven't had time to look at it all.
I thought deploy was exactly that without the not....
I guess it's not as annoying as I thought.
I don't like that clause, then. Why do I have to release my code if it's for an internal project?
This will keep commercial interests from modifying the code for internal projects, since many of them will not want to release the code. This takes away some of the usefulness of the Open Sourcedness.
good. we'll get our work done faster and better than you with your slow free bloated xwindows
---
people paid alot of $$$ on their mac clones. open source means nothing to these consumers-it's peanuts. Open hardware is much more important than open source.
---
Last time I check you needed binaries to install Linux or any OS
Supporting and making it run are two different things. I have read that it will run on every PCI PowerPC, just don't annoy Apple with bugs if you don't have a current machine.
1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
They can get Multiple Processor boxes for Solaris, they can't get production boxes for their own server OS yet.
It is open so there will be a binary distrubution in no time at all
Check your facts, there is $250 educational version, and you are only paying for the GUI, the OS is open. Very much like buying CDE from Metrolink
What is RedHat, but a for profit company. What about all the for profit companies who use gcc, apache, gzip, etc. Apple and Netscape have decided that there is no reason to keep that part of their code propriatary, lets support them on this, the more code that is freed the better we all are.
They were the ones that did MKLinux at least 2 years ago
according to Alexa www.omnigroup.com has 1483 Alexa visits www.apple.com has 160790 Alexa visits I can understand needing more power than a G3 to run Apple's site
Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?
If Apple owned the Sorenson Patent they might
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
If I were a large multi billion dollar company that employed thousands of people, and I was releasing large portions of code I would certainly want to protect myself from liabilty that said code could inflict. Anybody who thinks that Apple is being a jerk for doing so needs to think about the janitors that Apple employs, they too have to eat.
That portion of the Licence seems very liberal
This rules!
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing;
or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately
upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for
implementation of this License.
--
Infuriate left and right
Beowulf is about compute power. Even if the crunched numbers display as a rendered pic, what diff does the GUI make? Like rejecting a honking powerful engine for your car because you think the radiator hose is the wrong color.
--
Infuriate left and right
(sic) Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (sic) (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code,
I edited the original, but if you read the paragraph, it can be simplified to this. The rest is not very concrete and open to broad interpretation.
-Steve
Termination clauses as yet do not stop something being open source. My take is that its just a description of what would happen anyway in the case of patent violations being dragged through the courts. At to your other point, all that says is that apple may or may not open the rest of its source code. That is their right.
What is this Darwin thing? Apple's page claims that it is an "operating system." I thought they were only opening the source to the drivers, not a complete kernel or OS. Can anyone shed some light?
of course , there's nothing stopping them from selling the mac os x gui - the workspace manager - as a linux gui , and sell it as 'linux for the rest of us' .
would anyone out there pay $50 or so for a kick-ass gui ?
do you suppose they could make some of the gui open source and get it on a red hat distro ?
that would never happen , realistically , but then again , i never saw darwin coming - and i run mklinux on my g3 .
It's just about everything below the GUI.
Agreed. Linux benefits from these things: Microsoft's bungling of NT (they lost the plot after 3.51) and the Unix hardware vendors' bungling of OSF/1 and damn near any other interoperatbility standard.
They don't manufacture or design any of it.
From the FAQ:
Q. Do I have to post back my modifications to the original source code?
Yes, in most cases--unless you are using the original source code purely for internal research and development--you must make source code of your modifications publicly available under the terms of the APSL. Please read the APSL for details.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Tuesday, March 16th updated 9:25 pm EST top stories Apple today announced the availability of Mac OS X Server for $500--with an unlimited client license and single-server license. The AppleStore (which incorrectly lists a 5-client license) expects availability by March 23rd. --from macnn.com
Just keep repeating it over and over, and it'll be true...
craig
You have to register distributed modifications with Apple, you are not allowed to close off your modifications (which you can do in BSD), but Apple is allowed to close of their modifications, even of code you distributed.
This whole thing is just good for a press release and will not have much impact on Linux or other *Nixes.
craig
I'm waiting to see just how much is released.
i.e., what they mean by "Mac OS X Server foundation".
Bruce,
I could've sworn your problem with the IBM clause was that they could terminate if ANYONE brought a patent suit against IBM.
Here, they can only terminate if YOU bring a suit against Apple. Isn't that the key difference?
They even have that whole section about how if they revise the license, you can still always use an earlier version.
Or am I misunderstanding the issue?
Check out section 7. It says that if Apple revises the license, you are still allowed to use any earlier version of the license.
Well, I guess the point is that someone could potentially place a claim on ALL the code, and Apple would have an excuse to terminate the entire license.
Yeah.. but it's the principle of the thing..
Someone COULD conceivably sue Apple for all of Darwin, and Apple would then have the option of terminating it all!
OS X is more than just YAUC because it also integrates many Mac OS features.
And whether or not YOU like the Mac OS, there are some of us who do like its interface a whole lot.
Thus, I'd rather use a Un*x that has a Mac interface than X-Windows, or GNU/KDE.
You seem to be saying that Apple's products being better benefits only Apple.
Products benefit their consumers as well!
So if Darwin makes OS X better, not only Apple, but us users are benefitted as well.
The other major difference (I think) is that in apple's case they only get to terminate the use of the Affected Code. So they can't terminate your liscence to all of Darwin over one infringement case. This seems to be much better than the IBM liscence was.
--Artemisia
Yes, it is terminated by YOUR violation of the license. The APSL is can be terminated through anyones actions. Bill Gates sues apple, woops there goes your license...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!
From http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl. html
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
So I'm working on my GPL program, YAM (Yet Another Mailer) and I find out after a year or so that one of my major contributors has borrowed code from Outlook Express.
Microsoft sues me, whoops; there goes my GPL license -- assuming I can't get their permission to use the code, or work around the disputed code, which as far as I can tell is exactly what the Apple Public Source License allows!
Jay (=
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Re-read that section of the GPL: "If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason [...]". Is there any reason why an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL is different than a "claim of infringement" in the APSL?
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement [...]
For the "Affected Original Code" (which is, according to the APSL, the code that "becomes the subject of a claim of infringement"); the license still covers everything else. Someone would have to sue Apple over the entirety of Darwin for Apple to justify yanking the entirety; anything else, Apple (or its contributors) can rewrite the affected portion.
Jay (=
sic) Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (sic) (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code,
I edited the original, but if you read the paragraph, it can be simplified to this. The rest is not very concrete and open to broad interpretation.
But again, Apple's sole discretion applies only to the "Affected Original Code" -- that is, the part of the code that is the subject of the infrignement claim. Why couldn't I (or Apple) take the rest of the software, re-write the disputed code, and keep on working?
Jay (=
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Re-read that section of the GPL: "If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason [...]". Is there any reason why an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL is different than a "claim of infringement" in the APSL?
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement [...]
For the "Affected Original Code" (which is, according to the APSL, the code that "becomes the subject of a claim of infringement"); the license still covers everything else. Someone would have to sue Apple over the entirety of Darwin for Apple to justify yanking the entirety; anything else, Apple (or its contributors) can rewrite the affected portion.
Jay (=
Yeah.. but it's the principle of the thing..
Someone COULD conceivably sue Apple for all of Darwin, and Apple would then have the option of terminating it all!
And as far as I can tell, Apple can still do the same thing under the GPL.
Don't get me wrong; I'm an Apple fan (I've used their machines for as long as I can remember) but I'm also impressed with Open Source movement, and I want Apple to be doing the right thing with Darwin.
But I haven't gotten a response yet as why the GPL, which says...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement [emphasis mine]
...will prevent Apple from doing what everyone says it can do under the APSL?
What is the difference between a "claim of infringement" in the APSL and an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL?
Jay (=
I wrote:
And as far as I can tell, Apple can still do the same thing [terminate the license and keep the modified code for its own use] under the GPL.
After reading the GPL a bit more, I found this is not the case:
7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
So in my reading, if Darwin were to be distributed under the GPL and become the subject of a claim of infrignement, then the GPL would prevent them from doing anything with it at all. (No wonder lawyers shudder at the GPL...)
It would have been nice to get this answer the first time I asked the question, instead of slogging through "Apple is evil" posts. It could have saved us all some time...
Jay (=
Because Darwin is not OS X. It is just the low-level unix stuff, not the GUI and other high-level pieces.
Apple makes its money from hardware, but there is a serious danger for them: If they were to completely open-source their OS, someone could port it to the PC, and then people would have no particular reason to buy a Mac. So I don't think they can afford to completely release the source.
I guess if want to write hardware device drivers, having low level source code would be very helpful... (Hmmm.. maybe OSX/Intel is not that dead.)
Other than that, the only thing other open source projects (Linux, BSD) dont' have that Apple does have is the GUI and the OpenStep/YellowBox. And Apple isn't certainly isn't open sourceing that part.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Looked to me like GNUStep was a long way away at my last visit to their web site.
If finished, I guess GNUStep + Darwin + KDE/Gnome = Free MacOS-X
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I can name one hardware architecture I'd like to see supported by OS/X -- NeXTCubes!
(Maybe Apple forgot to take out the old low level Black hardware stuff, and there's something in there the Linux/68K people can use. One can hope.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Striking a blow against the your-solution-is-not-my-favorite-so-it-sucks-and-
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Maybe someone can explain the Apple/GNU rift in the eighties to those of us who weren't paying attention back then.
The only thing I know was that it was really hard to do certain things on A/UX because of the GNU ban.
10 PRINT "A/UX HAS A BETTER GUI THAN LINUX",,
20 GOTO 10
30 REM Sorry!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Earlier there was two apple threads -
1) Apple releases Source Code
2) MacOS-X released
#2 seems to have disappeared. Database problems or sinister evil cryptofascism?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
"For the hell of it" is the only answer I got.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
This is a huge win for a graphics shop, or someone wanting to go from web design to web hosting. In a couple of hours (probably alot less), you can configure apache, set up security, and start pumping out the pages.
Thank you apple. A gutsy step in the right direction.
Hooray for open source. All of the linux geeks should be proud that they've gotten IBM -and- Apple both onboard.
Hooray for the guy who said 'some people just love to bitch about the paint job when Apple is out hanging wallpaper' (above this somewhere). Apple just admitted open source is the right way to go.
Sure, they haven't decided to go out of business, give away everything for free, and live on the beach. Sure they covered their asses with a termination clause. But they aren't done here.
This is a first step people. Please don't be bitching, moaning lamers. You won. Apple did the right thing. Cheer them on. Encourage them to make it -even better- next time.
You've been begging Alicia Silverstone for a date for years. She finally said yes! Don't cancel because she won't go to the 'right' restaurant.
What not? I read it as what you originally said, OTHER THAN FOR R&D, you can't use the code internally (for production) without distributing your modifications.
Can it be read any other way?
Hmmm. Seems to me that they would revoke the license of the affected part of the code in those circumstances, and not necessarily ALL code. I get the impression that they would even be willing to create another tarball with everything except the code in question...
*sigh* ...and what's wrong with that?
What do you want? The entire desktop environment and all of your applications to be free source?
This is already available with GNOME and the FSF applications. And we all know how much better that software is than anything Apple sells.
Apple clearly thinks they have an opportunity to make a return from selling Mac OS X licenses. They might be right. They might be wrong.
You might not like it, but no one seriously disputes that they have a right to open only part of their source code.
jhw
If at this time next year they still have the same strategy, they haven't pulled the rug out from anyone and Mac OS X turns out to be Good... THEN I'll give Apple props for taking a step in the right direction.
I've seen too many about-faces from Cupertino... reserving judgement for next year's WWDC.
The only stumbling block I can see right now is the potential that MS would wake up and release their source code with an even more liberal license
Who wants to dive into the mess? It would help the WINE effort more than anything.
I don't hear developers chomping at the bit to get their hands dirty in Microsoft's code.
I have to agree with you to some degree on this, Apple has been historically bad when it comes to product roadmaps (not that any OS company has really stolen the show in this regard) especially with Rhapsody/YellowBox/MacOS X. However in fairness to Apple (and its developers) I think this years WWDC will help firm up the "Apple Roadmap". This will be the first WWDC in a long time that Apple will have a real tangible OS solution on the market, and in developers/users hands prior to the WWDC opening. Whereas in the past its been questions, questions, questions coming in and charts, graphs, promises, and more questions coming out. So with a real product going in I expect there will be some real answers coming out, not only about MacOS X server/consumer but also about Darwin.
One thing I would like to see is for Apple to open up the WWDC more. With this emphasis on community development it would be great to see WWDC more accessable. I know that last year some of the keynotes/presentations were webcast and the slide visuals from all the presentations were avalible online after the fact. However a lot of the slides were meaningless without hearing the presentation.
except the 603e desktop machines...
it was explained to me that the reason the 603e desktop machines won't work, and that the 603e portables will isn't a matter of cpu, but of chipsets.
The 603e notebooks use the same chipsets as the G3 notebooks/iMacs. Hence, the motherboard works.
The 603e desktops use a different chipset than the 8500/8600/9500/9600/G3s, so getting them to work may be problematic.
Hopefully, this release combined with my copy of Rhapsody DR2 may allow me to use my Performa 6400/180 with something besides MacOS 8.5/LinuxPPC/MkLinux/BeOS...
dennis
>Here, they can only terminate if YOU bring a suit against Apple.
>Isn't that the key difference?[...]
>Or am I misunderstanding the issue?
You are. Read it again..
They will terminate *your* license immediately if YOU bring a suit against apple, but they will also terminate it (by putting a note at its webside) in case (from memory):
a) They can't aquire the patent/rights (apparently they will try that..)
b) They can't change the code to work around it
c) is the last one -- they terminate the license with a note on the web.
TA
where are the drivers? i want drivers! i want a zilog 8530 driver! i don't want to have to port netbsd's to osfmach3. i hope they release at least some of the drivers soon.
who do you think started the mklinux project? and ported linux to osfmach3?
and ultimately, apples reasons for release the source are irrelevant, it's released and you and use it. tomarrow (wednesday) i'm porting darwin's zilog 8530 serial driver to osfmach3, if you need an example of how darwin is helping already.
The entire point of Carbon is to provide a transition to yellow box. Yellow Box == NextStep, and stevie boy isn't going to toss it.
Where are you getting your info from?
hey... wasnt quake developed on NeXT?
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
GPL'd code does have a single, specific owner -- whoever holds the copyright for it. If it didn't have a single, specific owner then isn't that the definition of public domain?
I thought you could have more than one kind of license for any given piece of software (e.g. end user licenses and site licenses, doesn't perl do something similar)?
In that case, can I release my code under the GPL and under some more commercial friendly license? What happens to code contributions at that point? Can you have two licenses whose terms are totally at odds with one another? Does all code get merged into the code base or you have a branch for the two licenses? Would a contributor have to prove that they agreed to the GPL and not the other license?
Darwin is a big step forward.
I think it will be very simpel to run Xwindows on it.
And people that are complaining about the policy to not include the GUI are forgetting that you have to pay for Motif too.
The "Hits Linux between the eyes" comment was a random potshot made by a suspiciously anonymous source. To the contrary, I'd say Apple is giving the open source model the sincest form of flattery. I swear, ZDNet isn't the only news site that needs to rein itself in.
Without any help from starwars.com, despite what the news websites told you. Every person who went to download the trailer from starwars.com was sent to an apple server. Of course, they were running solaris...
any what what apple released as open source is open source... .. (I think)
just that some of your modification might have conflict with other non open source components so you might need permission from apple to change that part
I think many mac users use linux as their secondary Os. .. Darwin some how will do some good to other opensource GNU projects like gnustep.
anyway
If their GUI was open sourced, this would be a big deal. For the lower level stuff, yeah, it's nice, but so what? Could someone please enlighten me on the functionality and technical enhancements they're adding to previously available open sourced systems?
Secondly, how will this affect Apple's MkLinux support (I'm sure this is on a faq somewhere)?
Halloween documents anyone? If Apple wants to ensure the license is valid, it must enforce it.
No. If you don't release it (or the binary), they can't touch you.
Proof would be nothing more than a one-liner in the source-code. bzip2 had its license changed from .1* to .9.*. That still leaves .1* under the GPL.
It doesn't say that. It says they may terminate YOUR right to use the software if any of the original source (ie. their *original* source code) becomes the subject of a *claim* of infringement by anyone (note they didn't mention that YOU had to make the claim) (ie. obviously this code doesn't infringe, but the GNUstep/KDE/GNOME/XXX on top of Darwin initiative(s) is taking away our (apple's) sales, so we're going to ask Joe Blow on the street corner to make a claim in court, so we can pull the license).
If they pull the source out using this clause, there will be no earlier license to keep it free under.
* Where YOUR = the License reader.
Odd that you, as a seeming Mac afficianado, would quote a person who nearly tanked the company, and was "replaced" because his management sucked so badly.
uhm which machines are those? java is still too slow for me... id'e rather just use a scripting if java speed is acceptable...
....................
This could be a useful thing to have. All the benefits of NT's central registry but still maintaining compatible UNIX style ASCII configuration files.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
I think Netinfo could be useful
Have a look at this page at Apple about Netinfo
This could be a useful thing to have. All the benefits of NT's central registry but still maintaining compatible UNIX style ASCII configuration files.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
See section 4.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. [...]
I certainly have no problems with Apple's 12(c), and can understand the motives behind 9.1 and the rest of 12.
I'd like to see more licenses with sections like 12(c), even the GPL, although I might restrict it to software patents. It'd help weaken the whole software patent mess.
-- Alastair
Their http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ server is barely alive..
cpeterso
www.publicsource.apple.com isn't responding, but other Apple web servers seem to run Netscape-Enterprise /3.6 on Solaris.
Funny they're are using Mac OS X Server! Why are web servers so easily melted by Slashdot?? Don't they test these things?
cpeterso
Everyone seems to be chastising Apple for "jumping on the bandwagon" or "not doing enough". Give 'em a break! They're doing more than most other commercial software companies. Apple isn't completely new to Open Source; they have MkLinux.
Look how scared Sun has been to open Java. Sun now talks about opening up Java and Solaris, but have they done much with that? Apple is making good progress for a company well-known of closed, proprietary systems! Remember that Apple makes money from hardware, so opening their software will HELP them increase software quality and mindshare!
cpeterso
So when do we find a public web site running on Mac OS X? That would make an interesting target for some /. server melting! Mac OS X is a /. virgin.. :-)
cpeterso
This makes a lot of sense. With Linux and the BSDs making the OS a commodity, Apple follows suit. What prevents someone from making their own Darwin Distro, like Red Hat? Probably not much, but the proprietary Mac GUI and Boxes are Apple's added-value. I think that is fair (and smart for Apple).
cpeterso
Would Omnigroup be running their web server on a beta release of OS X? If Apple can't get production (or even pre-release) servers for their sites, why would someone else bother yet?
cpeterso
It's steve'd. Apple is a very media savvy company, and the login site was down before the slashdot mention. Still doesn't say much for their wonderful new server os though. You can't even get a login to see the source, the server is too bogged down. sheesh!
I really don't think Apple is trying to compete with Linux. Apple realizes that Open Source is going to be the name of the game (if it isn't already). They may be behind Linux, but they are ahead of Microsoft. They just stuck a toe in the water to see if it's warm.
--
InstantCool
Wow is that true?!
--
InstantCool
Nonsense. Apple is clearly quite different from Microsoft, and the release of OS/X code proves it.
Just that it has that termination clause that Bruce Perens wrote a rant a few days ago. Basically, if the software gets challenged in a patent, Apple can remove the license at will.
excellent.... Finally, there sticking the money where there mouth is... Well done Steve..
I'm increasingly leery of all these proprietary software manufacturers who are jumping on the "Open Source" bandwagon. I think it is a Bad Sign that you can't even get past the first page of the site without consenting to their license agreement. "Open Source" *can* result in more stable code more quickly, but it's also an excuse for companies to look like Nice Guys when all they're really doing is cutting their R&D budget by getting end users to contribute free labor to their product. I suppose I just resent the idea of channelling my time and skill into refining code, which might make Apple/IBM/Netscape richer, but won't particularly benefit me or the general public, because the terms of use are still anything but free. I think Open Source can be a good thing, but it can also be a danger if it detracts attention (and programmers) away from truly free (as in free speech) software, from which everyone can benefit equally.
The danger with Open Source is that a company could decide to change the terms of the licensing at some point in the future, pulling the rug out from underneath the program's users and developers. This could NOT happen with the GPL, because GPL'd code doesn't have a single, specific owner. Richard Stallman may have written GNU Emacs, but the GPL prevents him from being able to turn around and make it into a proprietary, closed-source commercial package.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Open Source has its benefits, and I'm happy to see Apple taking a step in this direction. While I am an enthusiastic proponent of software-without-owners (for both technical and social reasons), I also realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. :D
At least this one actually requires there to be a claim of infringement, rather than just that one is "likely". I'm not sure that there is a way around this for a company the size of Apple -- they have to protect themselves if someone incorporates (inadvertantly) patented code. The way software patents are these days it could pretty easily happen. I guess the other option is to do what netscape did and spin off a separate non-profit company.
----
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Yes, but at least here it has to get challenged -- in the IBM license it just has to appear "likely" that there will be a challenge. It seems that IBM can basically terminate the license at will by claiming that they found a patent infringement or something, whereas in Apple's case someone actually has to file suit first.
--
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I think it's sad that ESR is calling the APSL an Open Source (tm) license, even though it contains a termination clause which clearly violates the Open Source definition. We can clearly no longer trust the Open Source label.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they keep telling us, as Apple-developed technologies are incorporated into vendor-neutral standards like IEEE 1394 and future versions of MPEG.
Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?
Apple is closed and proprietary," we keep hearing as Apple further incorporates standards and changes not-invented-here into their products...like USB and PC-style monitor connections. Or builds a case that with one finger fully reveals the system's internals.
Huh? I don't think anyone complaining about apple being closed meant that their cases were hard to open.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they tell us, as Apple adopts a UNIX variant as the core of their OS, and makes its deepest internals accessible through open source distribution.
Internals that were already open sourced. Big fat deal.
The only things closed here and certain people's minds. Yes, Apple spent quite a few years there in the middle totally full of themselves and blind to the world. But then they grew up.
Oh yes, that would be the day they killed the clone market...
Think different? I'd settle for apple supporters who just can think.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
And what would you suggest Apple do to protect themselves?
Go read the clause again, it only speaks to the section of the original code being contested. So if a claim is brought agaist one part it does not give Apple the ability to stop distribution of the rest of it.
"terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code"
For an example of the dollar amounts that can be involved in this kind of action just look at the ColourSync suit.
If Apple gets sued for infringment and ordered to stop distributing XYZ code, then they have to stop. Without such a clause Apple would be in violation of the court order if you kept distributing your modified version of it.
Instead of just whinning about it, why not propose an alternate that satisfies your desires while still protecting Apple in the event of a suit.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
You really goota wonder if Steve Jobs is on vacation now, and he'll come back from Tahiti in a week and just say "WHAT THE #$%^?!@"
Hehe.
You're a suburbanite.
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
/any/ code. All it says is that if some code they release turns out to violate a copyright, they have to close it back up. The way I read it, they can /not/ close this code up if it doesn't meet that clause. So rejoice: This code is here to stay.
/and/ your X.
Indeed it is, and the 'Terminiation Clause' that everyone was so upset about is just a statement of what is inherent in
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
Indeed it does! Apple will even incorporate changes we make to the kernel code into their shipping version, if they feel it improves the product. And this will definately allow developers to fine tune their applications. They can now see exactly what low-level calls will be doing, which means that they will know what situations to look out for.
If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
Matthew Walker
-- My DNA is Y2K Compliant
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
This latter point (which I am not the first slashdotter to bring up) could be one of the strongest. An OS will not be successful in the broad market without good apps, and the ability to make more. The source gives developers a lot of confidence in stability and behavior of the underlying OS -- good for new development. The OpenStep platform was always a real pleasure to develop for, because of the superb tools and interface. (Mac OS 8, Win and Linux/X are relative bears by comparison, at least for GUI apps). This move strengthens a strong hand.
Apple's GUI is consistent and beautiful. This is something nearly every other *nix lacks, and is an especial weakness of Linux/X. You can make Linux/X look pretty decent. But consistent? Forget it. Anyone reading this can probably deal fine with inconsistent app interfaces. End users can't and won't.
So a good GUI in turn attracts end users, who (Microsoft's case shows) are very symbiotic with app developers. Is this enough for Apple to start to really challenge Microsoft? I don't think so, but it helps.
OS X is a good, stable implementation of BSD and Mach. NeXT was not just sitting on their thumbs, waiting for the money to roll in -- they did real work on the OS. (Enough to take over OS development at Apple when Apple bought them) There's a lot of work they did for OpenStep that the community hasn't yet gotten 'round to doing for open source OS's. If I had to choose an OS for, say, a dedicated screen trading app (I work in the finance industry) today, I would choose OS X. For a webserver, probably FreeBSD or Linux.
About the build environment: I would expect that most folk will have to do a lot o' tweaking to get any of this newly released code to build. Obj C isn't the issue, since gcc handles it fine (/bin/cc on Apple/NeXT has always been based on it). It's all the other cruft. Anything but an OS X machine is going to have something in the "wrong" place.
Although it would probably be pretty easy for Apple to support lots of hardware architectures (OpenStep ran on Intel, Motorola, HP-PA, SPARC, and [unofficially] PPC) I think other people's arguments about Apple needing to make their money off the hardware are valid. They won't keep people from recompiling the underlying OS on other architectures, perhaps, but it will be a long time before you see the GUI on anything but their own hardware. That's OK with me. Last week, they had open sourced nothing from OS X. This week, we've got lots of it, whatever the quibbles about licensing. The world is a better place.
OK, so who loses from this? Nobody but Microsoft. And maybe some other commercial Unix outfits, like Sun. Who benefits? Well, I count
Apple developers: obvious reasons.
Apple: more developers, better apps, maybe some free OS work.
Developers of other OS's: examples to peruse, ideas to copy, a benchmark.
- Brian K. Boonstra, Ph.D.
Thirty years ago Unix was born. In the intervening years it has migrated to nearly every system on this planet. Mac OS and Windows are new comers to this territory. They have now both taken steps into the Unix arena with OSX and NT [don't laugh; MS "bought" the DEC team that developed their Unix, VMS, and released NT as a result -- See NT Magazine vol 4, no 12].
This is My Little Bet that I'll place in a hermetically sealed jar and bury somewhere safe: In thirty years time there will be a more or less equal distribution of companies writing kernels, objects, drivers, and GUI's that match an international standard. I'll call it the Microcomputer Architectural/Interface Standard [MCAIS 1.0] of 2010. After the decade of senseless [and sometimes dangerous -- think air traffic, medicine, power distribution, etc.] battles over OS's and hardware configurations, the software and hardware communities and governments will come up with a set of standards out of necessity.
You think I've been eating bad rye bread, huh? Look at the new-fangled miracle device that revolutionized the way human beings communicate, the telephone. They all conform to a standard. Twelve identically labeled keys in a predictable pattern. A predictable placement of the earphone and microphone. An identical set of tones generated each time. I could name many other standard devices that had varied origins and configurations, but settled on a standard over time.
Funny, I didn't realize what I just did! AT&T -- Creators of UNIX and providers of telephone service.
In thirty years Apple and Microsoft may or may not be around, but computers will, and the need for them to interoperate will be paramount. However, the file recycle receptacle on the GUI in my starship will still be named "Cat Box".
FIN
The party's over
Okay, my definition of "a Unix" was really loose; a HAL or hardware dependent code sitting on top of the hardware.
Heck though, golly, didja like the rest of the polysyballic swill I sloshed? Huh?
The party's over
The worst bit, actually, is the 'postcardware' clause - you have to inform Apple of any modifications you make.
The two termination clauses are both annoying. The first means that Apple can withdraw the license at the slightest scent of a claim, and the second (12.1(c)) means that if I sue Apple because they infringed my patent on ergonomic chairs, I lose the right to run their software, which is very odd...
-- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a perl script.
Why are people with HOTMAIL acocunts so whiney?
......
Any site with this amount of traffic is gonna get killed - if not by the server, then by the bandwidth to the server.
Look, the alternatives to this new Apple open source fray are Linux and
between linux and $250 for the ability to run my MacOS apps alongside - i make enough money to pay $250 for a WebObjects server.
Right now, for $6k, i can run a medium sized company's email, web, ftp, ecommerce, etc all on one box prepackaged, and ready to go - and dont tell me that you can do with with Linux, because you can't.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
AOL is usually pretty slow this time of day...
got my account 10 minutes ago, no trouble.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Apple's servers are giving me 25k/sec downloads (i just downloaded emacs from www.publicsource.apple.com)
they aren't using linux, okay? so sue them.
some people just love to bitch about the paint job when Apple is out hanging wallpaper
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Apple should be making open hardware and open software, giving warm lunches to the poor, repair the national debt, pay for NATO troops in Kosovo, and pay off my student loans....
/., then they buy a pregonfigured Apple system.
enough with just making a semi-open operating system...
folks - like it or not - and i know you dont - clones were killing Apple Inc. Period.
Microsoft survives because it sells OSs and applications.
Intel survives because it sells hardware.
Apple survives because it sells complete systems (ever heard of the iMac?)
Like it or not (again, many here don't like it), Apple must make money. It cannot live by giving away its software (free X server) and its hardware (clones) and make Apple.com a f__ing web portal.
Apple sells system solutions - they sell tools to get tasks accomplished. Their products are computers with operating systems on them.
If their product is better than Dell's product, then buy it. If not, buy the Dell.
You people act like Dell and Gateway are hemmoraging money by actually selling closed-box systems? Guess what? Not everyone has the time nor the inclination to put together computers- they want servers and clients - tools - to get work done. If a small art company doesn't want to hire someone that would frequent
Like it or not, packaged solutions are becoming very popular - if you doubt that, check Dell, Gateway, or Compaq's stock price.
if you don't want a packaged solution and want to live in this freakzoid serenghetti plain of obscure hardware configs with marginally compatible Cyrix processors and motherboards - go ahead - but computers are tools - and for too long, the computers have been tooling us.
____
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Umm..you need a login for their Open Source site?
Anyone else see the irony here?
Let's not forget that the first WWW server was... a NeXT machine.
Umm, the releasing of the code proves nothing. Read the license. The GPL or a BSD license would have been much better. This is a publicity stunt, exactly like Microsoft would pull. MS even stated they plan to start releasing source. Apple and MS are both cut from the same mold.