Everyone else here has mentioned "The Italian Job" already, so I'll content myself with pointing out that Mos Def also does a lot of on- and off-Broadway live theater work in New York City, for which he's won an Obie award and been nominated for a Tony.
He's an extremely talented actor who happens to also be a pretty good lyricist as well. Get over it.
By the end of the decade, the dominance of "chop sukey" games dealt the final blow. And around the same time rap music was putting the 80's-tyle pop music genre to death. Together, "chop sukey" and rap music killed the magic that was the 1980's.
"Rapper's Delight": Sugarhill Gang, 1979 "The Message": Grandmaster Flash, 1982 "Planet Rock": Afrika Bambaataa, 1982 "Rock Box": Run-DMC, 1984 "Roxanne, Roxanna": UTFO, 1984 "Fight For Your Right": Beastie Boys, 1986
Yeah, rap music sure did come around at the end of the 80s and kill it dead. Just imagine what A Flock of Seagulls could have achieved if it hadn't been for those meddling negros!
Are you trying to suggest that releasing a product as Open Source is unprofitable?
Suggest it? I'm shouting it.
Releasing your product as open source does not magically make you more profit...or any profits at all.
I guess it's kinda touching that there's still someone out there who's still stuck in 2001 and who thinks that saying the magic phrase "open source" will cause manna to rain from heaven.
No, it doesn't always work that way. However, there are already a good number of developers who are working on GCJ, an Open Source clone of Java.
Where by "a good number" you appear to mean roughly "fifteen". I'm not sure exactly what you think the existence of GCJ is supposed to prove, but it's certainly orthogonal to the question of how Sun makes profits.
Or are you of the mindset that if Microsoft made the XBox internals 100% Open Source that people would create another Open Source project from scratch to try and duplicate it?
I'm of the mindset that if Microsoft made the XBox internals 100% USDA Approved Prime Open Source, that (a) I wouldn't care, (b) I wouldn't care, (c) it wouldn't magically make Microsoft any more money (which is why they don't do it), and (d) I wouldn't care.
You don't seem to understand Open Source. This *will* save Sun from bankruptcy. By making Java Open Source, Sun will gain a huge number of developers who will work on it for free....yup, that trick ALWAYS works! Just like it did for Netscape! And Ximian! And Eazel!
You appear to have confused "open source" with "magic fairy dust". I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it doesn't work that way.
...men in positions of political and military power have never before in the history of the human race done something stupid in order to gain the affections of an attractive woman.
Let's see if we can actually go for six months without somebody announcing Yet Another Binary Package Management System or Meta-System. That would actually be newsworthy.
The amount of time and money that's been wasted on this problem for over twenty years in the unix world is just mind-boggling. We really do not need to reinvent this wheel again.
Oh please. One of my co-workers actually bought one of those things about a year back. The damn thing is huge. Seriously, it's larger than the original analog AMPS cell phone I had ten years ago. It's an interesting technology demo, sure, but not something that any actual human being would want to cart around and use.
I think he actually cried when I showed him my Treo 270. Then he bought one himself.:)
Back in the early days of B5, a couple of the Foundation Imaging guys were active on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 (along with JMS), and this question came up a lot.
My (admittedly sketchy) memory of the answer is that the FX shots for the original 2-hour pilot episode of B5 were composed and rendered with ScreamerNet/Amiga, but that by the time the actual series got picked up and put into production (over a year later), they'd pretty much migrated entirely to LightWave NT, and were doing their rendering on Intel hardware.
I can't speak for Sliders and DSV (and, frankly, don't care), but Voyager was certainly not rendered on Amigas: Foundation was entirely an NT (and SGI?) shop by that point.
Don't just come out and tell people about NSIS! That'll ruin everything!
I like the fact that my competition thinks they have to drop 5-6 figures every year on commercial licenses for InstallShield or InstallerVISE, thank you very much!
There have been exploitable buffer overflows in (going from memory here) PINE, MetaMail and Mutt, all of which in theory could allow a trojan email to be sent to a unix user, and none of which required clicking on an executable.
Are you willing to warrant that there are no such holes in Evolution, Thunderbird or KMail?
NT 4.0 ran on MIPS, Alpha, and (true fact) PowerPC. I'm pretty sure there was also a SPARC port at one time, although it may never have made it out of the lab.
I mean, I'm sure they are very careful to remove competitors' spyware.
Would that it were so. Having just last night discovered a computer at a client site so completely loaded down with spyware and ad-chuckers that it literally ran out of swap space within 5 minutes of being turned on because of all the competing crapware products on it (SS&D reported about ten), I'm afraid that I can safely say that the manufacturers have not yet taken this entirely logical step.
My other pet peeve is what the cretins at Checkpoint think is an acceptable VPN client.
Shudder. Twitch. Scream.
I literally once quit a fairly lucrative job because we made the mistake of standardizing on Checkpoint for our firewall/vpn solution, and I was the lucky bastard who got to try to support SecuRemote on all of the company's assorted roaming laptops.
Never, EVER again. I spent three months on the phone with Checkpoint tech support every day trying to get that complete piece of shit to merely do what it was supposed to to. And as far as I know, the situation never improved, even after I left.
It will be a cold day in hell before I ever do business with Checkpoint again.
Bingo. That was the story that people were interested in watching. But doing it right would have required an actual investment in time, money and professional writers. Sigh.
If the series had instead of going with this "temporal cold war" idea gone with a simple "explore nearby space and meet new races" type idea, I heavily suspect that things would have been better.
Or how about they actually tell the story people wanted to hear?!
There was one and only one reason to make a Star Trek prequel series ever: Klingons.
Temporal cold war? Snooze. Interstellar terrorists? Whatever. There is one question worth answering and one story worth telling from this era of the mythos: how did Earth go, in the space of a generation, from being a backwater planet that had just discovered warp drive, to being the de facto leader of a galactic alliance and holding their own against a hostile empire that had been spacefaring for centuries more?
In the hands of writers who actually gave a shit about the story, this could have been compelling television. Instead: more shower scenes! The captain's dog is sick! Oh no, we're cancelled! Sigh.
Okay, points for keeping his composure I guess, but no points whatsoever for intelligence. He seriously just wandered off to take a walk while they were going through his apartment?!
Folks? If this ever happens to you? CALL YOUR LAWYER. Not the next day, not the day after, but the instant you can convince them to let you get your hands on a phone. If you don't have a lawyer, call a friend that you trust to find you a lawyer.
It's all well and good that the raiders in this case were relatively polite and friendly, but once the legal system takes notice of you in this way, Mister Policeman is no longer your friend. They have a job to do, and that job is to put your ass in jail. If being nice to you helps them to do this, they'll be nice. If scaring you senseless helps them to do this, they'll do that too. But the fact remains: they are not paid to catch someone who they know for a fact is guilty; they are being paid to catch someone they can convince a District Attorney is guilty, and those are two very, very different things.
If you are ever in this situation, the only words that come out of your mouth when speaking to the feds should be "I'd like to call my attorney." His job is to keep you out of jail.
Whoops, my bad: that link was supposed to go to the projects page, not the compiler page.
Secondly, you talk about Apple contributing "XNU" to the open source community. You didn't mention that the open source community had to fight Apple as Apple's original license was horribly one-sided. It is only very recently (Sept-12-2003) that Apple changed their license and had it approved by the OSI.
Incorrect again. The OSI has considered the APSL an "Open Source License" since version 1.1 IIRC. What changed on 9/12/03 was that the FSF decided that the latest version of the APSL qualified as a "Free Software License." Yay for them, I guess.
You really need to get over this delusion that the FSF is the be-all and end-all of the open source "community." And you really, really need to understand that BSD code is not GPL code.
A compiler backend, especially one written to a pre-existing framework, is not similar in scope to SAMBA or JBOSS.
Correct, although not in the sense you mean. A compiler is substantially more difficult, which you'd know if you'd had any idea what you were talking about.
While the current APSL 2.0 license is going in a good direction, none of that direction is due to Apple's innate desire or inherent corporate philosophy.
This is so ass-backwards I don't even know where to begin. If Apple had no "innate desire" to work with the FSF and OSI, they wouldn't have released the code in the first place, nevermind burned hundreds of man-hours of lawyer time (which probably cost them millions of dollars total) continuing to work on the license.
But hey, I'm only a developer and a sysadmin who actually reads Apple's developer documentation and knows people who work at the company. Obviously your psychic powers give you far greater insight into this situation than any mere facts.
I'm sure you recall "www.ipodsdirtysecret.com"
Yes. I also recall that it was published two weeks after Apple announced their batter refurb program, and well over a year after ipodbattery.com launched their (3rd-party) replacement offer. But again, I suppose psychic powers trump mere facts. And what the hell does this have to do with MacOS X or open source? Not a goddamn thing, and the same with your pathetic attempt to drag the ibook's hardware problems into this. Stop wasting my time by trying to turn this into yet another "everything Apple does is evil" whinefest.
I notice there is nobody using Apple's XNU for anything. And I wonder if Apple Legal has crushed them or silenced them in some way.
Yeah, that's right, Apple's black-suited ninjas arrived in the middle of the night and slit their throats. SCAAAAARRRRY.
You have to "wonder" about such a thing only because it didn't happen, and therefore you're reduced to spreading FUD rather than pointing to actual events.
I spent much more than 10 seconds with Google trying to find evidence of any third party using Darwin for their own projects/products and couldn't find anything. Do you have more information?
Apparently you're just not that good at actually using google, not that this is a shock or anything.
Looking at the list of "open source projects" on Apple's website, most of code was not written by Apple.
And you of course actually looked at the CVS checkins and counted up how many lines of code were contributed by people at Apple?
No, of course not, we've already established that you're not actually a developer, just some sort of weird FSF fanboy with an axe to grind.
Yes, the Mach kernel originally came out of CMU. That was, since you were not paying attention, over fifteen years ago. First NeXT and then Apple have spent the intervening time completely rewriting most of that code.
Whenever someone focuses on delivering personal attacks vs. discussing the issues, it is usually due to the fact that they have no factual argument to present and must rely on emotional attacks to confuse the issues.
Or maybe they just think you're an idiot.
First, there is indeed a lot of DRM in Mac OS X.
Repeating this over and over does not, oddly enough, make it true. You've so far come up with all of two examples, only one of which could seriously be considered an imposition on anyone's time, and neither one of which could be considered part of the operating system except in the irrelevant sense that they live on the same CD.
You also need to stop using the phrase "DRM" as if it were some sort of digital cooties. Separate application-level restrictions are a very different can of wax from hardware-to-OS-level DRM architectures such as Microsoft's proposed Palladium scheme.
Most every Apple app that deals with content has DRM code in it.
For all the fervor with which you state this, you'd almost think that it was true. Every Apple app that deals with content? Let's see, last I checked, that was:
iTunes iDVD iPhoto GarageBand Final Cut Express Final Cut Pro Soundtrack DVD Player Logic Platinum DVD Studio Pro Keynote Shake Tremor Quicktime Player Quicktime Pro Quicktime Streaming Server Quicktime Broadcaster
Of those, the only ones that contain "DRM code" that restricts what the end-user may do are iTunes, Quicktime Player, and DVD player. You could, I suppose, complain that Apple's DVD authoring software uses CSS and region codes, but since those are part of the DVD specification, that would be a stupid thing to complain about.
Three out of seventeen isn't "most", kid.
Most Mac users don't even know that there is another way to play a DVD other than using what came on the machine as part of "Mac OS X".
Wow, that must by why VideoLan and Mplayer have each had well over 100,000 downloads! Nobody knows about them!
BTW, did you ever notice those two letters "OS" in "Mac OS X"?
Why yes, yes I did. Your point?
Your technical view of the OS is certainly not what Apple considers the "OS".
Wow, I must have missed the portion of the apple developer documentation where they said that they consider bundled applications to be part of the OS! What an oversight! Surely you'll point this out to me?
BTW: Read The Fucking Article. Ironically enough, it actually explains what OS X is, and how it functions.
There is no substantial application that Apple has contributed to the open source community. There is not even one body of code similar in size and complexity to Samba or JBoss that Apple has contributed to the open source community.
You are, again, wrong. And again, you're wrong in that particularly annoying way wherein ten seconds with a search engine would have prevented you from being wrong.
The Darwin kernel (XNU) itself is easily comparable in size and scope to any major OSS project. If that's not enough, there's a full OSS implementation of zeroconf, a fully OSS streaming media server, a cross-platform game networking library, an embeddable web browser component, and god only knows how many thousands of man-hours spent on the GCC/PPC compilers.
Dare I ask what you have contributed to this "community" other than a lot of uninformed whining?
Slashdot Mirror
...Amazon has aleady patented the use of Irony...on the internet!
Everyone else here has mentioned "The Italian Job" already, so I'll content myself with pointing out that Mos Def also does a lot of on- and off-Broadway live theater work in New York City, for which he's won an Obie award and been nominated for a Tony.
He's an extremely talented actor who happens to also be a pretty good lyricist as well. Get over it.
By the end of the decade, the dominance of "chop sukey" games dealt the final blow. And around the same time rap music was putting the 80's-tyle pop music genre to death. Together, "chop sukey" and rap music killed the magic that was the 1980's.
"Rapper's Delight": Sugarhill Gang, 1979
"The Message": Grandmaster Flash, 1982
"Planet Rock": Afrika Bambaataa, 1982
"Rock Box": Run-DMC, 1984
"Roxanne, Roxanna": UTFO, 1984
"Fight For Your Right": Beastie Boys, 1986
Yeah, rap music sure did come around at the end of the 80s and kill it dead. Just imagine what A Flock of Seagulls could have achieved if it hadn't been for those meddling negros!
Are you trying to suggest that releasing a product as Open Source is unprofitable?
Suggest it? I'm shouting it.
Releasing your product as open source does not magically make you more profit...or any profits at all.
I guess it's kinda touching that there's still someone out there who's still stuck in 2001 and who thinks that saying the magic phrase "open source" will cause manna to rain from heaven.
No, it doesn't always work that way. However, there are already a good number of developers who are working on GCJ, an Open Source clone of Java.
Where by "a good number" you appear to mean roughly "fifteen". I'm not sure exactly what you think the existence of GCJ is supposed to prove, but it's certainly orthogonal to the question of how Sun makes profits.
Or are you of the mindset that if Microsoft made the XBox internals 100% Open Source that people would create another Open Source project from scratch to try and duplicate it?
I'm of the mindset that if Microsoft made the XBox internals 100% USDA Approved Prime Open Source, that (a) I wouldn't care, (b) I wouldn't care, (c) it wouldn't magically make Microsoft any more money (which is why they don't do it), and (d) I wouldn't care.
You don't seem to understand Open Source. This *will* save Sun from bankruptcy. By making Java Open Source, Sun will gain a huge number of developers who will work on it for free. ...yup, that trick ALWAYS works! Just like it did for Netscape! And Ximian! And Eazel!
You appear to have confused "open source" with "magic fairy dust". I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it doesn't work that way.
...men in positions of political and military power have never before in the history of the human race done something stupid in order to gain the affections of an attractive woman.
Nope, not realistic at all.
Let's see if we can actually go for six months without somebody announcing Yet Another Binary Package Management System or Meta-System. That would actually be newsworthy.
The amount of time and money that's been wasted on this problem for over twenty years in the unix world is just mind-boggling. We really do not need to reinvent this wheel again.
Oh please. One of my co-workers actually bought one of those things about a year back. The damn thing is huge. Seriously, it's larger than the original analog AMPS cell phone I had ten years ago. It's an interesting technology demo, sure, but not something that any actual human being would want to cart around and use.
:)
I think he actually cried when I showed him my Treo 270. Then he bought one himself.
AC writes: WinNT yes - but at that time the render farms were probably Alpha CPUs, not Intel.
D'oh. You are, of course, correct -- ISTR one of the Foundation guys bragging about their new 8-way AlphaServer at the time.
The Amiga, with Toaster or whatever else has never been an NLE
Wasn't there supposed to be an add-on product for the Toaster called "Flyer" that was a real NLE system?
I'd basically stopped paying attention to the Amiga market by that point, so if it never shipped I wouldn't have noticed.
Back in the early days of B5, a couple of the Foundation Imaging guys were active on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 (along with JMS), and this question came up a lot.
My (admittedly sketchy) memory of the answer is that the FX shots for the original 2-hour pilot episode of B5 were composed and rendered with ScreamerNet/Amiga, but that by the time the actual series got picked up and put into production (over a year later), they'd pretty much migrated entirely to LightWave NT, and were doing their rendering on Intel hardware.
I can't speak for Sliders and DSV (and, frankly, don't care), but Voyager was certainly not rendered on Amigas: Foundation was entirely an NT (and SGI?) shop by that point.
Don't just come out and tell people about NSIS! That'll ruin everything!
I like the fact that my competition thinks they have to drop 5-6 figures every year on commercial licenses for InstallShield or InstallerVISE, thank you very much!
There have been exploitable buffer overflows in (going from memory here) PINE, MetaMail and Mutt, all of which in theory could allow a trojan email to be sent to a unix user, and none of which required clicking on an executable.
Are you willing to warrant that there are no such holes in Evolution, Thunderbird or KMail?
NT 4.0 ran on MIPS, Alpha, and (true fact) PowerPC. I'm pretty sure there was also a SPARC port at one time, although it may never have made it out of the lab.
I mean, I'm sure they are very careful to remove competitors' spyware.
Would that it were so. Having just last night discovered a computer at a client site so completely loaded down with spyware and ad-chuckers that it literally ran out of swap space within 5 minutes of being turned on because of all the competing crapware products on it (SS&D reported about ten), I'm afraid that I can safely say that the manufacturers have not yet taken this entirely logical step.
My other pet peeve is what the cretins at Checkpoint think is an acceptable VPN client.
Shudder. Twitch. Scream.
I literally once quit a fairly lucrative job because we made the mistake of standardizing on Checkpoint for our firewall/vpn solution, and I was the lucky bastard who got to try to support SecuRemote on all of the company's assorted roaming laptops.
Never, EVER again. I spent three months on the phone with Checkpoint tech support every day trying to get that complete piece of shit to merely do what it was supposed to to. And as far as I know, the situation never improved, even after I left.
It will be a cold day in hell before I ever do business with Checkpoint again.
Come on, the company that made Lilo & Stitch can't be all that bad.
Yes, but the company that made Lilo & Stitch and then proceeded to fire everyone who'd worked on it just might be that bad.
While the author is certainly trolling, you can run OSX on 8600-era hardware, if you're willing to go through some contortions.
Whether it's in any way worth the effort is highly debatable.
Bingo. That was the story that people were interested in watching. But doing it right would have required an actual investment in time, money and professional writers. Sigh.
If the series had instead of going with this "temporal cold war" idea gone with a simple "explore nearby space and meet new races" type idea, I heavily suspect that things would have been better.
Or how about they actually tell the story people wanted to hear?!
There was one and only one reason to make a Star Trek prequel series ever: Klingons.
Temporal cold war? Snooze. Interstellar terrorists? Whatever. There is one question worth answering and one story worth telling from this era of the mythos: how did Earth go, in the space of a generation, from being a backwater planet that had just discovered warp drive, to being the de facto leader of a galactic alliance and holding their own against a hostile empire that had been spacefaring for centuries more?
In the hands of writers who actually gave a shit about the story, this could have been compelling television. Instead: more shower scenes! The captain's dog is sick! Oh no, we're cancelled! Sigh.
...just how much a (post-original) Trek show has to suck before they'll pull the plug.
Now that this has been empirically verified, let's never conduct this experiment again please.
Okay, points for keeping his composure I guess, but no points whatsoever for intelligence. He seriously just wandered off to take a walk while they were going through his apartment?!
Folks? If this ever happens to you? CALL YOUR LAWYER. Not the next day, not the day after, but the instant you can convince them to let you get your hands on a phone. If you don't have a lawyer, call a friend that you trust to find you a lawyer.
It's all well and good that the raiders in this case were relatively polite and friendly, but once the legal system takes notice of you in this way, Mister Policeman is no longer your friend. They have a job to do, and that job is to put your ass in jail. If being nice to you helps them to do this, they'll be nice. If scaring you senseless helps them to do this, they'll do that too. But the fact remains: they are not paid to catch someone who they know for a fact is guilty; they are being paid to catch someone they can convince a District Attorney is guilty, and those are two very, very different things.
If you are ever in this situation, the only words that come out of your mouth when speaking to the feds should be "I'd like to call my attorney." His job is to keep you out of jail.
The first link you mention says the following
Whoops, my bad: that link was supposed to go to the projects page, not the compiler page.
Secondly, you talk about Apple contributing "XNU" to the open source community. You didn't mention that the open source community had to fight Apple as Apple's original license was horribly one-sided. It is only very recently (Sept-12-2003) that Apple changed their license and had it approved by the OSI.
Incorrect again. The OSI has considered the APSL an "Open Source License" since version 1.1 IIRC. What changed on 9/12/03 was that the FSF decided that the latest version of the APSL qualified as a "Free Software License." Yay for them, I guess.
You really need to get over this delusion that the FSF is the be-all and end-all of the open source "community." And you really, really need to understand that BSD code is not GPL code.
A compiler backend, especially one written to a pre-existing framework, is not similar in scope to SAMBA or JBOSS.
Correct, although not in the sense you mean. A compiler is substantially more difficult, which you'd know if you'd had any idea what you were talking about.
While the current APSL 2.0 license is going in a good direction, none of that direction is due to Apple's innate desire or inherent corporate philosophy.
This is so ass-backwards I don't even know where to begin. If Apple had no "innate desire" to work with the FSF and OSI, they wouldn't have released the code in the first place, nevermind burned hundreds of man-hours of lawyer time (which probably cost them millions of dollars total) continuing to work on the license.
But hey, I'm only a developer and a sysadmin who actually reads Apple's developer documentation and knows people who work at the company. Obviously your psychic powers give you far greater insight into this situation than any mere facts.
I'm sure you recall "www.ipodsdirtysecret.com"
Yes. I also recall that it was published two weeks after Apple announced their batter refurb program, and well over a year after ipodbattery.com launched their (3rd-party) replacement offer. But again, I suppose psychic powers trump mere facts. And what the hell does this have to do with MacOS X or open source? Not a goddamn thing, and the same with your pathetic attempt to drag the ibook's hardware problems into this. Stop wasting my time by trying to turn this into yet another "everything Apple does is evil" whinefest.
I notice there is nobody using Apple's XNU for anything. And I wonder if Apple Legal has crushed them or silenced them in some way.
Yeah, that's right, Apple's black-suited ninjas arrived in the middle of the night and slit their throats. SCAAAAARRRRY.
You have to "wonder" about such a thing only because it didn't happen, and therefore you're reduced to spreading FUD rather than pointing to actual events.
I spent much more than 10 seconds with Google trying to find evidence of any third party using Darwin for their own projects/products and couldn't find anything. Do you have more information?
Apparently you're just not that good at actually using google, not that this is a shock or anything.
Looking at the list of "open source projects" on Apple's website, most of code was not written by Apple.
And you of course actually looked at the CVS checkins and counted up how many lines of code were contributed by people at Apple?
No, of course not, we've already established that you're not actually a developer, just some sort of weird FSF fanboy with an axe to grind.
Yes, the Mach kernel originally came out of CMU. That was, since you were not paying attention, over fifteen years ago. First NeXT and then Apple have spent the intervening time completely rewriting most of that code.
Whenever someone focuses on delivering personal attacks vs. discussing the issues, it is usually due to the fact that they have no factual argument to present and must rely on emotional attacks to confuse the issues.
Or maybe they just think you're an idiot.
First, there is indeed a lot of DRM in Mac OS X.
Repeating this over and over does not, oddly enough, make it true. You've so far come up with all of two examples, only one of which could seriously be considered an imposition on anyone's time, and neither one of which could be considered part of the operating system except in the irrelevant sense that they live on the same CD.
You also need to stop using the phrase "DRM" as if it were some sort of digital cooties. Separate application-level restrictions are a very different can of wax from hardware-to-OS-level DRM architectures such as Microsoft's proposed Palladium scheme.
Most every Apple app that deals with content has DRM code in it.
For all the fervor with which you state this, you'd almost think that it was true. Every Apple app that deals with content? Let's see, last I checked, that was:
iTunes
iDVD
iPhoto
GarageBand
Final Cut Express
Final Cut Pro
Soundtrack
DVD Player
Logic Platinum
DVD Studio Pro
Keynote
Shake
Tremor
Quicktime Player
Quicktime Pro
Quicktime Streaming Server
Quicktime Broadcaster
Of those, the only ones that contain "DRM code" that restricts what the end-user may do are iTunes, Quicktime Player, and DVD player. You could, I suppose, complain that Apple's DVD authoring software uses CSS and region codes, but since those are part of the DVD specification, that would be a stupid thing to complain about.
Three out of seventeen isn't "most", kid.
Most Mac users don't even know that there is another way to play a DVD other than using what came on the machine as part of "Mac OS X".
Wow, that must by why VideoLan and Mplayer have each had well over 100,000 downloads! Nobody knows about them!
It's called a search engine. It's all the rage.
BTW, did you ever notice those two letters "OS" in "Mac OS X"?
Why yes, yes I did. Your point?
Your technical view of the OS is certainly not what Apple considers the "OS".
Wow, I must have missed the portion of the apple developer documentation where they said that they consider bundled applications to be part of the OS! What an oversight! Surely you'll point this out to me?
BTW: Read The Fucking Article. Ironically enough, it actually explains what OS X is, and how it functions.
There is no substantial application that Apple has contributed to the open source community. There is not even one body of code similar in size and complexity to Samba or JBoss that Apple has contributed to the open source community.
You are, again, wrong. And again, you're wrong in that particularly annoying way wherein ten seconds with a search engine would have prevented you from being wrong.
The Darwin kernel (XNU) itself is easily comparable in size and scope to any major OSS project. If that's not enough, there's a full OSS implementation of zeroconf, a fully OSS streaming media server, a cross-platform game networking library, an embeddable web browser component, and god only knows how many thousands of man-hours spent on the GCC/PPC compilers.
Dare I ask what you have contributed to this "community" other than a lot of uninformed whining?