Excuse me but I work on windows NT (XP) 40+ hours as a developer. I also recall running Win2k and it was pretty on my old PC but if you think Win2k is superior to OS X, then I'm afraid that you are either delusional or you are trolling. I'm thinking the latter.
Does Win2k have a GPU accelerated compositor? No. Did Win2k ship with a Bluetooth stack? No. Does Win2k have support for 32bit icons? No. Does Win2k have Fast User Switching? No. Does Win2k have a multiple local interface? No. Does Win2k have an image manipulation library framework like Core Image/Video? No. Does it ship with meta data search? No.
They are there. Those are options in the drivers for ATI cards at least. The difference betwen Windows and OS X is that that latter offers control for such features outside of the driver.
You are not a developer obviously or you would know that there is a huge difference between drivers and kernels. Switching to linux will not automagically give you drivers for everything. Have you ever tried to use either ATI gfx cards or wireless cards under your precious linux? Did you consider how they might have to rewrite code within the core frameworks that depend on Mach calls?
BTW. it is a little difficult to take someone with a userid like "LinuxRulz" seriously. Leet speak is lame.
Completely brain-damaged, as there's no way to manage the dependencies between the Applications/OS components. Until OSX ships with a package manager that handles package dependencies, it is impossible to produce and ship system components for this OS.
Are you saying that you are brain damaged? That would explain why you do not "get it". The.app packages are meant to be used to store all dependencies unique to your application. If you have need to support a suite of applications, then you would create a subfolder under/Library/Application Support/ via your installer or a preflight script in your application packages to support all your interrelated applications with a common framework.
Updates would occur either via a built-in updater in your application framework or via alters to download through a webbrowser. You do know how to maintain backwards compatibility through polymorphism and interfaces don't you?
Only larger application suites like Office or CS/CS2 install external frameworks. Again with libraries in OS X, the libraries are bundled as ".framework" bundle directories.
There is no need to "manage" dependencies other than through 10.4.x updates in OS X. You have to get out of the linux/windows mindset of spreading libraries and files all over central directories mindset. That mindset created the whole DLL hell and need for management of dependancies. If you feel the need to use a newer version of a library than what ships with the system, include it with your.app package, otherwise compile against the latest officially released version. The same holds true for libraries not usually present on systems.
Lowering the amount of mac games temporarily? Perhaps but do you really think people "like" windows and windows software. The majority of windows software has major usability and consistency issues. People like me switched to the mac because of OS X. Get it through your bloody heads slashbots, almost nobody switched because of the hardware. The only reason why I a dual booting into windows is to play games that would probably never be ported or do not have Universal patches available or in the works. That is all I use windows for. Games.
For everything else, I use OS X and I have purchased a number of shareware apps for OS X since I switched in 2002 including some upgrades to those programs.
Maybe what you say will happen but I think it is more likely that you will see Apple and OS X marketshare increase which will encourage "more" ports of not only games but applications rather than less. Have you actually used OS X on a regular basis?
I will admit that the hardware is sexy and they include some unique features with their laptops like the MBP which I bought recently but I initially bought an eMac because of OS X.
First of all, not all gamers build their own systems. A lot of them probably buy systems like alienware or something similiar. A lot of them probably also build their own systems but this has nothing to do with systems like the iMac (all in one) and the MBP (laptops). People generally do not build their own laptops. They generally choose one for portability features and gaming performance is way down on the list regardless of whether it is a mac or PC laptop.
The whole "build your own" argument is a straw man at the moment since there are no intel towers to speak of right now.
Take a look at the specs of the MBP and compare with the competition of similarly configured laptops. I'm not talking about the cheapest barebones Core duo you can find but a laptop with similar features and bundled software. The MBP is a good value all things considered.
Now you not only have a mac laptop with great features and great software like iLife but it can dual boot into windows to play games or run proprietary software only available on windows. It give you the best of both worlds.
I don't know how long it takes to reboot into linux from a windows session but OS X will reboot in a matter of seconds.
Dude, it takes less than half a minute to boot into OS X. Are you saying someone cannot wait 45-60 seconds to reboot from XP into OS X? Come on.
I think you need to figure out the difference between OS X and a mac. You have been able to run linux on macs for some time now. Does that make it any less a mac? No.
Sure you can spend 1000 on a lower spec machine but the difference between a comparable Sony Vaio "notebook" and a MBP is quite small. When you consider the bundled software, it is a bargain.
Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
If you are going to bring up OS/2 at least try to get your facts straight. OS/2 failed because people stopped porting/writing OS/2 apps when they realized they could just write Windows apps and they would also run in OS/2. Dual booting is different.
When you dual boot, you are not able to access all the great apps and tools you have on OS X when you dual boot into windows.
If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.
This might end up having a negative effect on games but I do not see it affecting other types of software.
Re:Mac fanboys become Windows users... NOT
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
The only reason people like me would reboot would be to play games. That is usually the same reason why linux users dual boot. Any productivity apps that do not have an OS X equiv. can be run through a virtualization solution like Parallels.
I switched to the mac in the first place because of the OS and the software available for it. I find OS X to be extremely productive. If you don't like Safari, you can always use Firefox or Shiira or Opera or Omniweb etc....
XP does not have the similicity of Frontrow nor does it support the remote. The iSight camera does not work either. If I want full hardware support, I will use OS X.
Bzzt! Wrong! Most switchers switched to macs (including myself) because of the OS. There seems to be the impression that people switched because of the look of the hardware. Wrong! OS X was the primary reason why I switched from my "PC" to a mac.
Actually no. OS/2 was touted as "compatible" with windows software. Dualbooting Linux and windows has not killed linux has it? If Apple were to support wine rootless and natively, then it would be comparable with the OS/2 situation. I hope that never happens.
You are the same linux zealot I responded to earlier. Listen pal, it costs "money" to support other operating systems. In order for Apple to support linux, they would have to spend time and money writing drivers for their mac specific hardware. It does not make economic sense for them to support such a small niche market.
Apple had to write (contract out work with OEMs) and test drivers for windows in order to support this "boot camp" project. Do you really think Apple would devote their money to a project that would only have the interest of a handful of geeks? No.
So they can learn how to read, for starters. Reading is important.
Yes reading is important but comprehending what you read is of an even greater importance. Have you heard of books by any chance? Books are what people used to read in the last millennium and the millennium before it.
This network issue is a software issue which was fixed by the update. Heat? Only at the top of the keyboard at the display hinge where the fan outflow is. Hello McFly? Anybody home? No display or whine issues other than from other users whining in various forums.
I supposedly have a rev "C". I call bullshit on the story.
Melinda Gates is the driving force behind all that philanthropy. Before he married Melinda you would be hard pressed to get him to donate five bucks let alone millions to charity.
I know this is the attitude but let me as you this. How often do businesses upgrade their hardware? How often do they upgrade their software? How many IT workers do you need to support a MSFT only solution. Is it cost efficient use your internal IT staff to build boxes? How many business actually buy from more than one vendor anyway? My workplace is an IBM (hardware) and MSFT shop. We are all locked into windows. Unless you are upgrading your hardware every two or less years, hardware is a fraction of IT costs.
Hardware competition is a straw man argument as most IT departments fear heterogeneity.
You must be kidding, right? Apple has built OS X on a huge amount of open source software. And I frankly can't think of a single open source initiative started by Apple that wasn't completely self-serving. I'm quite certain that there is no Apple software on my Linux system. Even the Bonjour implementation that came with my desktop contains no Apple code.
I can't think of a single open source project that was not completely self-serving. You know the old "scratch that itch" saying? Just because a project starts out as self-serving, it does not mean that it has to remain that way. Other projects can reap rewards from being involved with it.
Take Nokia for example. They took Webkit and developed a browser for their mobile device.
Tell me something, do you expect people to take you seriously with a name like penguin-collective? Do you think it instils the perception that you are capable of being anything other than a linux fanboy. Collective to me implies a lack of individual free will. Can you think for yourself?
Nobody uses Mono yet for serious applications with a wide distribution much like.NET
Quite to the contrary: applications like Banshee, F-Spot, and Muine are already an important part of many shipping Linux desktops.
Banwhat? F-Spot? Muwhat? Does the average user know what those things are?
I think you are forgetting a few technologies such as: Bonjour (fairly new), Core Data (new as of Tiger), Core Video/Core Image (new as of Tiger), Core Audio and of course Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D (latter new as of Tiger).
You're seriously out of the loop if you think any of those technologies are new, don't exist in shipping Windows or Linux systems, or that Apple invented any of the underlying technologies.
You are right, apple does provide Bonjour for windows and you can setup Zeroconfig on linux but what does that have to do with "shipping" technologies available on every install of a particular platform? Granted, Apple did not "invent" Bonjour but rather implemented the zeroconfig standard in a unique way. I would concede that.NET has something analogous to Core Data but give me a linux example. Even with.NET, you cannot just drag and drop an application like you can with Core data and Interface builder. Give me examples of Core Video/Image "shipping" on either windows or linux (no betas or third party projects please). Give me examples of Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D equivalents on "shipping" OSes. Windows XP only has GDI+ and linux does not yet have a compositing engine that is stable let alone widely available on a popular distro.
I'm out of the loop? I'm starting to work with another team on an in house.NET enterprise system and for the past 7 years, I've worked on in house Win32 enterprise system projects as well as a Perl based e-commerce system running on linux. Do you actually do any software development or you are a linux fanboy?
Are you you saying Apple did not invent Quartz Extreme or Core Image? The latter was developed by Apple in house for use in their Motion product before being released with Tiger and the former developed as a replacement for the Display postscript technology found in NextStep. If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.
Long term, I would like to see Apple move more in the FOSS direction; they are already (sort of) supporting Mono and maybe they'll finally come around to integrating better X11 support into their system.
You don't see the irony at all in what you are saying? On the one hand you ignore history of open source darwin, quicktime streaming server and other open source initiatives started by Apple and ont the other hand you advocate Mono. Mono is a reimplimentation of a MSFT standard. What happens when MSFT decides to radically alter.NET? What happens if MSFT decides to abandon.NET?
If you really want interoperability and to further open standards, you should be supporting open initiatives instead of reimplimenations of closed source software.
Nobody uses Mono yet for serious applications with a wide distribution much like.NET.
Windows: NT kernel, Avalon, and.NET.
NT kernel is over 20 years old. Avalon is not shipping yet and.NET has not been used expect for a handful of freeware apps and in house applications.
OS X: Darwin kernel, Quartz, and Objective-C/Java.
I think you are forgetting a few technologies such as: Bonjour (fairly new), Core Data (new as of Tiger), Core Video/Core Image (new as of Tiger), Core Audio and of course Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D (latter new as of Tiger).
Have you used Core Image and the Core Image composer? Have you used Interface builder?
OS 9-OS 10 was a bigger change to be sure, hence the major number change. OS 9 and OS 10 had different "native" APIs. Carbon is a special API which allowed for quick porting to OS X and it was back ported to OS 9 but Cocoa is the brand new API that OS 10.0 introduced.
Look at this explanation of version number from the Apache project. Here is a wikipedia article on versions.
As a developer, I can tell you that version number really do not have anything to with the amount of features. It has everything to do with compatibility. If you release product that you expect to be used by other software/plugins, you are expected to preserve a high level of backwards compatibility in the API you expose as long as you keep the same version number. Point releases can add to existing API calls and add new API functions as long as the old calling format is preserved and patches to point releases cannot make any changes to the API at all and only fix internal bugs.
The generally accepted convention is as follows:
- 1.x.x releases are patches to fix internal bugs.
- 1.x releases maintain API backwards compatibility with full source compatibility and high level binary compatibility while providing new API functions and completely new APIs along side depreciated API calls.
- x.0 releases make no guarantees of binary or source compatibility with previous versions and usually have completely re-factored API or new API from scratch. Each of those "point releases" of OS X have new version numbers for their kernel which signals that kernel extensions from a previous release is not guaranteed to be compatible.
I really do not understand where this idea that version numbers are tied the amount of features came from. It must have been perpetuated by marketing literature. To put it bluntly, your idea about version numbers is completely wrong.
PS. API in this case refers to Application Programmer Interface.
PPS. Ultimately published version numbers are chosen at the discretion of the developer. Some developers choose to change major version numbers which each release even when it is not justified.
Jaguar to Tiger is a 2 point minor upgrade (10.2 to 10.4).
Windows XP was a 1 point upgrade from 2000 Pro. Some would argue that it was also a minor upgrade. But what you fail to grasp is that the 10.2,10.3,10.4 is the "release" version which has nothing to do with the versioning of core components such as the kernel and frameworks. In Jaguar, the kernel was 6.x but in Tiger it is 8.x. The same thing applies for major frameworks.
Show me where 10.2 or 10.3 for that matter had anything like Core Image/Video or Core data. With each release, you were getting new or updated core frameworks and a new version of the kernel.
Google version numbers and versioning. I think you will find that many companies use a similar convention of versioning as Apple does with OS X. Specifically, google the Apache project's versioning guidelines. I think you will find that point releases do not necessarily denote the size of a release or the presence or lack of new functionality, rather it refers to binary and API compatibility. For public API calls, binary is safe in most cases and source compatibility is assured. This is the case of OS X as long as you do not call private or undocumented APIs or are not writing driver kernel modules. For a point point patch, there should be no worries about compatiblity.
Most developers only increase the full version if they are going to intentionally replace the existing apis with completely new ones or alter them to the extent that the majority of dependant software breaks.
For fuck sakes. Do you people have to bring up that small amount of money every damn time? It really was not an "investment" but rather part of an out of court settlement for the stolen Quicktime code in WMP. The other part was a commitment to continue development of Office for the mac. The latter agreement has been renewed several times and has proven lucrative for both Apple and MSFT.
Speaking of OSS, could you enlighten us as to how being an Apple user is incompatible with OSS and what a select few people running XP has anything to do with Apple and OSS other than the fact that the software will be a OSS project?
As for Apple and the OSS communityHere are a few links for you:
Slashdot Mirror
rock solid
Excuse me but I work on windows NT (XP) 40+ hours as a developer. I also recall running Win2k and it was pretty on my old PC but if you think Win2k is superior to OS X, then I'm afraid that you are either delusional or you are trolling. I'm thinking the latter.
Does Win2k have a GPU accelerated compositor? No. Did Win2k ship with a Bluetooth stack? No. Does Win2k have support for 32bit icons? No. Does Win2k have Fast User Switching? No. Does Win2k have a multiple local interface? No. Does Win2k have an image manipulation library framework like Core Image/Video? No. Does it ship with meta data search? No.
Get the picture?
They are there. Those are options in the drivers for ATI cards at least. The difference betwen Windows and OS X is that that latter offers control for such features outside of the driver.
BTW. it is a little difficult to take someone with a userid like "LinuxRulz" seriously. Leet speak is lame.
Completely brain-damaged, as there's no way to manage the dependencies between the Applications/OS components. Until OSX ships with a package manager that handles package dependencies, it is impossible to produce and ship system components for this OS.
Are you saying that you are brain damaged? That would explain why you do not "get it". The .app packages are meant to be used to store all dependencies unique to your application. If you have need to support a suite of applications, then you would create a subfolder under /Library/Application Support/ via your installer or a preflight script in your application packages to support all your interrelated applications with a common framework.
Updates would occur either via a built-in updater in your application framework or via alters to download through a webbrowser. You do know how to maintain backwards compatibility through polymorphism and interfaces don't you?
Only larger application suites like Office or CS/CS2 install external frameworks. Again with libraries in OS X, the libraries are bundled as ".framework" bundle directories.
There is no need to "manage" dependencies other than through 10.4.x updates in OS X. You have to get out of the linux/windows mindset of spreading libraries and files all over central directories mindset. That mindset created the whole DLL hell and need for management of dependancies. If you feel the need to use a newer version of a library than what ships with the system, include it with your .app package, otherwise compile against the latest officially released version. The same holds true for libraries not usually present on systems.
For everything else, I use OS X and I have purchased a number of shareware apps for OS X since I switched in 2002 including some upgrades to those programs.
Maybe what you say will happen but I think it is more likely that you will see Apple and OS X marketshare increase which will encourage "more" ports of not only games but applications rather than less. Have you actually used OS X on a regular basis?
I will admit that the hardware is sexy and they include some unique features with their laptops like the MBP which I bought recently but I initially bought an eMac because of OS X.
The whole "build your own" argument is a straw man at the moment since there are no intel towers to speak of right now.
Take a look at the specs of the MBP and compare with the competition of similarly configured laptops. I'm not talking about the cheapest barebones Core duo you can find but a laptop with similar features and bundled software. The MBP is a good value all things considered.
Now you not only have a mac laptop with great features and great software like iLife but it can dual boot into windows to play games or run proprietary software only available on windows. It give you the best of both worlds.
I don't know how long it takes to reboot into linux from a windows session but OS X will reboot in a matter of seconds.
I think you need to figure out the difference between OS X and a mac. You have been able to run linux on macs for some time now. Does that make it any less a mac? No.
Sure you can spend 1000 on a lower spec machine but the difference between a comparable Sony Vaio "notebook" and a MBP is quite small. When you consider the bundled software, it is a bargain.
When you dual boot, you are not able to access all the great apps and tools you have on OS X when you dual boot into windows.
If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.
This might end up having a negative effect on games but I do not see it affecting other types of software.
I switched to the mac in the first place because of the OS and the software available for it. I find OS X to be extremely productive. If you don't like Safari, you can always use Firefox or Shiira or Opera or Omniweb etc....
XP does not have the similicity of Frontrow nor does it support the remote. The iSight camera does not work either. If I want full hardware support, I will use OS X.
Bzzt! Wrong! Most switchers switched to macs (including myself) because of the OS. There seems to be the impression that people switched because of the look of the hardware. Wrong! OS X was the primary reason why I switched from my "PC" to a mac.
Actually no. OS/2 was touted as "compatible" with windows software. Dualbooting Linux and windows has not killed linux has it? If Apple were to support wine rootless and natively, then it would be comparable with the OS/2 situation. I hope that never happens.
Apple had to write (contract out work with OEMs) and test drivers for windows in order to support this "boot camp" project. Do you really think Apple would devote their money to a project that would only have the interest of a handful of geeks? No.
Unfortunately, Bambios does not include drivers. This solution works and apparently gives you full driver support including video drivers.
Yes reading is important but comprehending what you read is of an even greater importance. Have you heard of books by any chance? Books are what people used to read in the last millennium and the millennium before it.
I supposedly have a rev "C". I call bullshit on the story.
Melinda Gates is the driving force behind all that philanthropy. Before he married Melinda you would be hard pressed to get him to donate five bucks let alone millions to charity.
Hardware competition is a straw man argument as most IT departments fear heterogeneity.
I can't think of a single open source project that was not completely self-serving. You know the old "scratch that itch" saying? Just because a project starts out as self-serving, it does not mean that it has to remain that way. Other projects can reap rewards from being involved with it.
Take Nokia for example. They took Webkit and developed a browser for their mobile device.
Tell me something, do you expect people to take you seriously with a name like penguin-collective? Do you think it instils the perception that you are capable of being anything other than a linux fanboy. Collective to me implies a lack of individual free will. Can you think for yourself?
Quite to the contrary: applications like Banshee, F-Spot, and Muine are already an important part of many shipping Linux desktops.
Banwhat? F-Spot? Muwhat? Does the average user know what those things are?
I think you are forgetting a few technologies such as: Bonjour (fairly new), Core Data (new as of Tiger), Core Video/Core Image (new as of Tiger), Core Audio and of course Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D (latter new as of Tiger).
You're seriously out of the loop if you think any of those technologies are new, don't exist in shipping Windows or Linux systems, or that Apple invented any of the underlying technologies.
You are right, apple does provide Bonjour for windows and you can setup Zeroconfig on linux but what does that have to do with "shipping" technologies available on every install of a particular platform? Granted, Apple did not "invent" Bonjour but rather implemented the zeroconfig standard in a unique way. I would concede that .NET has something analogous to Core Data but give me a linux example. Even with .NET, you cannot just drag and drop an application like you can with Core data and Interface builder. Give me examples of Core Video/Image "shipping" on either windows or linux (no betas or third party projects please). Give me examples of Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D equivalents on "shipping" OSes. Windows XP only has GDI+ and linux does not yet have a compositing engine that is stable let alone widely available on a popular distro.
I'm out of the loop? I'm starting to work with another team on an in house .NET enterprise system and for the past 7 years, I've worked on in house Win32 enterprise system projects as well as a Perl based e-commerce system running on linux. Do you actually do any software development or you are a linux fanboy?
Are you you saying Apple did not invent Quartz Extreme or Core Image? The latter was developed by Apple in house for use in their Motion product before being released with Tiger and the former developed as a replacement for the Display postscript technology found in NextStep. If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.
You don't see the irony at all in what you are saying? On the one hand you ignore history of open source darwin, quicktime streaming server and other open source initiatives started by Apple and ont the other hand you advocate Mono. Mono is a reimplimentation of a MSFT standard. What happens when MSFT decides to radically alter .NET? What happens if MSFT decides to abandon .NET?
If you really want interoperability and to further open standards, you should be supporting open initiatives instead of reimplimenations of closed source software.
Nobody uses Mono yet for serious applications with a wide distribution much like .NET.
Windows: NT kernel, Avalon, and .NET.
NT kernel is over 20 years old. Avalon is not shipping yet and .NET has not been used expect for a handful of freeware apps and in house applications.
OS X: Darwin kernel, Quartz, and Objective-C/Java.
I think you are forgetting a few technologies such as: Bonjour (fairly new), Core Data (new as of Tiger), Core Video/Core Image (new as of Tiger), Core Audio and of course Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D (latter new as of Tiger).
Have you used Core Image and the Core Image composer? Have you used Interface builder?
Look at this explanation of version number from the Apache project. Here is a wikipedia article on versions.
As a developer, I can tell you that version number really do not have anything to with the amount of features. It has everything to do with compatibility. If you release product that you expect to be used by other software/plugins, you are expected to preserve a high level of backwards compatibility in the API you expose as long as you keep the same version number. Point releases can add to existing API calls and add new API functions as long as the old calling format is preserved and patches to point releases cannot make any changes to the API at all and only fix internal bugs.
The generally accepted convention is as follows:
- 1.x.x releases are patches to fix internal bugs.
- 1.x releases maintain API backwards compatibility with full source compatibility and high level binary compatibility while providing new API functions and completely new APIs along side depreciated API calls.
- x.0 releases make no guarantees of binary or source compatibility with previous versions and usually have completely re-factored API or new API from scratch. Each of those "point releases" of OS X have new version numbers for their kernel which signals that kernel extensions from a previous release is not guaranteed to be compatible.
I really do not understand where this idea that version numbers are tied the amount of features came from. It must have been perpetuated by marketing literature. To put it bluntly, your idea about version numbers is completely wrong.
PS. API in this case refers to Application Programmer Interface.
PPS. Ultimately published version numbers are chosen at the discretion of the developer. Some developers choose to change major version numbers which each release even when it is not justified.
Jaguar to Tiger is a 2 point minor upgrade (10.2 to 10.4).
Windows XP was a 1 point upgrade from 2000 Pro. Some would argue that it was also a minor upgrade. But what you fail to grasp is that the 10.2,10.3,10.4 is the "release" version which has nothing to do with the versioning of core components such as the kernel and frameworks. In Jaguar, the kernel was 6.x but in Tiger it is 8.x. The same thing applies for major frameworks.Show me where 10.2 or 10.3 for that matter had anything like Core Image/Video or Core data. With each release, you were getting new or updated core frameworks and a new version of the kernel.
Google version numbers and versioning. I think you will find that many companies use a similar convention of versioning as Apple does with OS X. Specifically, google the Apache project's versioning guidelines. I think you will find that point releases do not necessarily denote the size of a release or the presence or lack of new functionality, rather it refers to binary and API compatibility. For public API calls, binary is safe in most cases and source compatibility is assured. This is the case of OS X as long as you do not call private or undocumented APIs or are not writing driver kernel modules. For a point point patch, there should be no worries about compatiblity.
Most developers only increase the full version if they are going to intentionally replace the existing apis with completely new ones or alter them to the extent that the majority of dependant software breaks.
Speaking of OSS, could you enlighten us as to how being an Apple user is incompatible with OSS and what a select few people running XP has anything to do with Apple and OSS other than the fact that the software will be a OSS project?
As for Apple and the OSS communityHere are a few links for you:
Apple's involvement with OSS.
Freshmeat OS X projects
Source Forge Projects