When the Darwin OS went Open Source, my biggest fear was that people would poach the code to advance Linux, and Darwin as an Open Source developed project would just die. Why is that a bad thing? Well, I personally believe there is tremendous value in corporately funded Open Source projects.
Recent developments have convinced me other wise. The strong push to port XFree86 is a big one. With it, comes xv, gimp and every other standard X11 app you can think of.
But there's a major challenger to OSX, and it's LinuxPPC. They solve similar goals. They are both true Unices. Linux has a tremendous following. OSX will have a huge following. They both have strengths. They both have weaknesses. They will both challenge each other at every turn.
In my perfect world, Apple's hard work to bring Unix to the desktop will be watched closely by the Linux community, and they'll push hard to adopt some of Apple's work. And with Apple's contributions to BSD, technical support for things like Airport, HFS+, etc. will be folded into, say Linux.
On the other side, Mac afficiandos (and the new people switching to the OSX) will demand more. Better interoperability. Stealing things from GNOME, etc. Kick-ass configuration tools.
Competition is good. The products are very similar. But you know what, there will be enough Mac-heads out there that will install both. And they'll be pushing both OS's to deliver what they want.
I don't believe Apple will keep everything "under the hood". I do believe they will have a graphical front end for pratically everything, but if you want to pop into a command line and configure things with preciseness, I doubt that will be removed. Remote administration is a requirement after all. So if we subscribe to your theory, you could "tweak every last element of your OS" with LinuxPPC and with OSX.
There is one problem though. The layout of the filesystems are different. One reason I don't like Linux, is that it's foreign to me (I grew up mostly on Solaris, with a bit of AIX for fun). Things aren't in my preferred location on Linux. The GNU-based commands actually have the gall to change what options are available and what some of them mean. It's frustrating, so when I land on Linux, I swear every half hour or so.
The same will be true with OSX vs. Linux (and vs all other Unices). The file system layout and the commands are different enough to annoy those from "foreign" systems. It will have an affect on the people willing to go from one OS to the other. Which they choose? I dunno. Whatever they're most comfortable with. Or just as likely, the one that get's their job done. If they have to run Microsoft products -- OSX, if they have to run the gimp -- LinuxPPC. If both, then both!!
For software, at least, I have seen heavy dependence on one vendor. Take away WIndows, and companies would crumble. Take away Microsoft Office, and companies would be brought to their knees.
And it's not just Microsoft products either. Companies have heavy investment (monetary and intellectual) in say, Lotus Notes. Relational Database vendors, Development environments, source control systems, meeting scheduling software. One source. If they fail to deliver, or you want to replace them, you are screwed.
I realize this is off-topic. Any gut feel as to what percentage of Government and private industries have such a policy?
Secondly, isn't Apple considered a second source supplier for desktops a la Compaq or Dell? If Dell fails to deliver, you can bring in more Macintoshes. If Apple fails to deliver, you can bring in more Dell machines. If MS Office or photoshop or Notes is late for Windows, you could get the MacOS version or vice versa.
Getting closer to being on-topic: Apple initiated clones to increase the market share of MacOS hosted systems. The market share of MacOS hosted systems didn't grow, but Apple's market share of hardware decreased. I have no hard numbers to prove this, but I expect most people accept that as fact.
Finally, to be on topic completely, let me just say that I think it is great that Apple is changing it's license based on criticisms from the OpenSource community. Based on the things they've said, I believed they understood the concept of Open Source. Others were not so easily convinced.
I like the premise of your post - remote administration is critically important, and the power of X11 delivers that. Here's a quote:
So at this point in time, remote administration of a Mac OS X machine needs to be done either with a destablizing, single-user remote control program like Timbuktu, or with the Unix command line
This is actually untrue. One of the promises of OS X is remote administration via the web. It's little extras like this that I think will make OX X a very slick server OS eventually.
I would also argue that most Unices really require remote administration via the command line anyway. X11 sends entirely too much information to be useable on anything but a fast LAN.
As for the archaic-ness of OS X's BSD directory structure: I admittedly only got to play around with administering an OS X box a little bit. I did laugh at some of the places where things existed, but I found it no less frustrating than going from a Solaris mindset to Linux.
Interesting point. Linus is one of the big reasons Transmeta has gotten a lot of press, but I think it also has something to do with the Linux connection.
After all, Corel got press for all of their "non-annoncements" not because of Cowpland, but because of the Linux connection.
Having said that, the technology is interesting, it has some big money behind it, and it's hitting all the current industry buzzwords (Internet, wireless, Linux... and it runs Windows!).
just plain try and stump him), if apple was using an open source kernel, in there OS, how could that charge for the OS, to which he replied, after thinking for a minute, "we are going to charge for the interface", to which I replied, so conceivably I could use your darwin kernel and my own interface (X windows), he said sure;)
I am somewhat amazed, but the he got it right (as did you). The Kernel is open source, and you can put on top of it whatever you want.
So it would seem that apple is trying to protect its "bells and whistles" approach to sales.
Which is also true, but I get the feeling that you don't appreciate how much is in the "bells and whistles" category. Their entire display engine is "new" -- it's vector based like postscript and PDF, and that's awesome in my books. Their Development API is a modified NextStep -- also awesome in my books. You can put X on top of Darwin (and I think there's already a project underway to do that).
The open-source part of OS X is essentially FreeBSD, along with some extra file system support for HFS+ and some Quicktime-Server technology. (There's other stuff in there too, of course)
And you lost me with your "clued" vs. non-clued argument. I'll state what I think Apple's positioning is, and you can tell me if it matches yours. They want to solidify their existing base by finally delivering a modern OS and providing a full-fledged Server OS (something they've been sorely lacking).
The bells and whistles of the Aqua interface are to try and convince third party developers the power of the new display engine and to get them to code to it.
In a nutshell, you get: The power of Unix with the software installed base of Macintosh. Cool. Can't wait.
The problem I have with this story is that we've only seen and heard one side. I followed the links, and it took me a little while to figure where it was even mentioned for the first time that Apple objected to the skins.
When I finally found the official objection, it turned out to be a rant (more or less) against Apple. What I want to see is: The official letter from some official Apple representative stating the official objections Apple had. Until I see it, I reserve judgement.
Why? Here are some possibilities that "clear Apple's name":
This is a hoax. No objections were raised, or they were raised by some "unofficial" person at Apple (like a co-op student:-))
The objection is that the theme creator lifted graphics from the Apple website (a concern also shared by skinz.org) rather than the existence of the theme itself
The only interpretation of the objection is by skinz.org -- and they have their own biases. Something said in the letter may be morally objectionable by one person, but inoccuous by others (witness Slashdot:-)). I want to see the letter so I can judge myself
Post the official objection. The wording will be more telling of Apple's position than the hearsay we've seen so far.
Now I'm getting way off topic. Every keyboard shortcut has to be programmed at the application level in Windows as well. And so it points to laziness by application programmers when keyboard accelerators are ignored.
Examples of keyboard navigation things that are often done wrong in Windows applications:
Not being able to "tab" out of a text field
Unpredictable order of elements when tabbing
Context sensitive accelerators (like if you're in a certain panel, CTRL-D means one thing, and it means something different when focus is in another panel)
Duplicate Mnemonics (which having had to choose menu mnemonics I can totally sympathize with!!!!)
Missing Mnemonics on things like buttons
Not enough accelerators!!!!
Keyboard Navigation things often done wrong in Macintosh Apps:
Not enough accelerators (although usually better than on Windows, accelerators are a necessity on Macintosh, since Menu Mnemonics don't exist)
Forgetting to put keyboard shortcuts for buttons
Both OS's API's allow switching focus between components using the keyboard. Mnemonics would be nice for the Mac, but I find 80% of the time there's an accelerator key (something that is decidedly not true for most Windows Apps). There are tons of problems with Mnemonics, however.
The standard dialogs for the MacOS (File browser, errors/alert boxes, etc) I find have better built in Keyboard navigation than Windows. The MacOS has stolen a lot of the good things from Windows (like Alt-Tab, use of the ESC as cancel, etc), whereas the Windows API has stolen a lot of the bad things from Macintosh (am I copying, or am I moving???).
As someone pointed out to me, the best UI is the one you're used to. It frustrates me to no end that something I can do simply on PlatformX requires extra hoops (or non-intuitive steps) on PlatformY. If you watch an experience keyboard navigation person on a Mac, you may be surprised at how little s/he needs to use the mouse. It just takes some getting used to.
My experience is the exact opposite of yours. Apple has been much more cogniscent of Keyboard shortcuts than Windows and CDE (the two other main platforms I use). Macintosh also tends to make these shortcuts a heck of a lot more consistent. On windows I'm forever alternating between the mouse and keyboard. On the Mac, I can do everything I want with either the Keyboard or the mouse (MY CHOICE!!). On Unix, I use the mouse essentially for keyboard focus and the occasional cut and paste. (I know, off topic, and YMMV)
As for CLI, aside from the Unix shell, I've never seen one I like. Thompson Toolkit just doesn't do it for me. I'm drooling over OS X, because you get the Unix shell (Whoppeee!) plus all the wonderful tools that come with it (in CLI form or Mac-ified!!)
OTOH, Aqua scares me in terms of UI design, because I think more effort was put on aesthetics than usuability. Then again, Apple may surprise (they usually do).
Drooling till it comes out. Expect I will be drooling after it comes out.
Your "consistency" post should also be marked as flamebait IMHO. Whether it would or not, is another question.
Fact: WindowManagerX is being ported to PlatformY.
Opinions: PlatformY interface is crappy. PlatformY has zealots that will never admit how much help it needs.
Better: PlatformY was missing this key feature, which I can now use. (notice no comment about the users of PlatformY, since it has no relevance at all to your post).
And in the irony department, you make this statement in another post: "I admit I could have left out the jab at Mac people, but considering the notorious level of insanity they demonstrate at any criticism of the Mac..."
That's just *too* funny. So like a Tim to make such an idiotic statement. (I suppose I could have left out the jab at Tims, but given how idiotic all Tims of the world are, I think the point is a valid one to make)
To sell java-based applications you pay no royalties to Sun. To download the JDK you pay no royalties to Sun. To look at the source code of the JDK you pay no royalties to sun.
If you modify the source code of the JDK and sell it, you pay royalties to Sun.
The "full source release to Sun's JavaTM Development Kit software" is not required to ship a Java application. It is only of interest if you are interested in the internals of the Java language -- perhaps if you were writing your own VM, or JDK or debugging tools. If your reasons are for "educational, evaluation or research" purposes, you are (apparently) free to look at the code. If however you are "borrowing" the code or the code concepts for commercial purposes, you'll need to negotiate with Sun.
Strictly speaking, you don't even need Sun's source code to write your own VM, JDK or debugging tools. They have specifications for the VM and the core libraries which are publicly available.
Slashdot Mirror
Recent developments have convinced me other wise. The strong push to port XFree86 is a big one. With it, comes xv, gimp and every other standard X11 app you can think of.
But there's a major challenger to OSX, and it's LinuxPPC. They solve similar goals. They are both true Unices. Linux has a tremendous following. OSX will have a huge following. They both have strengths. They both have weaknesses. They will both challenge each other at every turn.
In my perfect world, Apple's hard work to bring Unix to the desktop will be watched closely by the Linux community, and they'll push hard to adopt some of Apple's work. And with Apple's contributions to BSD, technical support for things like Airport, HFS+, etc. will be folded into, say Linux.
On the other side, Mac afficiandos (and the new people switching to the OSX) will demand more. Better interoperability. Stealing things from GNOME, etc. Kick-ass configuration tools.
Competition is good. The products are very similar. But you know what, there will be enough Mac-heads out there that will install both. And they'll be pushing both OS's to deliver what they want.
That's my rose-coloured world.
I don't believe Apple will keep everything "under the hood". I do believe they will have a graphical front end for pratically everything, but if you want to pop into a command line and configure things with preciseness, I doubt that will be removed. Remote administration is a requirement after all. So if we subscribe to your theory, you could "tweak every last element of your OS" with LinuxPPC and with OSX.
There is one problem though. The layout of the filesystems are different. One reason I don't like Linux, is that it's foreign to me (I grew up mostly on Solaris, with a bit of AIX for fun). Things aren't in my preferred location on Linux. The GNU-based commands actually have the gall to change what options are available and what some of them mean. It's frustrating, so when I land on Linux, I swear every half hour or so.
The same will be true with OSX vs. Linux (and vs all other Unices). The file system layout and the commands are different enough to annoy those from "foreign" systems. It will have an affect on the people willing to go from one OS to the other. Which they choose? I dunno. Whatever they're most comfortable with. Or just as likely, the one that get's their job done. If they have to run Microsoft products -- OSX, if they have to run the gimp -- LinuxPPC. If both, then both!!
For software, at least, I have seen heavy dependence on one vendor. Take away WIndows, and companies would crumble. Take away Microsoft Office, and companies would be brought to their knees.
And it's not just Microsoft products either. Companies have heavy investment (monetary and intellectual) in say, Lotus Notes. Relational Database vendors, Development environments, source control systems, meeting scheduling software. One source. If they fail to deliver, or you want to replace them, you are screwed.
I realize this is off-topic. Any gut feel as to what percentage of Government and private industries have such a policy?
Secondly, isn't Apple considered a second source supplier for desktops a la Compaq or Dell? If Dell fails to deliver, you can bring in more Macintoshes. If Apple fails to deliver, you can bring in more Dell machines. If MS Office or photoshop or Notes is late for Windows, you could get the MacOS version or vice versa.
Getting closer to being on-topic: Apple initiated clones to increase the market share of MacOS hosted systems. The market share of MacOS hosted systems didn't grow, but Apple's market share of hardware decreased. I have no hard numbers to prove this, but I expect most people accept that as fact.
Finally, to be on topic completely, let me just say that I think it is great that Apple is changing it's license based on criticisms from the OpenSource community. Based on the things they've said, I believed they understood the concept of Open Source. Others were not so easily convinced.
So at this point in time, remote administration of a Mac OS X machine needs to be done either with a destablizing, single-user remote control program like Timbuktu, or with the Unix command line
This is actually untrue. One of the promises of OS X is remote administration via the web. It's little extras like this that I think will make OX X a very slick server OS eventually.
I would also argue that most Unices really require remote administration via the command line anyway. X11 sends entirely too much information to be useable on anything but a fast LAN.
As for the archaic-ness of OS X's BSD directory structure: I admittedly only got to play around with administering an OS X box a little bit. I did laugh at some of the places where things existed, but I found it no less frustrating than going from a Solaris mindset to Linux.
After all, Corel got press for all of their "non-annoncements" not because of Cowpland, but because of the Linux connection.
Having said that, the technology is interesting, it has some big money behind it, and it's hitting all the current industry buzzwords (Internet, wireless, Linux ... and it runs Windows!).
I am somewhat amazed, but the he got it right (as did you). The Kernel is open source, and you can put on top of it whatever you want.
So it would seem that apple is trying to protect its "bells and whistles" approach to sales.
Which is also true, but I get the feeling that you don't appreciate how much is in the "bells and whistles" category. Their entire display engine is "new" -- it's vector based like postscript and PDF, and that's awesome in my books. Their Development API is a modified NextStep -- also awesome in my books. You can put X on top of Darwin (and I think there's already a project underway to do that).
The open-source part of OS X is essentially FreeBSD, along with some extra file system support for HFS+ and some Quicktime-Server technology. (There's other stuff in there too, of course)
And you lost me with your "clued" vs. non-clued argument. I'll state what I think Apple's positioning is, and you can tell me if it matches yours. They want to solidify their existing base by finally delivering a modern OS and providing a full-fledged Server OS (something they've been sorely lacking).
The bells and whistles of the Aqua interface are to try and convince third party developers the power of the new display engine and to get them to code to it.
In a nutshell, you get: The power of Unix with the software installed base of Macintosh. Cool. Can't wait.
When I finally found the official objection, it turned out to be a rant (more or less) against Apple. What I want to see is: The official letter from some official Apple representative stating the official objections Apple had. Until I see it, I reserve judgement.
Why? Here are some possibilities that "clear Apple's name":
Post the official objection. The wording will be more telling of Apple's position than the hearsay we've seen so far.
Examples of keyboard navigation things that are often done wrong in Windows applications:
Keyboard Navigation things often done wrong in Macintosh Apps:
Both OS's API's allow switching focus between components using the keyboard. Mnemonics would be nice for the Mac, but I find 80% of the time there's an accelerator key (something that is decidedly not true for most Windows Apps). There are tons of problems with Mnemonics, however.
The standard dialogs for the MacOS (File browser, errors/alert boxes, etc) I find have better built in Keyboard navigation than Windows. The MacOS has stolen a lot of the good things from Windows (like Alt-Tab, use of the ESC as cancel, etc), whereas the Windows API has stolen a lot of the bad things from Macintosh (am I copying, or am I moving???).
As someone pointed out to me, the best UI is the one you're used to. It frustrates me to no end that something I can do simply on PlatformX requires extra hoops (or non-intuitive steps) on PlatformY. If you watch an experience keyboard navigation person on a Mac, you may be surprised at how little s/he needs to use the mouse. It just takes some getting used to.
My experience is the exact opposite of yours. Apple has been much more cogniscent of Keyboard shortcuts than Windows and CDE (the two other main platforms I use). Macintosh also tends to make these shortcuts a heck of a lot more consistent. On windows I'm forever alternating between the mouse and keyboard. On the Mac, I can do everything I want with either the Keyboard or the mouse (MY CHOICE!!). On Unix, I use the mouse essentially for keyboard focus and the occasional cut and paste. (I know, off topic, and YMMV)
As for CLI, aside from the Unix shell, I've never seen one I like. Thompson Toolkit just doesn't do it for me. I'm drooling over OS X, because you get the Unix shell (Whoppeee!) plus all the wonderful tools that come with it (in CLI form or Mac-ified!!)
OTOH, Aqua scares me in terms of UI design, because I think more effort was put on aesthetics than usuability. Then again, Apple may surprise (they usually do).
Drooling till it comes out. Expect I will be drooling after it comes out.
I'm interested though: Do you really think "Aqua" is all that much better? Sure it "looks cool", but usuability is more important to me than looks.
Your "consistency" post should also be marked as
flamebait IMHO. Whether it would or not, is another question.
Fact: WindowManagerX is being ported to PlatformY.
Opinions: PlatformY interface is crappy. PlatformY has zealots that will never admit how much help it needs.
Better: PlatformY was missing this key feature, which I can now use. (notice no comment about the users of PlatformY, since it has no relevance at all to your post).
And in the irony department, you make this statement in another post: "I admit I could have left out the jab at Mac people, but considering the notorious level of insanity they demonstrate at any criticism of the Mac..."
That's just *too* funny. So like a Tim to make such an idiotic statement. (I suppose I could have left out the jab at Tims, but given how idiotic all Tims of the world are, I think the point is a valid one to make)
What other people have tried to tell you is true.
To sell java-based applications you pay no royalties to Sun. To download the JDK you pay no royalties to Sun. To look at the source code of the JDK you pay no royalties to sun.
If you modify the source code of the JDK and sell it, you pay royalties to Sun.
The "full source release to Sun's JavaTM Development Kit software" is not required to ship a Java application. It is only of interest if you are interested in the internals of the Java language -- perhaps if you were writing your own VM, or JDK or debugging tools. If your reasons
are for "educational, evaluation or research" purposes, you are (apparently) free to look at the code. If however you are "borrowing" the code or the code concepts for commercial purposes, you'll need to negotiate with Sun.
Strictly speaking, you don't even need Sun's source code to write your own VM, JDK or debugging tools. They have specifications for the VM and the core libraries which are publicly available.