Apple Plans To Release Rendezvous As Open Source

Snuffub writes "According to MacCentral, Apple announced during an interview today that they would be releasing Rendezvous, their implementation of the zeroconf standard, under an open source license. I can't see this as being anything but great news for everyone involved -- the community gets a mature implementation of an emerging technology, and Apple benefits as more devices are created to support Rendezvous. For everyone interested, you'll be able to download the source from Apple's site in a couple weeks." uglyhead69 adds: "The article is light on details and doesn't mention what license will be used, but it's probably safe to assume that it's the APSL."

uPnP

I believe Windows XP's Universal Plug and Play is similar to this... it auto-discovers network components, such as gateways, etc and allows the OS to determine the external IP address, for example, which is useful in some applications. But this seems a whole lot cooler... and now that it's open source, hopefully we'll see it get integrated into a lot more OSes. Apple is really good when it comes to the "innovation" and "ease-of-use" way of doing things.

Make Rendezvous Open Source!

I think Apple should allow the Open Source developer community access to the code bacause ...

oh wait. they already have?

Re:Make Rendezvous Open Source!

Why is the APSL 'restrictive'? It's been given the blessing [opensource.org] of esr and the OSI team. I'm sure rms has issues with it, but hey ...

Apple have adopted open standards in just about everything they've done without trying to damage them a la M$ & Kerberos. I've seen plenty of Embrace but absolutely no Extend nor Extinguish. Please point some out ...

They've based their entire OS core on BSD/Mach and then went on to release the sources, including those of the usual services. I just downloaded bootpd a minute ago, BTW.

Cheshire Interview about Rendevous

Recent interview post here [slashdot.org]. Stuart is awesome (he wrote Bolo).

w00t!

But seriously, how beneficial will this really be? I'm not an expert on open source (I'm not qualified for the term "beginner" either), but what advantage is this to Apple?

I can see where developers could use this to create thousands of cool applications for little tasks here and there, but what is the advantage outside of this? And how would it help the Rendezvous program grow?

what is it good for?

Suppose you want to write a distributed system.

Lots of processes running on an array of machines. Say for example you have a data center full of racks of 1U servers, and each one is cranking away on some part of the application code. You have redundant processes scattered around too, so if one machine takes a dive, you want the whole application to stay up and running anyway.

Imagine you're the administrator of this system. How do you tell each little process in the system what IP address and TCP port to use so that every other process in the system knows where to find it?

Without Rendezvous, you have several options-- all of them unappealing. You might start with some kind of application specific configuration file format and a cobbled-together system for distributing such data around to all the hosts in the system. You might instead store such network configuration in some directory server on the network, like DNS or LDAP or some kind of custom front end to some kind of evil database backend.

Either way, you quickly encounter what we veterans like to call "the cache coherency problem," i.e. the information in the directory must be consistent at all times with the actual state of the processes in the system. Whenever processes start, stop, migrate or change their profile, you have to update the directory. Solving this problem with existing technology can be expensive. If you don't solve it, then single-point failure modes proliferate and the system becomes exponentially more difficult to manage the larger it gets.

With Rendezvous, the network itself is the directory service. Since all the little processes in the system are responsible for their own advertisements, there is no cache coherency problem. You don't have to assign addresses and ports to all your processes because the application can simply assign itself a set of abstract service names and discover all the instances of those services on the network with Rendezvous service discovery. No configuration files to keep updated. No dynamic updates to LDAP or DNS servers that might get overloaded, or may not be running or in the right place when they need to be.

Of course, there are alternatives to consider. You might think to use SLP (RFC 2608-2610), which you can download now from www.openslp.org, but strangely... SLP hasn't managed to get much traction in industry. Some say that's because it's too unwieldy to use effectively.

You should compare Rendezvous with OpenSLP and see which one you think is better.

--

Re:what is it good for?

Suppose you want to write a distributed system.

You know, it is funny you mention that, because I've been wondering if/when Apple might introduce automatic clustering. The way I understand it, the threading implementation in Darwin is such that threads can not only be transferred between processors, but also between computers too. Rendezvous could let you find all the other computers on the network that will let you run code (in a sandbox, perhaps) and automatically throw threads to them if it will help.

Imagine the Photoshop benchmarks if everything was spread across a rack of XServes!

<DUCKS>

Re:what is it good for?

You should compare Rendezvous with OpenSLP and see which one you think is better.

SLP is actually part of Rendezvous/ZeroConf. The goal of ZeroConf is not to reinvent the wheel; perfectly good protocols already exist for service discovery (SLP) and name-to-address translation (DNS). The ZeroConf working group is attempting to define basic host requirements for autoconfiguration, and fill in the gaps where existing protocols are lacking.

Re:what is it good for?

You raise some points that call for rebuttal. (If you see me ignoring them, it means I think they're not worth rebutting.)

> What's wrong with TFTP or NFS or any other network filesystem?

Ever tried to deploy a distributed NFS server? By that I mean: if the primary NFS server goes down, a secondary automatically and transparently serves as a replacement without the NFS client ever having to be redirected? Such things exist. None of them are cheap.

> Then what do you call it? Because using a database sounds like a very good
> way to maintain cache coherency. You would rather state be strewn across the network?

You *already* have state strewn across the network, i.e. the availability states of the various processes that comprise the distributed system. Why try to maintain a cache of that state in a database when the processes can use the network to discover and locate one another directly?

Have you every tried to deploy a replicated database manager? Every transaction on the database must be ACID for this to work with high reliability. (ACID is an acronym, stands for Atomic Consistent Independent and Durable.) Easy to do with a monolithic database manager. Much harder to do with a replicated system. Again, such things exist. None of them are cheap.

My point: distributed systems with more single points of failure provide less reliability than systems with fewer. Rendezvous eliminates an important single point failure mode.

--

Peripherals!

The last Stevenote showed this off, a PowerbookG4 being walked in range of a Rendezvous enabled HP printer, they were configured on the fly by the OS and in seconds they were able to print to it. No wires, multiple users, no configuration. Besides iTunes p2p music library (it automatically locates other Rendezvous enabled Mac's and adds their music library to yours, streaming wise, it doesn't actually transfer the music ;) )

Many, many possibilities here.

Smart business move

This is one way Apple can align themselves more closely with users of other *NIX OSes. By helping to improve easier connectivity between various non-MS OSes, Apple is essentially saying: "Look, you can now easily hook into a Windows network on a Mac. But, you can do even more if you're using a network with OS X, Linux, BSD, et. al."

From Apple's point of view, anything that puts Microsoft outside a large pool of functionality is good. Essentially, it's an attempt to conduct a reverse embrace and extend. Take something that was already there, improve it, then give it back.

Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed. I've been using 10.2 since the public release, and I'm impressed by Rendezvous, and I can't wait to use it with Linux as well.

My implementation

I implemented one of the Zeroconf internet drafts on Linux for a class project. It can be found here [ku.edu].
It is in no way a complete implementation, but got me an 'A' grade :)

Apple didn't really have a choice...

Apple didn't really have a choice on this one. The only way their technology will become successful is if it is accepted and supported by a large number of companies. If its open source, why not include it in your next hardware release?

Autoconfiguration is Scary

It will be nice when they do release some source for this, and make all of the technical documents available. I'd like something to look over about all of this autoconfiguration software.

I mean, am I the only person this scares? Microsoft Outlook had (has) the autoexecute feature that allows virii authors to introduce new and inventive ways to drop rootkits into IIS servers.

Linux has their own little features that have to be guarded against as well. In the basis of security very few of my companies Linux boxes are running any form of FTP. Way too many security alerts, and 90% of the boxes don't need to do file transfers anyway.

Now Apple offers us a really cool and interesting technology that will allow a computer to automatically find a printer. How long before one of these virii authors writes himself an object that allows his PowerBook G4 to introduce itself to a Rendevous network and take control of several machines at once.

Here you go, a really sweet streaming virus.

I for one, hope that there isn't just a way to turn this off, but delete it entirely from a running system. Because as of right now, I'm a little more worried about this than anything new from Redmond about automatically updating my systems.

We use all *NIX on the outside anyway, so that doesn't really apply to any sensitive systems ^_^

discovery != access

Just because you can find my address in the phone book, it does't make it any easier to break into my house. Rendevous doesn't ship any actual code around, so what's to carry the virus? About the worst that can happen is multiple machines come up with the same address -- but a malicious node on your network could make that happen WITHOUT Rendevous.

Re:Autoconfiguration is Scary

I don't think you understand what Rendezvous does very well at all. It does not allow remote execution of code; it enables you to advertise and discover services on the network.

This means you don't need to know IP addresses and well known ports, or run port scanners to discover services. If your machine doesn't want to be found by Rendezvous, don't advertise your services with it.

One key thing that makes it smarter than UDDI and the like is that it is service-centric, not device-centric. You don't have to find a machine and try to open special ports to see if it has a webserver or SLP printer or SMTP relay or whatever, instead, you ask for a service that you already know the protocol for, and you find out if any devices that implement it are available.

What I'd like to see...

I'd really like to be able to take my iBook (or any networked laptop, really) into a public place with the AirPort card turned on and have it not only pick up a base station signal, but every once in a while send out a signal over the wireless card to see if there are any other non-base-stationed wireless cards present that might want to hook up for a small wireless mini-LAN. This sounds like the kind of thing Rendezvous would be a great start for. It'd be a good way to meet people, too. Set up your machine with a little program that does the 'ping' for other machines and advertises whatever it is.

Ping.
iBook, OS 10.2, anyone around?

It'd be like combining Wardriving with those weird "Beep if someone you'll consider hot is nearby." things they were selling in Japan a while ago.

I forsee a hiccup...

If Apple uses the APSL [apple.com], then the source code could not be used in Linux [kernel.org]. I'm uncertain if Debian [debian.org] would accept any APSL submissions.

The issue to my mind is that Rendezvous needs popular adoption, and rapid acceptance would be best. If Apple has it in mind to emphasis Windows' network reliablity, then a GPL license would allow the technology to be integrated into Linux, and percolate into FreeBSD via ports. If Apple wants the most rapid adoption a source license can provide, the BSD license would be best, but then Microsoft would be free to embrace & extend.

This is why I root for the GPL in this case. Rendezvous is very cool technology, so Microsoft would either have to ignore it, attack its mindshare, impliment its own version, or bend knee to the GPL. Their own implimentation would be inferior for a time, and due to demand and early deployment, Microsoft would be unfairly judged as having an incompotent implimentation, rather than a primitive one. This would add pressure to move to non-Microsoft platforms. This is good for Apple, because non-Microsoft means Unix, and in many cases, that means MacOS X.

That's aside, however. I'm afraid that an APSL license would cause the source to stagnate except for the eyes of a few Wizards that learn from the implimentation and then develop their own (L)GPLed version.

I think I'm rambling.

Re:I forsee a hiccup...

If Apple uses the APSL [apple.com], then the source code could not be used in Linux [kernel.org].

The APSL is not compatible with the GPL. This means that you could not link the APSL code directly into GPLed code such as the linux kernel. However, i do not see why the rendezvous code would need to actually be in the kernel. It seems preferable to me that a linux implementation of rendezvous would be just a daemon or something, like inetd or any other number of things are, in which case it would just be a normal program and could be under any license at all.

If for some reason i can't forsee it is somehow necessary for the rendezvous implementation to be in the kernel, it could just be done as a kernel module; there is some dispute [tux.org] as to whether it is okay for linux kernel modules to be non-GPL, but a lot of people, including Linus Tourvalds, interpret the GPL such that OS kernel modules do not have to be GPLed.

I'm uncertain if Debian [debian.org] would accept any APSL submissions.

The GNU foundation doesn't like the APSL. [gnu.org] However, debian is more aligned with OSI [opensource.org] than they are with the GNU foundation. (Correct me if this is incorrect.) Anyway, in order for Debian to include software in its core distribution, that software must fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org]. The APSL is on the OSI approved license list [slashdot.org] meaning it fits the DFSG and APSL code could be included in Debian's main codebase, no problem.

Incidentally, Debian does maintain [debian.org] a non-free portion to their distribution, it is just that this portion is not considered "part of the main distribution", and it is not always included with the install discs (it depends on how you obtain your copy of debian, as far as i can tell). But that's irrelivant here because the APSL is OSI certified!

The only reason Apple's decision not to use the GPL would be a problem, as far as i can tell, is that some people don't like to release code under non-GPL licenses, and those people may decide not to contribute to a rendezvous implementation. But other than a few offended people, that's about the extent of the problems the APSL presents.

Problems with GPL and APSL...

As I read the APSL, it's simply and open licence that also ensures that Apple remains removed from you. That seems perfectly reasonable. GNU doesn't like it because of the termination clause, but when you think about it, it's entirely nessesary. What if a version with your modifications becomes the norm, even becomes packaged with Apple machines. If that happens, and you get accused of infringing on someone elses patented work, Apple could be in serious trouble. By terminating the agreement and stopping distribution of your code, Apple can keep themselves free from you. Just because they terminate does not mean they will sue you. As near as I can tell, the APSL is a very very open license for a corporation and is what we arround here might call a Good Thing (TM).

OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL, which may be the reason corporations have been slow to take up software released under the GPL. If as you say, proprietary or APSL and other less open licensed software was not permissable within GPL software, many companies would not want to take up that software. The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software. For example, I worked for a time at a well know power company which shall remain nameless. This company had a software suit which they had purchased which provided for the creation and movement of troubleshooting "tickets". The software in it's basic form was useable, but the company had other needs. They wrote modifications to the software (with the original creators permission) to run within their networks and throughout the company. If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications and release them under the GPL, the company would not have taken up the GPL software.

Freedom is a good thing, but forcing people to open their code is almost as bad as the closed code is.

how ya doin?

I like to think of Rendezvous as a much smarter analogue to NetBEUI, which I often refer to as the "butt sniffing protocol" that Windows machines use to detect each other in the absence of IP networking.

Automatic Bolo server finder?

Methinks this is just a technology to allow Bolo players to find games without any configuration changes being required.

Bolo and WinBolo [winbolo.com] rock!

Cheers
VikingBrad

NOW you tell me!

Gee thanks Apple... after I've already gone a implemented Zeroconf myself! Just to think I could have just waited and stolen your code...

But seriously, Sharp has already embedded this technology in thier printers, so it's not just Epson, HP, and Lexmark that will be supporting this standard.

Conceptual iPod Rendezvous Use

I was talking with a buddy of mine about the possibility of putting a wireless card in the iPods and then going to a club with them. The dj would then be able to pick and mix music off of people in the club. Similar to the iTunes demo but with a little more flare.

check out CFNetServices

On your Jaguar CD, CFNetServices adds a higher level abstraction on top of zeroconf; this part most likely won't be open source, since it is in one of the higher level frameworks on the sytem (CFNetwork in CoreServices) The relevant headers are: /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/ Frameworks/CFNetwork.framework/Headers/CFNetServic es.h Using these, I was able to get my server application Rondesvousing in about 10 minutes...

Imagine a Beowolf clust... No, seriously.

Apple has yet to reveal their clustering solution for Mac OS X and Xserve, but consider how easy Rendezvous will make this task.

zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problems

and there are several problems with it.

zeroconf breaks applications in several ways, for instance:

• v4 linklocal addresses are unstable and subject to change at any time without notice to the parties using them
• they don't work well on machines with multiple network interfaces.
• existing apps don't know to avoid using linklocal addresses when they're not appropriate, and in general neither apps nor hosts have any good way to tell whether a linklocal address associated with a host is accessible without trying it and waiting for the connection to time out, or connecting and then verifying if it's really the right host (since the host you really want to talk to might be on a different network).
• nobody has figured out how to ensure consistency between multicast DNS and real DNS, so different machines talking to each other can have different ideas of what a DNS name means or even whether a name is valid at all. so applications that pass DNS names around (like the web or email or anything that uses URLs) and rely on consistency of DNS may break in strange new ways if some of the hosts are using multicast DNS and others aren't, or if the hosts using multicast DNS are on different network links.
• DNS-based service discovery is even less well understood.

zeroconf will be really nice when we figure out how to make it work well without breaking apps. It's unfortunate that Apple is trying to deploy a technology widely that has several serious known flaws and claim that it is a standard before those flaws are fixed.

Latest IETF Draft

Funny, any link for the draft you might find refers to draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-10.txt which just doesn't exist on the ietf site. So being real clever I flipped that 10 to an 11 and behold theres a new version dated the 26th.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zer oconf-reqts-11.txt [ietf.org]

I Have a Question!

Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].

To me, there seem to be no big differences, so why do people have such a problem wiht the APSL

It Would be Nice...

...if the so-called "community" would spend less time playing wannabe lawyers arguing about licensing minutiae and spend more time developing new applications for users. The users you need to attract have never heard of Richard Stallman, buy shrinkwrapped software (including Linux, if and when they do use it), and judge an OS by the quality and range of applications available to run on it.

Endless iterations of the same traditional Unix toolset, tools for the server side, and attempts to mimic Office and the Windows interface, won't cut it. Be imaginative.

When I've tried to explain Linux to people who make corporate buying decisions, their questions boil down to: Why buy a cheap knock-off when the real thing is available?

(Please try to refrain from the usual /. insults to users as too stupid to know what's good for them. In reality, they decide your future.)

Money Making

This might be a bit redundant, but it seems to me that the most interesting thing about all this is that Apple seems to have hit on a business model that actually makes money off open source software. First came OSX, which isn't really much more of a modifed PPC port of FreeBSD (Darwin) with a wicked nice (and nicely engineered) GUI (Aqua) slapped on top. Now we have Rendezvous, where Apple is making their implementation of an open standard open source, in hopes that its broad adoption will encourage people to buy Apple's software. Imagine what these guys could do with Ogg. . .

So maybe the moral of the story is this:

1. Find a niche for an open source project (using BSD to give MacOS solid underpinnings)
   
2. Add value by adding high-quality proprietary elements (Aqua) by making use of your existing strengths (GUI design)
   
3. Give back to the community (Darwin)
   
4. Profit?

Of course, you can't attribute all (or even most) of Apple's financial success to their OSS endeavours, but (and I speak from personal experience here) OSX has changed Macs from cute little toys to a viable and intiguing alternative to x86 hardware. And if Rendezvous takes off, not only will it be a boon for the community, but Apple could do quite nicely as well. In the end though, Apple might be a pretty unique case: Apple is primarily a hadware vendor, and Apple's involvement with OSS primarily adds value to the hardware it sells (I'll buy a TiBook because it's the only game in town for running OSX), and there aren't a heck of a lot of hardware vendors who are in a position to duplicate what Apple is doing.

News, news and more news...

Is it just me or does Apple seem to be basing all of their recent strategic corporate announcements on what will make headlines on /.?

not open source

I don't have time to go thru the other replies to this story.. so I don't know if someone else already posted this or not, but CNET thinks differently about the open source thing... They are saying that Apple didn't open the source.. just trying to woo open source developers. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-955988.html?tag=fd_t op But that is a confusing article anyway... the headline says one thing, article says another..???

Been there...

And yet again, we see a reimplementation of something that ITS and lispms had (in this case, through CHAOS).

Autoconfig DVD player?

This is great and all, but will it let iDVD automatically detect my non-SuperDrive DVD burner?

Apple: The Community Company?

-Flame retardant suit on-

Quicktime is the only software that Apple makes that an average non-Mac user cares about, so until they port it to other platforms which people regularly use, I won't see them as a 'community friendly' company (ie a potential Microsoft.)

If they care anything for the community, they would have ported Quicktime to Unix platforms. They're pushing websites to use their platform (Quicktime mov), but they don't provide players for any platform that doesn't have huge marketshare, thereby furthering monopoly-like status of Windows and MacOS. Hell, even Real ported to Unix when they were pushing to be the dominant steamed video platform back in the day...
As a matter of fact, there's a RealOne beta port for Unix.

Let the OS vendors do OSes and leave the multimedia to a 3rd party, please.

I can't blame them for doing what big corporations do (further their market share) but I don't have to like it or support it.

Long live Ogg!

Hope they dual-license it

Code to implement this stuff would logically be made available as a library, but if it's released under a GPL-incompatible license, it will complicate the job of using it to add support for Redezvous to Linux desktop programs, other libaries, or the kernel. This problem can be avoided if a dual-licensing approach is used, that is, terms are either GPL or whatever terms Apple prefers.

Typical Slashdotter reaction to this kind of news

Yeahbut... __insert_company_name__ refused to release component X of software Y under the licensing terms Z which directly affects me so this is totally worthless and proves that __insert_company_name__ is a big, mindless corporation that wants to make money and implant chips in their user's heads for eventually global control of all human beings so we will have no more rights.

Now, if __insert_company_name__ had released it in such a way that it directly benefited me and my work... well, then they would have been champions of freedom and respectful of me as a human being.

Oh, great. Next is "War-Peeling"

...or some such ridiculous term for rendezvous-ing where you're not wanted.

Re:Obvilusly not the GNU Liesince

in a market that is suffering, apple is actually one of the stronger performers...if you bothered to take notice :)

Umm.

I'm holding a copy of Mac OS X version 10.2, aka Jaguar, in my hands right now. It includes a functional implementation of rendezvous/zeroconf.

It was released last week, and my copy just arrived in the mail. I am going to install it just as soon as i've glanced through slashdot. I will be running it within the hour.

Is this what you call "vaporware"? Because that is not what it seems like to me.

Perhaps you should clarify yourself.

Re:Obvilusly not the GNU Liesince

Right, OS X is dying, that's why slashdot is actualy reporting on Apple relevent topics. THey have an Apple section. That's why Apple's stock is at a decently healthy $14 per share. That's why over the last 52 weeks, their lowest has been $13 per share, and their highest $26 per share. That's why the media is reporting on Apple with headlines other than "Apple is Dying". That's why Apple is one of the few companies that made any decent amount of money during the tech marcket downturn. Of course OS X is dying, just like Linux is a dead dog.

Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering...

Sorry, No.

Rendezvous is the ITEF standard "zeroconf". It is not uPNP. It might have some things in common, but it is very much a different standard.

Re:Rendevouz is a sham

what bait and switch did they pull with OSS

Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering...

True, except that the standard is known as Zeroconf. uPNP is Micro$oft marketing's name for Zeroconf.

Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering...

True, the standard itelf is nothing new. As for the idea of "plug and play" that's been arround for a long time, long before Win 98. I guess Win 98 is when M$ made it a standard set of protocols, but anyways, no it's not new, but now a commercial implimentation and software package has been open sourced and released to the community. That is a big bit of news.

As for your Moral of the Story. If that is true, then Apple did develop the standard because Apple worked with TI in creating the IEEE 1394 technology.

Re:x86...barff

hand me-downs. You mean like:

The Floppy Drive, no we had that first

The home computer, no we had that first too

The mouse, no we had that one first

The GUI, no Xerox had that but didn't want it, we got it and made it good.

Oh I know SCSI, no wait, that was another first for us.

You must mean USB, well yeah Intel developed that first, but they just sat on it, Apple ran with it and wow, now look where it is.

Oh you mean 64 bit processors for consumers, no wait that was us too.

You must mean M$ programs, no wait we had those first too.

Oh well

Rendezvous has network effect

The more Rendezvous-enabled devices and apps are out there, the more useful it is.

Does that also include using the dmca?

According to news.com [com.com]apple is using the dmca to make sure its itools software does not work with any other dvd player but there own internal ones. Apple does not care about the opensource community and like Enron care about profits above all else.

Re:Does that also include using the dmca?

Billy Gates wrote:

> According to news.com [com.com]apple is using
> the dmca

Yesterday, I wrote a posting "First version of this story did *not* mention DMCA" (read it at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38907&cid=4163 229) that gives my reasons for believing that Apple did not use the DMCA. If OWC wants to change my mind, they can show me the letter from Apple legal that mentions the DMCA.

> to make sure its itools software does not work
> with any other dvd player but there own internal
> ones

This has nothing to do with iTools (which kinda indicates that you might not have read the article you are refering to). Apple created *iDVD* to sell their SuperDrive equipped Macs. OWC was trying to warp iDVD so they could use it to sell OWC's own DVD drives. OWC was stealing Apple's work, against Apple's license, in order to compete with Apple in the DVD drive market. Apple is the victim here.

> Apple does not care about the opensource
> community

Ha! They have released Darwin and Quick Time Streaming Server (and next month Rendevous) as open source.

OS X includes such well loved open source and free software as GCC, Emacs, Apache, and Perl.

They provide documentation on using open source, such as this page (http://developer.apple.com/internet/macosx/osdb.h tml) on open source databases.

And Apple ships with Macs (compressed on the hard drive but available and free for install) and in the OS X retail boxes a free copy of their development suite (which now includes GCC 3.1). Upgrades are free for the download, or $20 for a FedEx-ed CD. This enables any Mac user that wants to, to develop as much open source as their little heart desires, without having to pay for development tools.

> like Enron care about profits above all else.

Companies have to care about their profits because their first duty is to their shareholders. But in order to get those profits (and they have to be real, not cooked books), they have to care about their customers and keeping them happy.

Apple does care about their customers, their shareholders, and even tries to benefit the industry as a whole (Firewire, Rendevous). In contrast, Microsoft takes their customers for granted, uses them, manipulates them, treats them like criminals. Microsoft also doesn't pay shareholders dividends, and their stock prices are no longer going up and up. Microsoft acquired more congresscritters than Enron, because they donated three times what Enron did in the 2000 elections. You can compare one of these two companies to Enron. The one isn't Apple.

BTW, thank you Apple, for gifting Rendevous to the open source community. It was an unexpected, and most pleasant surprise.
Yatta Jaguar!

"It's a miracle! The sea water has once again created new life."
Moll, "Rebirth of Mothra 2"

Re:open source? yeah right...

Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].

As I see it, there's no real difference there.

Re:How beneficial will this be?

Apple has proposed Zeroconf has an internet standard. It's still only in draft form: http://www.zeroconf.org/ [zeroconf.org]

If you're pushing for an Internet standard, it certainly helps to have an open source implementation of the standard. Check out the RFC describing the Internet Standards Process [ietf.org]. You'll note that a proposed standard: A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

This doesn't state that you have to release open source, but it helps the case when you want to can get other people to look at your code and see what you've done.

Also note that a draft standard requires: A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations from different code bases have been developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. Yes, they are independent implementations, but it can help other people develop theirs if they can see your source code. When my implementation doesn't interoperate with Apple's, I can actually figure out why, and whose fault it is.

So yes, releasing the source code is good if Apple wants this to become a standard.

-alain

And interview with Stuart Cheshire creator of Zero

Heres my favorit part..
http://www.gaeldesign.com/ib/mw0702_stuart.php

Now the ZEROCONF Working Group that is part of the IETF is responsible for developing and maintaining the open-standard Zeroconf networking protocols, dubbed Rendezvous by Apple. Can you give us a brief overview of these protocols and the history behind them?

The initial seeds of Zeroconf started in a Macintosh network programmers' mailing list called net-thinkers, back in 1997 when I was still a PhD student at Stanford. We were discussing the poor state of ease-of-use for IP networking, particularly the lack of any equivalent to the old AppleTalk Chooser for browsing for services. I proposed that part of the solution might be simply to layer the existing AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol (NBP) over UDP Multicast.

Re:How beneficial will this be?

awhile back apple took what appeared to be some abandonware from the old mac Sprockets system, and released it as openplay... what makes Rendezvous so useful that we think the open-source community will pick it up and run with it?

I think the key difference is the word Abandonware. In the case of OpenPlay Apple took an old basically dead piece of software they no longer cared about & weren't really using themselves and realesed it as open source. "Who knows" they figured, "maybe somebody will find a use for it."

Rendezvous on the other hand is a new technology that they use themselves and will continue to develop for their own uses whether the open source community picks it up or not. They intend to push it to third party developers & peripheral manufacturers in a way they didn't bother with OpenPlay.