Apple Announces New Open Source Efforts 323
Today Apple announced a few expanded open source efforts. First, beginning with Mac OS X 10.4.7, the Darwin/Mac OS X kernel, known as "xnu", is again available as buildable source for the Intel platform, including EFI utilities. Second, iCal Server, Bonjour, and launchd are moving to Apache 2.0 licensing. And finally, Mac OS Forge has been launched, as the successor to OpenDarwin as a conduit for hosting projects such as WebKit that were formerly hosted by the OpenDarwin project's servers, such as WebKit. Mac OS Forge is sponsored by Apple. DarwinPorts has already moved to its own servers. Update: 08/08 01:43 GMT by J : The official Apple announcement is now out. Other fun news: Leopard will ship with Ruby on Rails.
Official Apple announcement (Score:5, Informative)
From: Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka@apple.com
Date: August 7, 2006 4:15:51 PM PDT
To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, fed-talk@lists.apple.com
Subject: Apple Opens Up: Kernel, Mac OS Forge, iCal Server, Bonjour, Launchd
Hi all,
In conjunction with this week's Developer Conference, we have four great pieces of news for Open Source developers:
A. Intel Kernel Sources
As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarb
B. New "Mac OS Forge" for Community Projects
Mac OS Forge, a new community site hosted by Apple, is being created to support WebKit and other open source projects focused on Mac OS X, especially those looking to transition from OpenDarwin.org.
http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
C. New Open Source Calendaring Server
In order to encourage community participation, source code to the new iCal Server in Leopard Server is now available on Mac OS Forge under the Apache License.*
http://collaboration.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
D. Apache-Licensed Bonjour and Launchd sources
To further enable and encourage cross-platform adoption, the APSL** sources for Bonjour service discovery and Launchd process management are being re-released under the Apache License and hosted on Mac OS Forge:
http://bonjour.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
http://launchd.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
Apple is more excited than ever about the power of Open Source development to create value for our (and your) products and customers. I'll be offline much of this week due to WWDC, but I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to Leopard.
Sincerely,
Ernest Prabhakar
Open Source Product Manager, Apple
WWDC 2006, Aug 7-11, San Francisco
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc [apple.com]
* Apache License, Version 2.0
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html [apache.org]
** Apple Public Source License 2.0
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt [apple.com]
And as always, Darwin and Darwin component sources are available here:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]
Re:Official Apple announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Official Apple announcement (Score:2)
Re:Official Apple announcement (Score:2)
Darwin on PC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2)
Darwin isn't designed to be run without OS X for desktop usage & it certainly shouldn't be used in production.
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, Apple's future is likely in hypervisors--small kernels that allow Linux, Darwin, BSD, and NT to run on top of them. In a sense, that's what Mach was supposed to be from the beginning, but it's being achieved using different technologies now.
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
Most os's today are open source such as Solaris and the free unixies.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:5, Interesting)
.
So last year when my GF got a Mac Mini and I started using OS X, I've come to realize that I'll gratefully pay money for Quality closed-source software. I've since even bought iWork '06, and I never would have thought I'd pay money for an Office Suite.
So what you say might be true for a select few of the harder-core FOSS zealots, but I don't see why FOSS zealots would have even been on the Mac platform anyway if they're as zealous as to switch merely for the closing of Xnu. But anyway, for the rest of the 99% of the computing populace, this OSS initiative will be welcomed.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
Thing is, I won't pay to upgrade from 10.3.9, and I can't friggin' make either Fink or GCC work on what I have. That means I'm stuck with substandard versions of AbiWord and OO.o, and general frustrations with Scribus, Inkscape, etc. All of it just works on Ubuntu.
Not that there haven't been frustrations there, too (wireless? "release keys???"), bu
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:3, Informative)
However, in the interest of helping a new convert stay on the side of the light, if you ever miss the popular windows games, you should consider Cedega from TransGaming. Several guys here in my office run it on their Gentoo or Debian boxes (so it'll probably work on Ubuntu also), and play World of Warcraft and Battlefiel
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
Care to quantify that? What? You can't? You mean you're only talking about a handful of bloggers? And even though many read their rants for amusement, does that bless their scribblings as a bellwether for OS X? It doesn't? Oh, I see.
Some may have "gone over" to Linux, but I don't think Apple loses sleep over it. I don't, and I fail to grasp what bearing it has on Apple's a
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. If you switched to OS X because you are a hard core FOSS person, you're an idiot. OS X is not open source. It never was, it never will be. Linux will ALWAYS be more open. Apple may open the kernel and various low level things, but OS X in total will not be. It's a great OS and if you want a no-fuss desktop with true Unix under it, it's great. If you want to be that hardcore ("Apple was late so forget them") then why did you choose a proprietary closed-source OS in the first place?
As for the comment that most OSes are open today, that's because you can't survive otherwise. No one has survived the desktop/server space except MS (who was once up near 100% of the market) and Apple (who bundles with their computers). Solaris is open because it wasn't profitable enough. OS/2 died. BeOS died. At this point, if you want your new general purpose desktop/server OS to have a chance in hell it has to be open source. The only way to live and be proprietary is to have a niche and run on custom or embedded hardware.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:5, Interesting)
During the whole antitrust thing, Be had gone to the DoJ and presented their case to them stating that, basically, with all the evidence they had, it was an open and shut case against M$. the DoJ, for whatever reasons, decided to instead focus on the fact that IE was bundled and embedded inside windows.
Be's case was that M$ was using unfair business practices to force them out of the industry. the M$ contract, to bundle and pre-install windows with your computers was that you were not allowed to sell any other operating system software, even if you bundle windows in addition to Windows, whether it's installed or not, or sold separately.
I believe it was Toshiba that was in talks with Be to bundle their OS as a dual-boot option, but M$ started throwing their lawyers at them.
The reason this didn't hit mainstream was that this contractual agreement between vendors and M$ was protected as a trade secret.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
I wonder if this will change with Vista?
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:3, Funny)
No, your mod points from yesterday are gone for good.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is the exception, because they are 90% of the market. The reason you can't have a proprietary OS is because you can't get past MS. At this point, it is currently impossible.
The only exception I can think of this would be to have a proprietary OS and give it away for free. Even then, you'd have a very tough time.
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2)
Very nice ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually... (fan controller) (Score:5, Informative)
This is a marked difference from the hardware sudden motion sensors, which CAN be accessed via software APIs on Macs; this is why a couple of funky hacks using the SMS, like iAlertU, or switching virtual desktops by tapping the side of the screen, were done on Mac notebooks first (IBM notebooks with similar sudden motion sensors did not have APIs exposing them).
I understand why Apple won't release actual APIs for these--the last thing they'd want is anyone accidentally (or purposefully) changing the fans to turn on far hotter than when they do now. What I DON'T understand is why they didn't design the firmware to allow a system preference that uses the current setting as the maximum threshold, with a couple of options to start the fans at lower temperatures.
Interesting; G5 is in software. (Score:5, Interesting)
At least on the G5, the firmware acts only as a "fail safe." If the software doesn't come up after some reasonable amount of time and take control of the fans, and keep the core temperatures within a normal range, it will kick the fans on to keep the system from melting (or going into some sort of thermal-shutdown mode, also bad).
You could test this easily by rebooting the machine into single-user (recovery, safe, whatever you want to call it) or target disk mode, in which all the hardware/firmware systems ought to be running normally, but many parts of the system aren't loaded, and watching what happens: after a delay, the fans would be ramped up to their highest setting and left there. The intelligent control normally performed (which regulates the fans/pumps based on temperature) doesn't happen at all.
Seems like it would be a pretty easy test on any other machine to reboot it in Target Disk mode or single-user mode (maybe it was open firmware mode), and watching what happens to the fans, to see if they're managed by a firmware system, or by a combination of hardware and a kernel extension.
Re:Interesting; G5 is in software. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not uncommon to need to provide about half of the fan's rated power before it will spin up when stopped, so providing an initial full-power jolt to the fans helps make sure that they are really spinning; once they are, it's OK to slow them down even below the point where they wouldn't be able to start from
OSx86 (Score:2, Interesting)
I Thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Thought... (Score:4, Informative)
Why? The x86 kernel sources almost certainly have references to Woodcrest and quad CPUs, which Apple wouldn't have wanted to expose until the hardware announcements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about WebKit? (Score:3, Funny)
You prefer Miicrosoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yeah, my MacPro order is in already.
Re:You prefer Miicrosoft? (Score:3, Funny)
Don't tell me about it, I was there. (Score:2)
If it wasn't for Apple you'd still be stuck with CGA graphics.
Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there. (Score:3, Insightful)
.
And in reality your statement (as well as mine here) are quite misleading because both systems could only simultaneously display a handful of colors (out of a palette of 4096).
But anyway, if you're going to dis Apple at least do a proper comparison.
Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, Windows, Linux, and OS X are all good platforms for open source applications: for work I 'live' using open source applications that really run great on all three OS platforms: Emacs, Eclipse, Ruby, LaTex, OpenOffice.org, and others...
Commercial products that I rely on also run well on all three OS platforms: IntelliJ, LispWorks, and Franz Lisp.
The only commercial application that I love to use that is single platform is OmniGraffle (OS X).
I actually have a psmall oint here: as Linux gets better (and Ubuntu is approaching OS X in usability for my work, and is roughly on par with Windows), people like myself will likely use Linux and non-programers OS X or Windows.
Anyway, I checked out Apple's new OS site FTFA, and it looks useful. Some enthusiasts will likely get Apple's open source OS core up and running with X Windows, etc., and make a free distribution, but I am not sure what the point is.
Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (Score:2)
I agree. Over the past few years I've seen just how bad Windows is for the average person. This is through a combination of exposure to Linux and later OS X. If OS X didn't exist (or I couldn't afford the Mac) then I would run Linux. OS X is worth the extra cost. But if that is an issue, then I can see using Linux. It may come time that Linux surpasses OS X.
I also agree about the Xnu being open source. It's cute and all, but for practical reasons who cares? They have nice projects that I can see being usef
Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (Score:2)
I agree for the near-term, but probably not for the reason you think. I think areas where people's time aren't as valuable and there are more unemployed people around to do "grunt" technical work, Linux makes a huge amount of sense. In countries where peop
What about college kids? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not in Switzerland (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (Score:2)
Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (Score:3, Funny)
(tapping foot) (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not open J2SE mods? (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason I really care is that I can't use anything but Java 1.4 on our OS 10.3 systems; I have no interest in upgrading to 10.4 except for the fact that Apple refuses to port J2SE to such an old and outdated os as OS 10.3
Re:Not allowed by Sun (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's Java contract with Sun does not allow it to give away any of it's Mac OS JVM code.
Blame Sun.
Not Apple.
Apple is simply trying to strike a balance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my couple of my petty cents.
Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance... (Score:2, Informative)
Your statement implies that people contributing to open source and/or free software projects/efforts/whatever aren't always compensated, and also that compensation equates with financial gian. Contribution alone suggests that there is some interest already at stake. This list is by no means comprehensive, but here are some common motivations:
1) Challenge. Perhaps someone's working on som
Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (Score:2)
It's not really love, it's just them looking at Ruby on Rails, and being pissed off because Ruby on Rails is like their own product WebObjects, except it doesn't suck.
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!] (Score:4, Informative)
Read the email addresses, and note that Laurent Sansonetti is one of the five RubyCocoa developers (lrz).
I guess you'll be wanting to apologise to the previous poster.
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!] (Score:3, Insightful)
If only they would put OpenOffice on it (Score:2)
Microsoft ... (Score:2)
Does this mean Microsoft will consider open sourcing parts of it's NT 'Vista' OS? If Apple is willing to embrace Open Source community then Microsoft should seriously consider it. It would appear Microsoft is dragging it's feet in accepting Open Source.
Retractions, Please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any of those sites now care to print a retraction, and admit they actually had no solid information whatsoever, that they were building their stories up from the fact of this delay plus rampant speculation?
For a few weeks there it seemed every tech site on the planet was decrying how Apple had abandoned Open Source, was not giving anything back, was closing the kernel, and how this was going to negatively impact Apple's customers and benefit Linux on the desktop.
And now, at Apple's own developer conference (of all places) they release that source code. Isn't anyone pointing that out to the sites who said it wasn't going to happen? Or are they already claiming that the only reason Apple did it was because of their articles?
Re:Retractions, Please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is the right thing to do if you make remarks about someone or something that are untrue.
Apple's Teams (Score:5, Interesting)
This along with the iCal Server leads me to believe that OS X Leopard will include systemwide collaboration functionality that will integrate with any Apps that are programmed to use it. More evidence: How come during the demo of iChat's ability to share Keynote presentations, photos, videos, etc., we never saw the interface for the person sharing the documents? I would guess it's part of Leopard's collaboration system, named Teams.
Re:Apple's Teams (Score:3, Informative)
http://images.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/ima
Notice the "Teams Directory" window in the background.
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware -- but it'll happen. Because Steve is sm
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Development and support of OS X is eased by the fact that Apple controls the hardware. I might agree that it can happen, but it isn't going to happen soon & there's no business reason to make OS X available on commodity PCs anytime this year like you want (which is why they didn't--Steve is, as you say, a smart dude).
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
To shri
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a business. If what you say were true, they would be a software company, not a hardware company. They already did the Mac-licensing thing in the 90s.
I would really be interested in what you're basing your claim on that hardware isn't more profitable than software, at least for Apple. Would you tell Apple to stop selling iPods and instead be a FairPlay/iTunes software
Not hardware/software--integrated (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple does not sell hardware; they sell computers. Computers are products that are made up of both hardware and software, which work together. The question is not one of raw profits, but of vision and strategy in the computing market.
Yes, I know Microsoft makes a lot of money with operating systems. But first of all they don't cost $350-$1000 (where did you get this number in a d
Uhm... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're conveniently forgetting that most people would simply not buy Mac OS X for PCs. Yeah, the margins are higher for software than for hardware. Doesn't matter if you ain't selling any.
And even with the high margins, Apple makes more money on each Mac sold than on each Mac OS X box sold if the box is priced below 400 US$.
Look at Be OS: It was free, and people still didn't want it.
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Mac OS works fine on all recently released Macs, meaning dozens of mainboards and video cards, and will work fine on systems to come. USB and Firewire peripherals are all supported. All hard drives and most memory brands work fine.
Seems to me all they'd have to do is charge equipment manufactures for the privilege of a "Designed for Mac!" seal, and add a little line of code to the new hardware dialog which indicates whethe
Re:OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
One easy example is that Rosetta relies on SSE3. Apple has released an OS that takes advantage of features not found on "legacy" chips (including rather recent ones). While allowing a "designed for Mac!" brand could be useful, but I doubt anything would be branded that wasn't also high-end & so wouldn't be that much cheaper. (And, to respond to other posters:the markup on bleeding edge hardware is quite high.)
I think tha
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Apple doesn't need that kind of hassle, nor do the
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no. The downside to selling PC-compatible OS X that people seem to keep forgetting is a company based in Redmond.
Without getting too much into the Linux for the desktop argument, I think its hard to deny that a PC-compatible OS X would be the biggest challenge to Windows thats ever been mounted. Unlike Linux, or BeOS, or even OS/2, Apple has an incredible combination of worldwide brand recognition, reputation for user friendliness, and a broad software base. Right now, Apple and Microsoft can manage to stay in coopetition in the OS market; Apple can take as many pot shots at Microsoft as they want, because as long as OS X only (officially) runs on Apple hardware, Apple is not in direct competition with them. The moment an OS X box appears on shelves at your local Best Buy that Apple intends for you to install on your Dell, HP or Lenovo, that wall is down.
The reason you arent going to see OS X for PCs any time soon has little to do with profit, and a lot to do with the fact that doing so means a fight to the death with Microsoftand no, I dont think Im engaging in hyperbole. In that circumstance, Microsoft would do everything they could to kill OS X dead. No Microsoft Office for Mac. No Microsoft anything for Mac. License changes to make running Windows on Mac hardware illegal. (And this is without suggesting any dirty trick like Microsoft was accused of in their fight with DR-DOS and BeOS, both of which were arguably far less threatening than OS X would be.)
Re:OS X (Score:2)
And for every person like you who could earn them $129 buying OS X but deciding to hack up an illegal copy, there'll be ten people deciding to go with a $2499 Mac Pro instead of a Dell. You're right, I'm sure Dell is anxious to sell OS X for Dells. That doesn't mean it make se
Re:OS X (Score:4, Funny)
Wait.. are you saying Apple won't Open Source OSX, or that they pwnd OSS?
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that open source is a flawed development methodology, but rather that there is a persistent, and unflinching lack of understanding in the OSS community of what makes Mac OS attractive to a large number of users. I'll give you a hint. It's not POSIX-ish compatibility, it's not Cocoa, it's not even the pretty Aqua widgets themselves.
People are drawn to, and continue to use Macs because of the way the userspace functions. The pretty icons catch their eye, the nifty effects wow them, but in the end, it is how all the pieces fit together as a whole, and how that larger piece works. Commonality of behavior and interaction between various applications makes the user comfortable and allows them to be more productive. The GUI is simply the glue that brings these pieces together. Mac OS applications are user-oriented, while there is still a pervasive developer-oriented ideal running through open source efforts. "If you want it to be different, just code it yourself" is still an underlying principle in many corners of OSS development that completely goes against the core Mac OS attitude, and ultimately relegates the open source community to spending the foreseeable future isolated in its current markets.
OSS efforts have been hammering away at various desktop concepts for years with little success outside the relatively small circle of open source die-hards. They put in new effects, they make spiffier icons, they do all of this, but fail to recognize that improvements to the presentation of information need to be geared to facilitating the user's interaction with it. That's not happening. The reason is ego, Not Invented Here syndrome, and a simple lack of cohesive vision that will never be remedied until there is a sea change in the way developers view their relationship with the user and one another.
Saying that all you need to do is port Aqua and people will abandon the Mac, betrays a complete lack of understanding as to why Mac users love OS X.
Re:OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always used a shell since 16MB was a chunk of RAM, and it's going to stay that way. Every time I've tried out a new Desktop Environment I've just ended up frustrated at the waste of time that it was. Geez, guys - at least borrow some old Mac ru
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Who cares? Everyone spends 99.9% of their time in Firefox and Thunderbird which looks the same everywhere.
However, will that girl be impressed if you don't have the apple logo on your laptop?
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Actually, it looks like a poor knockoff.
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Apple is really a solutions company. They give you the complete package to get done what you need to get done, without you worrying about the fine details. From the high end they'll sell you a server environment (Xserve + RAID + OS X Server), at the low end they'll sell you a system to let you browse the web, play with photos and make simple movies (iMac or MacBook + OS X), etc. And anywhere inbetween, they give you the tools for you to do what you want. They give you the solutions.
Sure they sell hardware, they sell software, but look where they're aiming their market, and you'll see it's really solutions they sell.
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as a point of clarification... Apple's solutions in this arena are more like mid end. The high mid end, at best.
The problem with Apple's SAN offerings is that while there is some redundancy in the box, you can't connect the same array to two SAN fabrics. This is a serious drawback for any true "high end" work.
Apple (Score:2, Informative)
No actually they are open for a purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.
Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).
I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:
---
Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery [roughlydrafted.com]
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.
BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses [roughlydrafted.com]
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.
The Revolution Will be Open Sourced! [roughlydrafted.com]
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?
Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes? [roughlydrafted.com]
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.
The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth [roughlydrafted.com]
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.
---
BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:2)
Most new Macs are no more "custom," "crazy," or "nonstandard" than the average laptop, you know.
Re:OS X (Score:2)
1) Apple most assuredly designed the new Mac Pros, as they are an evolution of the G5 case. Beyond that, Apple co-designed the motherboard, as I don't think Intel makes one with Firewire 800;
2) Apple is most assuredly are a hardware company, as they make most of their money selling hardware, just as Dell does. Dell doesn't design their systems, either: they buy in bulk, toss it into a box and sell it. Apple actually does much more industrial design than does Dell;
3) Very few large compani
PowerPC is to remain open (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First post (from a mac) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First post (from a mac) (Score:2)
Re:First post (from a mac) (Score:2)
Whether you like something or not (hopefully) has nothing to do with your ability to recognize reality.
Re:Retraction? (Score:2, Funny)
LK