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."

How to make folks use your technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the challenge for Apple has been to get peripherals makers and consumer electronics manufacturers to use Rendezvous in their products. What better to do this than to open source the only working implementation of the zeroconf standard?

Peripherals!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Infonaut]

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

[The-Dork]

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...

[dfj225]

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?

I forsee a hiccup...

[DarkVein]

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.

NOW you tell me!

[El]

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.

Re:uPnP

[j h woodyatt]

Actually, the only thing they have in common is that they both use the as-yet-unofficial IETF standard for IPv4 link-local address self-assignment. Everything else about the two initiatives are completely different.

Check your facts.

--

Re:what is it good for?

[Maserati]

NeXT had a distributed processing system. Making an autoconfing cluster available would be a big win for Apple. Any graphic design shop does a lot of CPU intensive work, making the LAN be the cluster would be so useful it would be scary. I'm thinking of our Splash server right now, but big Photoshop filters or 3D rendering would also benefit.

Time to invest in switches to the desktop if you haven't already, this will seriously increase your network utilization.

Coolness factor

[XNormal]

Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed.

I think that the coolness factor may have played a big part in Apple's reasons for this business move.

The hackers of the Open Source community are addicted to cool and will use this technology and exploit it to the maximum. I think this may have an even bigger effect than Sun's open sourcing of StarOffice because an office suite just doesn't have the same coolness factor. Sure, it's very important and the OpenOffice team have been doing a great work but it just doesn't scream "play with me!" to tinkerers and gadget freaks like this does...

Re:Money Making

[Melantha_Bacchae]

ZigMonty wrote:

> I was under the mistaken impression that the only
> FreeBSD stuff in the Darwin kernel was the
> filesystem and network code (and a bit more, I'm
> oversimplifying). I somehow got the idea that it
> had a completely different driver model (IOKit)
> and a completely different core (Mach). Silly me
> thought most of it came from NeXT.

Apple has a good explanation of Darwin here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.h tml):

>> Darwin is a complete BSD UNIX implementation,
>> derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open
>> Source distribution. Darwin uses a monolithic
>> kernel based on FreeBSD 3.2 and the OSF/mk Mach 3,
>> combining BSD's POSIX support with the
>> fine-grained multithreading and real-time
>> performance of Mach. Darwin also provides a
>> complete shell environment based primarily on
>> NetBSD 1.4

Or another way to put it:

Darwin, child of NeXT, combines the best of all BSDs, with the finest kitchen sink money can buy thrown in for good measure. ;)

"Heart can reach where hand cannot. Climb over any wall..."
Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"