Safari vs. KHTML 553
Johnny Mnemonic writes "CNET has a story that describes the divergence between the code base of Safari and KHTML. Although there were high hopes that Apple would contribute significantly to the OSS project, that optimism has all but disappeared. Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend? Can OSS code and goals harmonize with the goals and needs of corporation designed code? Is it that Apple mismanaged the relationship, or that the KHTML guys expected too much? Interesting warning for other OSS-corporate marriages." We've previously reported on the frustration in the OSS community on this issue.
Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
OS Divergence (Score:4, Insightful)
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not unrealized, lots of projects have forked before. I think anybody who puts their code under a license that allows forking will realize that it can happen.
Can OSS code and goals harmonize with the goals and needs of corporation designed code?
Of course it can, this happens every day. Look at the kernel, GCC, Wine, etc.
Is it that Apple mismanaged the relationship, or that the KHTML guys expected too much?
I don't think expecting documented patches or a shared bug tracker is asking too much - this is the pretty much the minimal level of co-operation most projects would expect from a corporate good citizen. Some companies go even further than that, and hire some of the core developers, sponsor conferences, provide hosting facilities etc. There are plenty of examples in the Linux community of companies doing that.
So did Apple mismanage the relationship? Arguably there is no relationship. They certainly mismanaged expectations - if they'd come straight out and the beginning and said "we're not going to co-operate" a lot of frustration would have been avoided. That would have harmed their (mostly imaginary) pro-open source image though.
I doubt there's some kind of Evil Plan to screw over KDE here, it's more likely that Apple don't care or want to help the open source community, it's just a convenient place to take code from (go see how much FreeBSD has got back from them, for instance). Open source and Linux specifically are primary competitors and they'd be foolish to help the community more than they have to. After all, they're in the business of selling proprietary operating systems.
Re:Another question (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like that people JUST obey the license, then change the license!
i.e. If a company decides to launch a similar product based on this source code, they're obligued to keep a revision history in a previously agreed format (i.e. CVS, SVN, etc) so that the authors can track down their improvements.
Ta-da!
It's not like (Score:1, Insightful)
So why is this a bad thing?
In fact, that is one of the points of OSS, isn't it?
There is always the possibility that somebody will fork, and the fork is still OSS as far as I know, so there is nothing wrong with interchanging code.
Open Source Is A License (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, last I checked, the KHTML folks don't have a beef with Apple. They do have a beef with the fanbois who can't seem to grasp the fact that Apple using KHTML's Open Source code does not immediately mean that they're best buddies.
All it means is that Apple is using Open Source code. Period. Apple isn't violating anybody's trust.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple complained that the KDE guys were releasing code in a manner than didn't work for Apple, then people in the OSS community would say that the Big Bad Corporation (tm) is trying to control OSS and tell the developers what to do. Does Apple not get the same consideration? I thought the point of open sourcing code was to allow people to do what they want with it. Apple is, so either take what they're giving (for free) or shut up and write your own patches. It seems simple enough to me.
Safari != KHTML (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff is just stupid. Apple has done absolutely nothing illegal; arguably they've done nothing inappropriate. KDE and KHTML are not in any way any less well-off, and if this story accurately reflects the attitude of the primary KHTML developers, honestly, they're being jackasses.
What all this demonstrates is why using free code (especially GPL/LGPL code) is much more of a minefield than a reading of the license would suggest. You can comply to every last detail, and it doesn't do you any good against the negative publicity when someone decides you "owe something to the community".
Unrealized Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a danger, it's simply a attribute of OSS. Do you really think Linus sat down to write the kernel and ever considered it'd be used on millions of computers worldwide for mission critical systems? When you release your code Open Source, your basically saying to the world "do with it as you please". Some license clauses may prevent certain uses (i.e. many OSS SMTP Servers have a clause that says if you use this software for Spam, you're in violation of the license). But as a OSS Developer I can't say that only Americans can use my code, or prevent those of other religions from using it to benefit their religion. And I certainly can't prevent some company from "leeching" by profiting from my work without giving back equally to the OSS community. That's life and that's OSS. Most companies however realize that as a whole, you get back what you put into something.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Noone seems to bitch about X.org changes not getting back into XFree86. Forks are not a bad thing. If Apple can move the software faster than the khtml guys did, they have my blessings. I wouldn't want to slow down Apple's progress by making them jump through hoops for the KHTML guys any more than I'd want to slow down X.org.
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
For almost everyone in the world it's a "fully realized feature" not "unrealized danger" of open source that if a new team can advance the software faster than an old team, they're FREE to do so because the software is OPEN.
Nothing to see here... It's just a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a fork. Forks happen. Move along. If KDE guys think KHTML sucks compared to WebCore/Safari, they are free to fork THAT and start from there (backporting it to KDE). The source is open. Whine less, code more
It's called a fork stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you didn't realize that's possible, you're just being stupid. If they're going in a direction you don't intend, then by all means continue in the direction you DO intend and don't worry about it. Would it be nice if Apple maintained a set of OSX specific patches and did as much as possible in the upstream project? Yes. Do they have to? No. Will it bite them in the future? Perhaps. The farther they diverge, the harder it will be to bring changes the other direction as well.
Re:Um (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really. They don't. They're in the business of selling computers and peripherals.
Having those computers and peripherals work well (or at least up to their expectations) incidentally needs of propietary operating systems.
Dani++
PS: look on the changelog of Bash, recently there has been some significant Apple contributions, reported on /., even.
Re:Let me see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd like to hear about one or two projects like that. I'm not aware of any.
Childish Spat (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple published the patches, and changes and KHTML cries about them having to much OSX specific code in them? Thats just crap..
Apple is acting in good faith, they are basically asking Apple to make sure all patches are 100% compatible with the current code base.
The KHTML team might as well just ask Apple to take over the project in full.
Open Source does not mean "Anything you do must conform and work with our project or your not doing it right"
Open Source is "If you make changes please give back to the community with the understanding that your changes might not be compatible with ours, Your code changes may not be what we want, but we can't complain about that"
Gimme a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on, is this really a "danger"? Nothing in any open source license says that you keep the right to direction of whatever your code ends up as.
This is like the "danger" that your source code can be "hijacked" in commercial applications if you use the BSD license.
KHTML is not objectively any worse off because of this... Apple isn't hurting them, Apple isn't taking anything away from them, their project is not imperiled in any way. It may make them feel bad that their source is out there with improvements and it's not as easy for them to merge them back into KHTML as they would like. It's quite a mental exercise to try to think of a rational justification for that feeling without becoming extremely vague (try it), one which no open source license could ever protect them.
To borrow a phrase from ABC News' mustachioed libertarian: Gimme a break.
KHTML Developers Assumed Too Much (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a big deal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sound like KHTML team doesn't want to play either (Score:3, Insightful)
The suggestion, which KHTML developers said they were unlikely to accept,
So Apple is open to making the tree cross platform, and presumeably to them back porting web core (which is nessesary to implement some of the things Apple has done since) and KHTML doesn't want to.
So by choice KHTML has already limited the changes they can use.
"In open source, everything's supposed to be done the right way, but sometimes the less correct way is faster," Rusin said. "In fixing one problem, they were breaking a whole bunch of other things. Apple developers were focused on fixing bugs in such a way that we could not merge them back into KHTML. Those fixes were never an option for us."
Ignoring for a moment the fact that OSS is not done the "right way" many times, Apple has an obligation to turn out code and to do it fast. They have obligations to their customers. The fact that KHTML wants to take their sweet time and Apple wants to get the patches done fast and out the door shows where the divergence is. Apple can't afford to take the open source approach of spending 5 years in beta before releasing the next version.
Once again a choice by KHTML. The patches are there, but they choose to do the patches their way, thus eliminating Apple patches.
KDE volunteers said they suddenly found themselves dealing with bug reports Apple deemed too sensitive to share, new requirements for auditing code before releasing it, and demands that developers sign nondisclosure agreements before looking at some Apple code.
So you mean once KHTML devs wanted access to code that wasn't part of KHTML, they had to play by Apple's rules? Say it isn't so! Apple plays by their rules for their code, but KHTML doesn't want to play by Apple's rules for Apple code. Again, choices by KHTML to limit their own options.
"As long as they needed us, they used us, but when they gained enough knowledge they had no reason to keep sending us reviews and patches," Rusin said. "At a certain point they decided it was a waste of time for them, and at that point the communication just stopped...We had hopes that they would pour resources into KHTML. But that never happened."
No, it did happen, but they're pouring resources in to the ways that allow them to serve their customers best too, and that means leveraging OS X technologies. KHTML has chosen to be just as uncooperative as Apple.
Re:Here's a quote from Zack Rusin (Score:5, Insightful)
Free donuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Complaining about it shows a great lack of grace.
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple definitely are in the business of selling operating systems, it just so happens that you have to buy their hardware to get it. How many people buy a Mac because of MacOS? Look at their website, the number of pages dedicated to the OS vs the hardware is huge. Why do you think they generate such absurd amounts of hype over new OS features like desktop widgets?
It's pretty simple:
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not required that Apple play nice with the way they release patches. That is to say there is not 'must' apart from the requirement that they make them available. But there's alot of 'ought' that comes into play when you use OSS code. This is basically a niceness test that says, in effect, if you use this code to make money, great, but you 'ought' to give back in such a way that we can make use of as well.
Having said all that I feel a bit bad about even responding to an obvious troll. There's very little 'insight' in your comment.
OSS project mantra (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, if you don't like how Apple provides its patches back to the KHTML guys, please feel free to write a tool that converts their patches into the form you prefer.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the source files are just that.
If some 3 man team in the middle of nowhere started working on KHTML and just realeased the changed documents back to the public, would there be such a great outcry over the fact that they aren't providing the bug trackers?
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
KDE gives Apple (and everyone else) access to a monolithic block of code that doesn't run on Mac OS X, and that's considered a big favour. Apple gives KDE (and everyone else) access to a monolithic block of code that doesn't run on Linux, and that is the moral equivalent of spitting in their face?
Error, error, does not compute.
Apple should start... (Score:4, Insightful)
...by getting everybody on the same source control software.
AFAIK, KHTML uses CVS, and Apple internally uses Perforce.
Nothing constructive can be done until everything is on the same platform.
Apple, offer to buy licenses of your source control software for the KHTML core. Even if they still spurn you, it will appear to the rest of us that you at least tried. You will look more and more of a villan until you make some effort at a reconciliation.
p.s. The KHTML team will need to be conversant with OSX to the point that they can remove GUI calls to it and replace them with QT. If this is a current problem, then some books might be in order.
No problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
This really seems to be a case of the Apple guys offering their changes (or at the very least, making them available), and the KDE guys not being interested in them, or unable to use them for various reasons. It's really hard to blame Apple for that.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Straigth but wrong.
"KDE gives Apple (and everyone else) access to a monolithic block of code that doesn't run on Mac OS X"
The question is, it is NOT a monolithic block of code: everybody has access to KDE source code repositories and they can be analized checkin by checkin.
"Apple gives KDE (and everyone else) access to a monolithic block of code that doesn't run on Linux, and that is the moral equivalent of spitting in their face?"
Yes.
It is not because it doesn't run in Linux (the problem is not Linux, either, but XWindow). In fact, if Apple would develop its safari port in a way compatible with XWindow it should have been seen as a GREAT FAVOUR, but it wouldn't been asked not taken as an offense if the code itself was exactly what it is now.
The offense comes from Apple not giving (read)access to their source code repositories so you only gain access to a bunch of incompatible inextricable code while it would cost NOTHING to them to allow read access to the repo so that very same code could be analyzed checkin by checkin thus making possible to segregate incompatibilities from useful code in understandable bits.
No one sane would say Apple is not doing what is legally bound to do, nor anyone sane would say Apple's behaviour to be unexpectable (so this news is kind of flamebait), but yes, they could do things much better without them costing nothing and they decided to go for the most difficult and unuseful path for the KDE team, so KDE guys are reasonably feeling insulted.
Re:This sounds normal (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not, but why wouldn't Apple do this? Of course they want Konquerer to use the same rendering engine as Safari. First of all, it increases the user-base, which increases the chance that web developers will test for their rendering engine. Second, every improvement that the KDE team makes to the engine amounts to Apple getting a developer to work for free.
My general understanding (guess?) is that the divergence is a result of Apple and the KDE team having different methods and using different tools and such. The idea that Apple would specifically avoid being able to work with the KDE team seems unlikely. It doesn't really gain them anything.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Childish Spat (Score:5, Insightful)
Sour grapes for sure! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the nature of OSS. Software continues to evolve and fork.
KHTML developers who can see the big picture beyond their own egos should be ecstatic that somebody has applied their effective, standards-compliant codebase to a commercially viable, successful product that will help bring tighter standards adherence to html / web authors.
It would certainly be a lot more sportsmanlike than "boo-hoo I can only use 10% of Apple's code".
Suck it up. You develop open source so that people can modify it for their own needs, provided they share their code with you.
Any reason they should not be able to? (Score:3, Insightful)
But in practice, I dont think there is much stopping any given company from using an open code base to use a more or less closed product. The BSD liscence specifically permits this.
Being the sort that does not care much one way or the other about this topic, is Apple doing anything that the liscence in question prohibits?
If not, then its permitted, and if its permitted, no use complaining. If your going to have a code base that open, then you should not be shocked when someone uses that liscence to their own advantage.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code.
This is the second time I've seen you post this bullshit. Quit it. It isn't true. The first the KHTML developers heard about it was when the first Safari beta was released, so they couldn't possibly have done anythingto help Apple out. Everybody was expecting a browser based on Gecko because of their hiring decisions.
If you still don't believe me, read the email yourself [kde.org]:
I'm the engineering manager of Safari, Apple Computer's new web browser built upon KHTML and KJS. I'm sending you this email to thank you for making such a great open source project and introduce myself and my development team. I also wish to explain why and how we've used your excellent technology.
Does that sound like the KHTML developers gave Apple any special help?
Again, people, stop modding this up, he's a clueless idiot spreading lies.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code. Apple just spit on their courtesy by just releasing their monolithic patches.
I'm not sure, what exactly did the KDE guys do to help Apple? Did they help them to incorporate the code into their Webcore fork of Konquerer?
Apple using Konquerer has already helped the KDE team in a number of ways. First they do have those patches to look through, in fact the acid test CSS patches from a previous article were even separately documented for the Konquerer codebase as much as possible given the divergence of the codebases. Next Apple using the Konquerer engine has made a lot of web sites compatible with Konquerer since Web designers are much more likely to test their pages against Safari than Konquerer. Also, they have advanced standardized HTML in general by promoting a browser that does not conform to either Gecko or IE's bugs and quirks.
I think it is unlikely that Apple is going to change versioning systems to make the KDE team's job easier, nor are they likely to implement changes on both browsers (even if they could which they can't since the Konquerer developers do not want to implement all of the same type of changes Apple has and don't use the same development tools or APIs). What they do, however, is provide their changes openly so that the KDE team can look through them and copy whatever fixes, improvements, or changes are useful to them. I'm sure both sets of developers are overworked and neither has enough time and both would like more people to do more for them. Maybe if the KDE developers asked for more granularity with the patches the Safari team would be willing to accommodate them. They would probably also be happy to answer questions and explain particular changes.
I guess I just don't see what anyone is mad about, and I'm not sure that anyone really is mad that is involved with Konquerer. This seems like a lot of people trying to make drama out of very little.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
No, because that isn't a danger and doesn't hurt you in any way. If you're worried that your feelings might get hurt over something like this, though, perhaps open source isn't for you.
Re:Learning about Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple could have tried to be a little more community spirited rather than just ignoring the needs of the very people they relied on to save them millions in development cost. How hard would it have been to include real comments in their patches rather than pointing to a bug database number?
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not wrong per-se, but it's definitely rude.
It's easy to pick out one comment from a post that has some feeling in it and go sociology-101 on that poster. It's not much harder to try and see what the whole post is trying to get across.
fork? (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience is that merging code on large projects is a pain. Even when you share the same respository (CVS) and have teams working on different branches. I hate the thought of trying to merge code that's several months apart developmentaly. Besides just dealing with the code, check-in comments, when they exist, are usually vague, brief, and overly broad (25 files modified, the comment only actually refers to two of them).
It sucks, but, they might be better off just accepting it as the fork that it is. Both of these teams have differing objectives. Trying to keep the code in sync while trying to (in all intents and purposes) create different end products may be more pain than its worth (to all parties).
The developers of KHTML should be proud. They created an excellent product. A large company felt their product was of high enough quality to warrant distribution in a mainstream operating system.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is being blown *way* out of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, I have seen exactly one comment on this thread with some understanding of this. it'd be sad, if it weren't so fucking ironic...
Re:Um (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple publishes changes they make to khtml. They have to because khtml is [L]GPLed. If anybody bothered to check, WebCore is licensed under the LGPL 2.1 [apple.com]. There's absolutely nothing preventing KDE (or any other Linux destkop for that matter) from incorporating WebCore into the system.
What if someone wrote a new VM subsystem or scheduler for the Linux kernel, and then published patches and the new vm/scheduler? Would they still be villians? Even if they sold it commercially? Even if Linus didn't use it?
All you KDE developers, quitcherbitchen. Why GPL your code and then get pissed when someone uses or forks it? Don't snivle that Apple's version of khtml links against WebCore. Use WebCore. If you don't know how or don't have time to learn it, that's not Apple's problem, is it?
Re:Safari on Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because
1) It's easy to port.
(It's not. Windows doesn't even have native APIs to support Objective C, let alone Objective C++. Porting this means porting large parts of Cocoa.)
2) Safari is just a little front-end for WebCore.
(It's not. Writing a WebCore front-end using WebKit doesn't require, I shit you not, a single line of code. Safari, on the other hand, has many.)
3) Apple would profit tons from this.
(They wouldn't. Giving away a browser for free for a foreign operating system without any other benefits is a honorary decision at best, not a business one.)
What's with the spin? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not evolving (Score:3, Insightful)
At any rate, if people don't complain a bit, how's Apple going to know we want them to shape up the code a bit.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they bloody do. That's called a fork ! And freedom to fork is the most important aspect of OSS - in fact enforcing and maintaining this freedom to fork is the central aim of the GPL.
Apple quite simply forked Safari. This happens all the time in the OSS world. Hello, does anyone really expect that X.org patches will remain 100% compatible with the XFree86 code structure ad aeternam ?
Could someone please tell me what exactly the problem is in the Apple-Safari case ?
Thomas-
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Insightful)
You have obviously never looked at how companies that are really passive open source software users behave. Microsoft, for example.
Right now Apple is putting some really interesting code out there for people to pick up. They've provided a framework in darwin for completely changing the way UNIX systems are managed, in nicely packaged tools like launchd [apple.com], complete with "configure" scripts ready for dropping in peicemeal or packaging for debian or Red Hat.
There's a whole damned revolution waiting on opensource.apple.com and nobody's paying attention to it. Why? because it's from Apple? because nobody knows it's there? Because it's not the Linux Way? I don't know. You tell me.
Re:No problem here (Score:1, Insightful)
The Apple developers are making their resulting branch of the code available in compliance with the KDE license.
True.
They're even trying to work to contribute their changes back to KHTML.
Not true. Well, at least they're not trying very hard.
Even if the patches don't apply cleanly, the KHTML developers are more than free to look at Apple's changes and add them by hand.
The thing is, there are no patches. Apple just drops the whole package into the KHTML devs' hands. Trying to figure out what changed in a few megabytes of source code without a changelog or a list of individual commits is close to impossible. No one expects patches that "apply cleanly" to the KHTML trunk.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds painful.
The offense comes from Apple not giving (read)access to their source code repositories so you only gain access to a bunch of incompatible inextricable code while it would cost NOTHING to them to allow read access to the repo
There's almost certainly lots of information in the logs referring to unannounced products and features. Apple would either have to sanitize the logs (costing time) or grant NDAs to "trusted" individuals (still costs time, and increases the risk of exposure of sensitive information).
s/"uninformed idiots"/"pro-Apple astroturfers"/ (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No problem here (Score:2, Insightful)
if the apple retards would just STFU there wouldn't be any issues.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... no. The GPL gave apple the access to the code. Apple has been compliant with the GPL by giving the changes back to the community.
The fact that the changes are not in the prefered format is completely irrelevant.
AFAIK, the GPL doesn't dictate what format changes need to be submitted back to the project in. In fact, that would hypocritical, as mandating a specific patch format would be a limitation of our freedoms to use what software we want.
Apple is checkpointing their releases. They start with a block of code, make a buttload of changes and then run diff across it.
Big deal, stop whining.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and nobody is denying that, but this is not the point. The story is about the fact that KDE's KHTML and Apple's WebCore are nowadays pretty much separate in their development effort. So there is some disappointment in the KDE community. Sure it's their problem, and you could call them naive to hope that a big cooperation like Apple would collaborate with them, instead of just minding their own business. Again, nobody is claiming that Apple is doing something illegal, it's just that people hoped for more.
give it a rest! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sound like KHTML team doesn't want to play eith (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fact that KHTML wants to take their sweet time and Apple wants to get the patches done fast and out the door shows where the divergence is. Apple can't afford to take the open source approach of spending 5 years in beta before releasing the next version."
This is quite ignorant. There are, admittedly some OSS project that are perpetually at a BETA stage. KDE is not one of them. KDE 3.4 had a few weeks of beta testing, and then it was released as final. Just as Tiger. Yes, there were a few bugs found since RELEASE - just as there were bugs in Tiger, and probably there will be more till the next release.
KDE developers did everything they could to help cooperation - in vain. And they don't even regret that as much as they regret that there are clueless users who overestimate APPLE's contributions.
And this makes hardly any sense:"Once again a choice by KHTML. The patches are there, but they choose to do the patches their way, thus eliminating Apple patches." Excuse me? What were you trying to say?
Mods: congrats!
You are all being too kind.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple don't give a shit about KHTML, in fact I can guarantee they are laughing. If i were KHTML devs I would try and change the licence and lock Apple out.
Apple have used you, exploited you and now want to chuck you in the garbage and forget about you. They have got want they wanted from and that's it. KHTML have been done up like a kipper.
Just like Konfabulator.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. They should be lauded for obeying the law. Similarly I should be lauded for not murdering those two tramps I walked past today.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. That's KHTML's problem. They want changes being written for another platform, but they don't have an application or code-base structure that makes it easy to seperate platform-specific code. Nor have they taken the time or effort to introduce one, _after_ they saw the nature of the Apple patches.
This isn't a hard technical problem: it's a political and organisational problem, for the KHTML project.
IMHO, part of the problem here is that KHTML wasn't designed to be extended in piecemeal fashion. Look at Eclipse: totally plug-in based, and if one port goes in an undesired (by the general community) direction, you simply swap out the affected plugin. Very manageable.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the information we see here, their behaviour is perfectly rational, even though it is less than convenient for the OSS people.
I don't know if the animosity is symptomatic of the OSS community, but usually when two commercial companies try to cooperate and fail, they simply look at the numbers.
Company A: We don't get enough out of this cooperation to continue. Can you change the conditions?
Company B: No, we're sorry. With other conditions we wouldn't get enough out of it.
Company A: OK. Let's end it then.
Company B: Yes. Have a nice day!
Company A: See you around!
In the case with KHTML, it seems the OSS developers simply cannot make it an attractive case for Apple to contribute bug fixes back in a usable format, and Apple responds in the commercial way by not doing it.
It is sad but rational.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I think they just didn't care, as always. Jordan K. Hubbard of Apple said recently with regard to launchd, Apple's Open Source replacement for init, rc.d, inetd, xinetd, cron etc.:
"I'd be interested in hearing how easy Launchd is to actually port to, say, Linux. Have you tried? Serious question, since we only coded it with one platform in mind and I'm not sure whether porting it will prove a trivial or non-trivial exercise."
Yeah, that's the Apple Attitude. Not that this is not legal. It is legal. But is it certainly not playing nice and without playing nice they will be isolated in the OS community very soon. That's what all this boils down to. No need to argue.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its only the bad things we head about? (Score:3, Insightful)