Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry 268
chicksdaddy (814965) writes "Given Apple's status as the world's most valuable company and its enormous cash hoard, the refusal to offer even meager support to open source and industry groups is puzzling. From the article: 'Apple bundles software from the Apache Software Foundation with its OS X operating system, but does not financially support the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) in any way. That is in contrast to Google and Microsoft, Apple's two chief competitors, which are both Platinum sponsors of ASF — signifying a contribution of $100,000 annually to the Foundation. Sponsorships range as low as $5,000 a year (Bronze), said Sally Khudairi, ASF's Director of Marketing and Public Relations. The ASF is vendor-neutral and all code contributions to the Foundation are done on an individual basis. Apple employees are frequent, individual contributors to Apache. However, their employer is not, Khudairi noted. The company has been a sponsor of ApacheCon, a for-profit conference that runs separately from the Foundation — but not in the last 10 years. "We were told they didn't have the budget," she said of efforts to get Apple's support for ApacheCon in 2004, a year in which the company reported net income of $276 million on revenue of $8.28 billion.'"
Yes, because of your selection bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.
Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.
This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but ... LLVM would be a really good place for you to start.
Selection bias doesn't make your point valid.
Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
Does Microsoft really control Apache now? Why wasn't this news splashed all over the news sites?
If I have it wrong, and it is not Apache that the company bought, which open source project did it take control of?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft will do this for a while then try to exert pressure in various ways to get their way. Due to the structure of ASF, it's probably hard for them to get anywhere because there are so many different projects lead by so many different people. They will most certainly try however.
Citation needed
Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no citation. It's just typical anti-Microsoft bullshit from someone who's still stuck in 1980.
Frankly the pro-Linux crowd does itself no favours with this sort of shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm by no means a Linux fan, its a mess. I prefer a clean OS like FreeBSD if possible, but ... this laptop is an OSX machine (obviously I'm an apple fanboy) with a bootcamp partition for Windows 7, a couple Windows 8 VMs, and I run about 30 different MS VMs on a vmware cluster for doing various testing as my primary job is ... writing Windows software.
If you need a citation, you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years.
How many 'standards organizations' do they have to buy before you figure it out
Re: (Score:3)
What I meant was that MS didn't do it for the same reason a Google does it.
Yeah because you really know exactly why these companies do it. Microsoft has been donating to the Apache foundation for over 1/2 a decade now and still continue to do it and that hasn't affected the foundation's direction in any profound way. So while I'm sure the MS conspiracy theorists love to postulate about how MS will try to control ASF, in over 5 years there is still nothing that gives any basis to whatever it is you are claiming. I doubt lack of proof would stop you spreading your FUD though.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have any actual evidence either way? TFA is about one bit of software, and your response doesn't even provide a single example of a project Apple has donated cash to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple did contribute to a number of causes in the past, and now Cook is apparently doing so again. They stopped in 1997 when Jobs came back, one of his first acts was to kill any donations, including to all non-tech charities. Jobs was a cunt.
[The only two "charitable" acts that can be tied to Jobs personally were a large donation (about 1.5% of his net wealth) to a single cancer hospital, and influencing California to set up a live-donor registry for transplants.]
-1, Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this article exist for any purpose other than fanning the flame?
Yes, Apple should probably throw some cash at the Apache foundation, but that's not why this was posted to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
It must be awkward for the ASF/OASIS fundraiser folks to have helped a reporter make it sound like they feel entitled to Apple's charity.
Cherries (Score:4, Insightful)
So Apache is now is equal to the entire tech industry? Nice title there.
Many beyond counting? (Score:2)
Isn't the "example" the fact that there is even one open source consortium outside Apache...
So, NCSA mean anything to you?
Steve Jobs' culture (Score:2)
I imagine this is due to the influence Jobs had on Apple's culture. It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
I think in time we'll see Apple more prone to contributions.
Re:Steve Jobs' culture (Score:5, Informative)
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Well your understanding is wrong. He donated anonymously [dailymail.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still skeptical, and you posting a link to the daily mail doesn't help your cause as proof. It's one step away from a tabloid, you are aware. Lets look at their front page right now. (yes, this is the American front page, but yeah)
What does $120M buy you these days
'I was assigned to her and fell in love': Decorated NYPD officer reveals how she adopted sole survivor of Palm Sunday Massacre thirty years later
Kate looks blooming lovely in floral at Coachella
Gisele Bundchen audited by IRS after being name
Re:Steve Jobs' culture (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
Re:Steve Jobs' culture (Score:4, Insightful)
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
But still, somehow, you know and it makes him even better in your eyes. Interesting that.
Re:Steve Jobs' culture (Score:5, Informative)
Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.
Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes ... And in this particular case, I found out that he wasn't nearly as bad as the haters want to make it out.
The organization his wife created ... Many of its employees don't know that she created it nor that she donates massive amounts to it ... Because it was designed from the start to hide her contributes.
That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.
It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is too long, sorry I can't help myself...
Ok. I'll assume you are an Actually Interested Person and not just a fanboy in disguise. Maybe you can clear up a possible misunderstanding I have with some facts, or at least give a compelling alternative interpretation. I was a fan of Apple until a little after they really took off. Yes, I'm a fan of FOSS, and let's face it, I'm a bit of a Google fanboy. I don't need to hate everyone though, and Microsoft was doing a sterling job of being my pinup demon.
Then I
Why We Know (Score:2, Insightful)
But still, somehow, you know
We know because people researched the hell out of Jobs, for both good and bad reasons. There are very few things someone as heavily analyzed as Jobs can hide.
I don't care about Jobs personally, but he seems to have drawn the utter fascination of many - ironically including yourself, or you would not bring him up. How does it feel to have someone you hate controlling your head from beyond the grave anyway? Just curious.
Re:Steve Jobs' culture (Score:5, Insightful)
And just why do you find that interesting? If making himself look better was Jobs's game plan, he would have been public with the donations. What I will find interesting is how much of a dent this makes in the Jobs-never-gave-money-to-charity talking point. Sort of like how you could dig up the Apple -> XEROX stock receipts and it wouldn't make a dent in the "Apple stole from PARC" talking point.
Re: (Score:3)
But still, somehow, you know and it makes him even better in your eyes. Interesting that.
There can be many reasons why this knowledge became public. Yet you seem to imply one particular reason. Interesting that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps Apple HAS given back significantly more than we know about?
Re: (Score:2)
Read the link in the post above mine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I contribute to open source, when Apple - and Google - use it to build walled gardens and make millions - billions - of dollars I'll never see a penny of? The exploitation of open source by companies that use it to build products that are the opposite of the open source philosophy - I mean walled gardens - is getting hard to take. You can say that they're free to do whatever they want with open source as long as they comply with the licenses, but that's not my point. What could possibly motivate me to donate my time and skills to making Apple and Google more money? The walled garden is going to destroy open source. The funny thing is no one seems to care. People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to. I guess the days of principled opposition to what Apple and Google are doing are over.
Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't stop someone from using the software the way they want. That's an essential part of how free software works.
Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't stop someone from using the software the way they want.
Yes you can. You can release it under a restrictive license such as the GPL Version 3, then they either cannot legally use it, OR they must distribute the source back.
You can also choose a GPL-incompatible free software license with even more restrictions, if you like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) Do what the f**k you want with it
2) If it breaks your stuff, we're not liable
3)if you want to redistribute it, in any way shape or form, give us credit
Re: (Score:2)
3)if you want to redistribute it, in any way shape or form, give us credit
Yes... Unfortunately number (3) is a bit lost, for most redistributions of OSes or large software packages that happen to have BSD licensed elements --- there is no meaningful show of credit.
There used to be an advertising requirement in the original 4-clause BSD license, that would require mention of the developer's organization in advertising material --- but that bit got raped/essentially forced out, mainly due to the GPL
Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:4, Informative)
Not true.
GPL doesn't restrict people from using the software any way they want. It restricts them from preventing anyone else from using the software any way they want.
Which matters - let me know how trying to run Apple on non-apple hardware without paying for a license goes, in comparison to a GPL'd OS.
Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it was hard to decipher, and I also don't know/understand in what regard it should be better. I'm still on OS X 10.6 :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one, if you have an app on your secondary display, you get that app's menu bar on the secondary display. Each display has an independent set of virtual desktops (spaces) which you can change without affecting the other (example: display 1 has your email and chat client, display 2 has web browser. You can go to "space 2" on display 1 which has a code editor, without your web browser still on display 2.)
Also, you can now use an AppleTV as an additional display via Bonjour - easy wireless display
Re: (Score:2)
without your web browser still on display 2.)
Should be with, rather than without. Damn no comment editing...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, sounds cool. Perhaps I try OS X 10.9 in a VM. But the rumors about the iOS-fication, especially about the Mail.app horrify me.
Re: (Score:3)
10.9 did introduce a bunch of Gmail-related bugs into Mail, though, and even now (after a quick emergency Mail update, more f
Obviously untrue (Score:3)
They just converted KHTML to Webkit and never looked back.
And no project in the history of open source has ever been forked because someone wanting to do a lot of work did not want to deal with the maintainers...
Is it open source or not? If you don't support the right to fork totally and let the previous guys worry about carrying back changes, you don't support open source.
Webkit probably remains OSS only because the KHTML foundation requires it.
That is bullshit and you know it. Apple keeps lots of other
Re: (Score:2)
They actually created clang from scratch and open-sourced it.
Re: (Score:2)
People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to.
Which people/projects have switched away from GPL? I'd really like to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are talking past one another. Much of the interest in LLVM has come at the expense of GCC. So while GCC is not "abandoning" the GPL, certainly there seems to be a certain flow in actual users toward less-restrictive licenses. I have personally been affected by this, choosing FreeBSD rather than Linux for my server because of ZFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are talking past me as well.
If a project has no users, what matter is it which license it uses?
Re: (Score:2)
Change IS to WAS in your sig for a perfect score.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you can spin it round and mention the many millions of Android devices there are, all running Linux. And all the webservers, IBM mainframes, scientific supercomputers, home routers etc etc etc.
Each license has it's strengths and weaknesses, but all can be monetised in some shape or form. This alone, in a capitalistic world, is the only way l
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and that's why it's displacing GCC, and why RMS loses his shit about LLVM. People are moving to LLVM BECAUSE OF GPLv3.
Same reason some are moving away from Samba.
The list is rather long. Every time a project coverts to GPLv3, the lose people, they never gain people because of it as the GPL fans are already there. The more restrictive they get, the more people leave.
I'm not really sure why you can't understand it?
Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
$1b corps (Score:3)
They all need to be contributing to OpenSSL or a fork.
https://groups.google.com/foru... [google.com]
Security theater is sometimes more like security exhaustion.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has deprecated OpenSSL on OS X a long time ago, and provide their own replacements.
Re:$1b corps (Score:5, Informative)
What replacement?
CommonCrypto [apple.com].
It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves. Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not.
Nope, they said to use CommonCrypto.
Re:$1b corps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Haters don't care about little things like integrity, evidence, or consistency.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's why it's open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go, the source for it, found in five seconds on Google:
http://www.opensource.apple.co... [apple.com]
You could have checked yourself if what you were going to say was actually true, but I guess that just wasn't a priority.
Re: (Score:3)
"...when they depreciated OpenSSL..."
I don't think you can claim OpenSSL as a write off on your tax form.
iOS/OSX developers use Apple's crypto library (Score:3)
It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves.
No, developers use the Apple provided cryptography libraries where most people would import openSSL.
Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not./em?
Now that may be so, if you're running an OSX server you probably have a number of open source programs running that were brought over by MacPorts or the like, and they would
Wait...what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, you're stunned that a company as culturally blinkered and rapacious as APPLE isn't turning over some of their huge cash hoard to fund Open Source projects that are outside of their control and might sabotage their patent warchest?
Why not just walk up to Smaug, kick him in the eyeball and demand the Arkenstone "OR ELSE" there Bilbo!
As long as you are witholding something Apple wants, they're either charming as fuck or litigious as hell in an effort to acquire it.
Once they have what they want out of you
Re: (Score:2)
And this simile negates the REST of my point...uhm. HOW?
Hu? (Score:2)
Apache Foundation this days is mostly Java(TM)(R) Foundation.
Why would the Apple want to subsidize the Oracle?
Article is flame bait. Or a troll. (Score:5, Informative)
"The company lists dozens of open source projects and components that it contributes code to: from the Apache web server"
And that, my friends, is what open source is all about. You use, you give code back.
The article title should really be "Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Monetarily To The Apache Foundation." To agree with that Apple should be giving them money is the moral equivalent of saying that users should have to pay to use Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless, his point still stands--open source is about sharing code. Open source groups share with Apple, Apple shares back, even when they don't necessarily have to. That, to me, is a great record. While it would be nice for Apple to give some money, I don't believe Apple should be shamed for not doing so. So many people champion open source for being free (as in beer) for their own benefit, but suddenly it's bad for Apple to use things for free even though they contribute back and sometimes create new p
Small donations to organizations are one thing (Score:2)
But Apple's contribution to FOSS has been to provide an operating system that is Unix-based. Open a 'terminal window' on any of its computers and you have the real Unix command line to play with. Not locked-down Windows or flavor-of-the-week Linux, but the same consistent Unix on every machine.
They already "gave back" (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.
Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)
I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".
Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.
As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.
The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.
Re:They already "gave back" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue
They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?
When comparing what to what? The American medical system is as far as it can be from free market without being socialized. Between RX, now mandated insurance, tax distortions, billion dollar FDA approval process, AMA certification (enforced by government), etc. it is all a big clusterfuck of inefficiencies and monopolies imposed by government. They just assume people are to stupid for their own good and then need a daddy government to treat the smallest infection.
Heck the cost of approving a new me
Re: (Score:2)
I live in such a country and visit similar countries, everywhere medicine is available and accessible to who needs it and at much less cost than the US system ever can or will offer.
In the parts of Europe that have socialised medicine there are wishes and complaints, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but no-one would want to go the US way where general and affordable health care is *still* o
Re: (Score:3)
Where I am registered and pay and the many countries I visit all have in common that the people (society) has demands that require financing.
It could be a simple road or it could be national defence but it'll cost money to make.
That's where tax money comes in but also leaves again, people and corporations get paid to fix these things, it's not money lost, it's money circulated.
Multi-national companies like Apple employ expensive specialist tha
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to to tax Apple (or any company for that matter) in the country where the transaction is made, it's really simple. All you have to do is raise your sales tax rate.
The reason governments try to do it by taxing corporations is because they don't want their citizens to see how much they're being taxed. Charge a 20% sales tax, or charge a tax on corporations which they can only pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue
In violation of the law? No? Better change the laws then. I damn well take my mortgage deductions, etc, when I do my taxes. I owe that to me. If Apple (and all of the other companies....) take advantage of loopholes and other deductions it's because they owe that to their shareholders. Don't like it? Get the laws changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Like every other company with a non-brain-dead accounting team.
No. Really. EVERY company does their best to reduce their taxes. Why aren't you vilifying all the other companies who tax advantage of legal tax deductions to reduce their tax burden?
And I'm willing to bet you, as an individual, did too. I bet you took advantage of some sort of tax break when you filed your taxes. Why should you be allowed to do so but not Apple?
No. Really. Answer that please. Why should you be allowed to benefit from any tax br
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to guess. Many of the big ones: http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
Also, OpenBSD's PF modedd w/incompatible licenc (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Apple was avoiding GPL stuff before 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they did actually buy cups, then hired the guy who they purchased it from to maintain it...
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging money for GPL licensed software. You appear to be confused on this point. Based on a large sample set of previous discussions on the effects and merits of various licensing schemes, I suspect you are also confused on the definition of the word "freedom." In case you're not confused, but offering a goalpost moving teaser into a discussion on the latter point, I'll preemptively note that neither you nor Stallman get to redefine words to fit any particular ideology
Re: (Score:2)
she said of efforts to get Apple's support for ApacheCon in 2004, a year in which the company reported net income of $276 million on revenue of $8.28 billion
Read that more carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
... and taxes.
net is after tax isn't it?
Wouldn't Apple do everything in their power to lower their tax obligations?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Urban Legend. Apple had 2 billion in liquid assets at the time and weren't close to "shuttering their doors". Even if they hadn't managed a turn around when they did, they had enough customers, real estate and patents to hang around into the 00's at least.
Re:Here's what troubles me about Apple and the med (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On slashdot, it's exactly the opposite. You seem to have forgotten that Apple is the new evil around here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL @ the car analogy also.
Re:Inspiration (Score:4, Interesting)
I think thats down to Xerox Parc, not Apple
Umm, other than spouting a cliché, have you ever seen what PARC designed? No such thing as direct object manipulation (you clicked on an icon and then got a menu; you couldn't do anything with that icon. Couldn't drag it, move it, double-click it.). No hierarchal space, nothing analogous to QuickDraw, etc. I could go on...
Just because a buggy also had 4 wheels doesn't mean your BMW is much of a derivative.
Re:Inspiration (Score:4, Informative)
Funny, because a guy that worked at both PARC and Apple says you're wrong. [folklore.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You bought an iPad... so serious question here...
Why should Apple care what you think or what names you call them? Your view that they "lack humanity" is of course your opinion and you're welcome to it, but what reason can you think of that Apple should share in that opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
You have an odd definition of "Force" (Score:3, Insightful)
it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
What nonsense is this? Pretty much all open source software Apple uses is under BSD style licenses, they don't have to give back anything.
And yet they have for EVERYTHING they use. There is no "force of license". They do this because it is STUPID not to. It costs WAY more money to re-merge your internal mustache-twirling changes to a library with every new release, than it does simpl
Re:Apple has always been "stealing" (Score:4, Insightful)
When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
Clang puts the lie to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Clang wouldn't exist if it wasn't for GCC's license.
Development of the new front-end was started out of a need for a compiler that allows better diagnostics, better integration with IDEs, a license that is compatible with commercial products, and a nimble compiler that is easy to develop and maintain. All of these were motivations for starting work on a new front-end that could meet these needs.
You can fix another project to help with all the other points but you can't give it a more permissive license.
Re:Apple has always been "stealing" (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, when they bought CUPS and then hired the guy they bought it from in order to have him continue maintaining it, and then kept it completely open, they were clearly forced to do so. Oh, and CUPS clearly only runs primarily on OS X.
Are you cracked?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do they contribute significantly, they have created many pivotal open source projects. I'd say apple has perhaps contributed more than almost any company, especially in moving the state of the art forward in a practical and immediately usable way, while at the same time getting little recognition for its efforts. In contrast google gets lots of recognition, while not really deserving it.
We are developing embedded Linux system that relies on Webkit, LLVM, Clang, OpenCL, libdispatch & C blocks (g
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry this was supposed to be on Gnome thread. Don't know how it ended up here.
Re: (Score:2)