Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses Operating Systems BSD

Jordan Hubbard moves to new OpenDarwin.org 286

Posted by pudge from the tis-the-work-of-satan-i-tell-ye dept.
bootc writes "Last week we heard the news that Jordan Hubbard was leaving the FreeBSD Core Team. I received an email about the new OpenDarwin.org web site and had a look around, just to find that our friend Jordan was member of the OpenDarwin Core Team!" Apple has consolidated its Open Source web site, including Darwin, under its developer site, while the Internet Software Consortium is hosting the independent OpenDarwin.org, which will develop OpenDarwin with the developer community and collaborate with Apple to merge OpenDarwin technologies into Darwin and Mac OS X.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jordan Hubbard moves to new OpenDarwin.org More

Jordan Hubbard moves to new OpenDarwin.org

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder how much Apple is "contributing" towards him.

    • Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spencerian ( 465343 )
      Well, Jordan is an Apple employee, too. So he gets paid to have fun and contribute to the FreeBSD family. A nice arrangement.

      Seems that the w00ts go to you for being first poster...

    • Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

      by doubtless ( 267357 )
      I wonder how much Apple is "contributing" towards him.

      Why does this even matters? He gotta support his life anyhow, it's a nice thing when one can support open source and make a living out of it at the same time.
  • I think Jordan is moving around in a Survivor-style alignment to the most-abundant version of BSD. He likely gets the advantages of working with what he knows, but also being able to show results as users play with the results in Darwin and Mac OS X.

    Oh...and I think I got first post. What was that phrase...oh yeah...w00t!
  • Anybody can come out with a strain of Free BSD! When the hell are they gonna release the source to Aqua? At least the parts that aren't licensed from other companies (like Adobe).

    IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

    • Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by billvinson ( 135790 ) <billvinson@gmail.com> on Saturday May 04, 2002 @12:30PM (#3462919) Homepage
      We have a good *nix with the premier desktop...

      It is called Mac OS X :)

      Seriously, Aqua and Quartz are definitely slower than KDE or GNOME. That is partially due to some of the effects, but it is also due to their youth. Aqua, Quartz, and OS X as a whole has gotten better with each release and I am looking forward to Jaguar (10.2).

      I don't think Apple will open source any of the GUI components as it doesn't have much of an upside for them. The reason Aqua is so nice to look at is that it is uniform. Once it is given away for everyone to change up, we all know what will happen. Everyone would have their own agenda on where to take it. This will destroy the uniformity and make aqua no better than KDE or GNOME (neither has a look as clear, well defined or consistent as OS X). Don't get me wrong, they are nice and I would love more code to be released, but GNOME and KDE don't even come close to comparison to the OS X user experience.

      Bill

    • Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by NumberSyx ( 130129 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @12:37PM (#3462942) Journal

      IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

      I seriously doubt Apple will ever release Aqua, there are too many advantages to keeping it in house, the biggest reason being control. Apple is primarily a hardware company and they, like Sun, use software to sell thier hardware. If Aqua were released to an open source license, it would be ported to other platforms, at which point at least one reason for buying an Apple system is gone. Who would spend $1800 on an iMac when you could get similar functions from a $800 Celeron system.

      I personally think we may, in the future see some x86 OEM do something similar with Linux. Have an open source core (command line only), with a proprietary GUI on top (only sold and supported with thier hardware, no retail version), but make it easy to run X Windows concurently in rootless mode, so all the hardcore Linux users can still use thier favorite programs. I suspect someone could sell alot of hardware this way, if done right and done well.

    • We have Aqua. Or about 95% of the look. (Not the underlying technology, but then, does it matter?) Want it? First, use KDE. I say this because I know that there is an Aqua window decoration theme that has translucent unfocused titlebars. If there's a Sawfish window decoration with similar capabilities, speak up. Next, get Aqua themes for KDE and GNOME/GTK. You may have to tweak them a bit so that they are identical, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Grab some OSX icons off the net, play with KDE's kicker until it looks like the dock, and you've got Aqua!

      Of course, if you really wanted to be clever, you could patch the kicker source code to get that "bouncing icon" effect that OSX has. If you want to be even more clever, you can patch KDE so that window menus are displayed in the desktop menu, thus giving you that genuine Mac experience. (This might already be the case in KDE3; I'm still running 2.2.)

      :Peter

      • Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BlueGecko ( 109058 ) <benjamin...pollack@@@gmail...com> on Saturday May 04, 2002 @01:01PM (#3463006) Homepage
        We have Aqua. Or about 95% of the look. (Not the underlying technology, but then, does it matter?)
        No, looks are everything! So I took off this Porsche Boxter chasis and stuck it on a Chevy Lumina, and I was wondering if you'd be interested...

        On a slightly more serious note, it's very clear you haven't used OS X. Looks are NOT everything. If you honestly believe that the KDE 3 user experience is on par with Mac OS X, then I truly hope you stay out of usability testing. It's getting better all of the time, as is GNOME, but it's just not there yet. For example, the KDE configuration system is far more complex than System Preferences. Sure, it's because you get a lot of extra customization, but it overwhelms newbie users. (And, on a similar note, any user who really wants to customize things that badly in OS X need merely get the TinkerTool Panel installed and he can configure a number of out-of-the-way system settings.) KDE lacks any functionality close to an iDisk, and you cannot configure things such as webserving with the click of a button like you can in OS X. The excedingly simple directory structure of OS X is completely lacking in all Linux distros. (I.e., while the full structure is, of course, there, the user needn't worry about it. ~/Preferences houses all the user's prefs, /Applications holds all of the pretty Aqua apps which can simply be dragged there to install and to the trash to remove, etc. "./configure ; make ; make install" just cannot compare to this, and even .rpms and .debs are nowhere close, in my opinion.) Font managing is trivial, upgrades can be performed with a single button click or automatically while you sleep, etc., etc., etc.

        Just because it looks like a duck does not mean that it quacks like a duck.

        • Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @01:30PM (#3463077)
          A few corrections.. hope you don't mind...., Sure, it's because you get a lot of extra customization, but it overwhelms newbie users. (And, on a similar note, any user who really wants to customize things that badly in OS X need merely get the TinkerTool Panel installed and he can configure a number of out-of-the-way system settings.)

          Talking of usability testing, do you have any data to back this up? It's true the KDE Control Centre is bizarrely designed, but in fact it's being restructured for KDE3.1

          KDE lacks any functionality close to an iDisk, and you cannot configure things such as webserving with the click of a button like you can in OS X.

          Incorrect. There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac. If you want, you can pay me and I'll give you some FTP space. You'll then find you can browse your "mikeDisk" direct from Konqueror like a normal filing system, and also all your apps will be able to load and save to it directly - you need never know it's on a remote disk. What, you want even more power? Then try InterMezzo, which is a caching, conflict resolving offlineable remote drive system. Not only do you get network transparecy, but also you can disconnect at any point and continue working.

          Oh, I almost forgot, there is a KDE panel applet that includes a small webserver, that can be switched on or off with a mouseclick. I think it's included with KDE3 or if not then with 3.1

          The excedingly simple directory structure of OS X is completely lacking in all Linux distros.

          Switch to root and try again. The whole UNIX directory structure is there, the finder simply hides it. Fine - I can make a version of Konqueror that hides it all as well, would that make it easier to use? Perhaps. I don't know to be honest. It might be something to look into.

          You're right in terms of software management, but it's being worked on [gnupdate.org]. Font management is also improving.

          What matters is the process - OS X is simply a way of locking you into proprietary Apple hardware and kit. All platforms have their strengths and weaknesses, and the weaknesses you mentioned in Linux are being resolved fast. I could name a lot of weaknesses in OS X too, which I believe Apple are on the verge of solving. So what? What matters is - are you the one in control 5 years from now?

          • There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac.

            Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.

            mark
            • Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.

              No -- the point is the very real costs of maintaining the ftp servers are paid by Apple out of its income. Transparent ftp connectivity is already part of KDE, the problem is that there can be no centralized server without *somebody* paying for it.
            • You have to buy a Mac to use the mac.com services, they are paid for out of the Apple hardware sales.
              • No you don't. I use my mac.com account on my Windows box at work. Yes, they are paid for by Apple, who makes money from hardware sales among other things. But you don't need a mac to use it, only to sign up. And you can sign up for as many accounts as you want. So in that sense it is pretty free.

                mark
          • Aqua shmaqua.

            While the Aqua look is nice, it has and can be duplicated. The fact of the matter is that the real advantage is with the underlying rendering layer. There is no way an X based system is going to be able to present a look and feel of any design, no matter how good that is going to be able to compete with the flat out sophistication of Quartz.

            • I don't see how Aqua is more technically sophisticated than X really. Aqua isn't network transparent, or themable, or particularly keyboard friendly. It's not hardware accelerated. It looks nice,and, er, that's about it. It's also a CPU hog.

              I guess I'm saying that X, as in the extended accelerated XFree version, isn't all that bad.

          • Talking of usability testing, do you have any data to back this up?
            Sun's GNOME Usability Test made that point, and KDE's panels are similar enough to GNOMEs that I assumed the comparison was fair.
            Oh, I almost forgot, there is a KDE panel applet that includes a small webserver, that can be switched on or off with a mouseclick. I think it's included with KDE3 or if not then with 3.1
            It's not on my KDE 3 system, but that may be because I left out a package or something. Even if it is, though, my point doesn't really stand changed; KDE is improving with leaps and bounds, but it's just not entirely there, yet.

            Re. transparent file access: that wasn't really my point. The iDisk in OS X is extremely thoroughly integrated, such that applications assume that it's there and you can easily send a file to your iDisk even if it's not mounted. Further, the very structure of the iDisk is critical for much of this to work properly. iPhoto assumes that a folder named Photos exists on your iDisk (just like your home directory, I might add), and HomePage assumes that it will find photos there if for your photos page. KDE doesn't need a central service to dupliate this functionality, but a standard disk format and easy way to essentially point to the iDisk (kDisk?) server of your choice would be a really simple and actually very nice addition.

            Switch to root and try again. The whole UNIX directory structure is there, the finder simply hides it. Fine - I can make a version of Konqueror that hides it all as well, would that make it easier to use? Perhaps. I don't know to be honest. It might be something to look into.
            I know it's still there; hell, I rely on it being there in some of the apps I write that in turn call the standard Unix tools in /usr/bin. The key is that the USER doesn't need to know, EVER. The /etc files are entirely obsoleted by NetInfo. Applications the typical user needs can be placed anywhere on the disk without any problem, and can be installed and deinstalled simply by drag and drop. I actually run with all files and directories exposed, but still find the OS X structure far easier for general apps.

            Again, I appreciate that everything is improving, but you've got to understand that it's not quite there yet. That was my only point, and I honestly look forward very eagerly to when KDE and friends are on-par or surpass Apple's offerings. That's the point where no one will any longer be able to deny that open source desktops are around the corner.
        • Just a minor quibble. An iDisk is just a share mounted with WebDAV. Windows calls it Web Folders. Do either KDE or Gnome have WebDAV built into their file manager ?


          In addition to support for WebDAV in the Finder, OS X has a mod_dav enabled copy of Apache [oreillynet.com]. The link is to an O'Reilly article on setting up a WebDAV folder in OS X.

      • Actually, we have something closer. (Score:4, Informative)

        by pschmied ( 5648 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @01:06PM (#3463022) Homepage
        GNUStep [gnustep.org] though not terribly similar in looks to aqua, is technologically very close to the modern NeXT-style development.

        Don't believe me? Check out these screenshots:

        GNUMail on Linux/GNUStep [collaboration-world.com]

        GNUMail under Aqua/MacOS X [collaboration-world.com]


        Don't write off GNUStep just because they haven't reached the popularity of KDE or GNOME. I think that with Apple's dominance in the UNIX market place, that we may see GNUStep become increasingly important.

        -Peter

    • Apple isn't about to give Aqua away (Score:5, Informative)

      by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Saturday May 04, 2002 @12:56PM (#3462995) Homepage Journal
      When the hell are they gonna release the source to Aqua? At least the parts that aren't licensed from other companies (like Adobe).
      1. Aqua depends on the Quartz rendering layer (Display PDF)
      2. Apple developed Quartz (Display PDF) in-house specifically in order to avoid paying licensing fees to Adobe like Next was for Display postscript
      3. The PDF spec is open for anyone else to develop their own implementation, just like Apple did
      4. Apple's implementation of Display PDF is apparently fairly MacOS X-specific and while chunks of it could likely be retargetted it's supposedly not a candidate for a direct port
      5. Apple considers the Aqua GUI their trade dress and are quite vigorous about defending it
      So, instead of whining at Apple to give away their goodies how about actually supporting the projects out there with the same aims? And instead of looking to rip-off their interface howzabout showing some initiative and coming up with a distinct sperate one - goodness knows there's enough folks happy to criticize the Aqua GUI.

      When did Open Source become gimme gimme gimme?

      • Open Source never BECAME gimme gimme gimme, its been that from the start. All it is is the duplication of already existing proprietary software with very little to no innovation. I mean how many distinct ways can you make a GUI to begin with? How many other people besides those of us on slashdot even WANT to learn a new GUI?
    • IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

      There is so much to say in response to this one sentence. Where to begin?

      Look, KDE not lacking in anything that is "keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop". If we want Linux to take over the world, then we need specialized apps, like games and Adobe products. MacOS X users love to talk all day about how they are running Windows/Mac/Linux software all at the same time. The power of OS X is in the applications. As far as the UI goes, I personally can't stand it. It is too limited and too slow. KDE is much more configurable and fully open-source to boot.

      Now, there is no reason that *nix can't be a good desktop system for your average user. Apple proves this. Linux/KDE may not be for the average user, but that's fine. I like the power. Each to his own.

      Linux/KDE has the desktop. It doesn't have as many desktops as Microsoft or Apple, but who cares? It doesn't have to take over the world to be viable.

      Sorry about the rant. From your post, it seemed like you were saying KDE was not good enough and if Linux had Aqua it would change everything. IMO, this is simply not true. Anyhow, Aqua is not a fantasy, it exists. Go get a Mac, or get your mom a Mac. It's right there, and its lack of existence on x86 is not holding anything back.

    • I agree. Please see my .sig.

      -Russ
  • L. Ron?

    BSD is crawling with Code Thetans! Someone get me an E-Meter!

  • Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From an OS point of view (not GUI) is Darwin better than the BSDs in any technical way?

    • Re:Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:23PM (#3463235)
      That's a trick question, you know that right?


      FreeBSD is a fine OS, there isn't a whole ton of things you can point at and say are intrinsicly wrong with it. There are some religion issues and a handful of ticky tacky things that some of us might want different but it's pretty darn good. It's very well engineered.


      Darwin is maybe a more modern design. It uses Mach as a microkernel and 4.4 lites as a BSD support subsystem. Internally it is very different. Better? I wouldn't say that. The microkernel design appeals to everyone's sense of aesthetics and design but to make it perform well you often have to break the model some.


      I'm inclined to believe that while the monolithic BSDs are all fine products then future of where BSD is going is probably microkernel based. In that sense Darwin is probably a better place to be. That's just guessing though.

  • Okay...hmmm...something funny to go for the coveted +5 score. How about:

    I've decided to fork a *BSD tree into my own offering. I'm going to call it "The Darwin Awards". Why? Because, "BSD is dying". Ba-dump-ba!

  • People Complain about Apple (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SirDrinksAlot ( 226001 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @12:36PM (#3462937) Journal
    People Complain about apple and their opensource model. The way I see it, this is really a good thing. This way with this model developers can bettter control where the OS is going. Instead of complaining about its progress they can do something about it. Its a good way for developers to better connect with their Operating System. You dont get this chance with Windows.
    • Well true, but it could be seen another way... you put in the effort, and Apple has the final say whether it's accepted or not - they're also the ones that will make the money from your hard work. Bear in mind Darwin exists to make Apple money, not for the good of the community like FreeBSD or Linux does.

      • Re:It works the other way around too (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shawnce ( 146129 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:24PM (#3463410) Homepage
        Darwin exists to make Apple money, not for the good of the community like FreeBSD or Linux does.

        How does the fact that Apple hopes to make money off what it gains from enhancement willingly given to Darwin negate the fact that others can use Darwin to build their own solutions/distributions?

        Also in open source projects the changes you submit may not be added into the tree if the project owners don't want to let them in. How does this differ with Apple?

        Anyway... It looks like OpenDarwin has its own source tree that people can use/modify. So it is "owned" by the community. Apple may pull features from OpenDarwin into Darwin/Mac OS X.

  • You do realize that Jordan Hubbard works for Apple, and has for some time now?
  • According to the ISC on its web site [isc.org] "Our goal is to produce high-quality reference implementations that meet production standards. Reference implementations of Internet standards often have the weight of defacto standards and our goal is to ensure that those reference implementations are properly supported and made freely available to the Internet community." I fail to see how OpenDarwin or anything derived from Darwin can meet this goal. While Darwin may contain BSD code, its license is the Apple Public Source License [apple.com]. For a critique of this license see for example the FSF's analysis [gnu.org]. Note in particular that the license is asymmetric--the modifier of the code completely gives up any IP claims on Apple. This asymmetry in my opinion makes this project completely unsuitable for any reference implementation. Apple isn't even listed by the ISC as one of its sponsors or customers [isc.org], past or present.

    Coding projects that the ISC currently aids such as BIND or XFree86 are usable for the entire spectrum of platforms, both free and commercial. How is OpenDarwin technology supposed to have any use for say Linux or Windows?

    • Re:Why is ISC hosting OpenDarwin.org? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:39PM (#3463276) Homepage Journal
      I fail to see how OpenDarwin or anything derived from Darwin can meet this goal.

      Darwin might not be a reference implementation for anything but itself, but it is properly supported and it is freely available to the Internet community.

      The "objectionable" part of the APSL is to treat private in-house distributions the same as public distributions (you can't "deploy" without first distributing). This does not make the license any less "free" than the GNU licenses. It meets the criteria that FSF has put forth for free licenses. In fact, the only reason it isn't a FSF approved license is that the FSF approves licenses according to the imprimatur of RMS as opposed to the published definition of Free Software.

      the modifier of the code completely gives up any IP claims on Apple.

      But only Applicable Patent Rights that "cover subject matter contained in the Original Code". This is hardly objectionable. I've seen much worse "free" patent licenses where you have to give the licensor rights to all your IP in return for the rights to a single patent.

      The APSL is basically saying, we get use to your derivation of our work, regardless of any patents you may place upon it. Sensible in my opinion.

      • All IP rights to Apple not just patent rights (Score:5, Informative)

        by joneshenry ( 9497 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:47PM (#3463486)
        Clause 3b in the Apple Public Source License 1.2 states: "You hereby grant to Apple and its subsidiaries a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify or have modified (for Apple and/or its subsidiaries), sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, in any form, through multiple tiers of distribution." Note it says "other intellectual property rights" and it also says "sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, in any form". That's everything, not just permission to use contributed code regardless of what patent claims the contributor might have. Apple and its subsidiaries get to use contributors' code for any purpose and without restriction. This interpretation is further supported by simply comparing Clause 3a with Clause 3b. In Clause 3a everyone gets the code under the rights of the Apple Public Source License; in Clause 3b Apple gets completely unrestricted usage.

        The question still stands--why is the ISC helping this effort? Having one company be given completely unrestricted usage of contributed code in contrast to every other participant is completely contrary to the ISC's stated goals. If this is acceptable for the ISC, why doesn't the ISC just encourage everyone to join Microsoft's "shared source" community, or maybe the FSF should make a special license for Microsoft that lets it use otherwise GPLed code under the BSD license while everyone else must continue to follow the GPL.

        [Aside] The posting I am replying to is typical of the deliberate obfuscation used in debate. The Apple Public Source License speaks of more than just patent rights. Anyone following the links I provided can jump right to the license's text and to the FSF's objections. Yet the author of the above reply still chooses to focus on the patent issue. No doubt there will be further followups of more obfuscation about how it is Apple's code blah blah. That isn't the issued I raised--the issue is why is the ISC promoting an effort that will directly undermine its stated goals of improving the Internet.

        • If this is acceptable for the ISC, why doesn't the ISC just encourage everyone to join Microsoft's "shared source" community...

          If you can't figure that one out, you're hopeless. With the APSL, the recipient of the code has the freedom to distribute and modify the code. With Shared Source you don't. Apple can't stop me from forking Darwin. Microsoft will haul me into court in a heartbeat if I tried forking their stuff. Apple doesn't even register users of APSL code. Microsoft won't let you see their code until you sign a contract.

          There's simply no comparison between the two. The APSL is most certainly Open Source, meets the Four Freedoms listed by the FSF, and in at least a few minds, marginally qualifies as Free Software. Shared Source, on the other hand, doesn't even come close. No, the APSL ain't perfect. It has a lot of flaws. But it's a damn sight better than Shared Source.
      • The "objectionable" part of the APSL is to treat private in-house distributions the same as public distributions (you can't "deploy" without first distributing). This does not make the license any less "free" than the GNU licenses.

        Talking about more or less free doesn't illuminate the issue at hand. The APSL is either a Free Software license or it isn't. Private derivatives are allowed under the GNU GPL and they are not allowed under the APSL. Because private derivatives are a requirement for Free Software, the APSL does not qualify as a Free Software license.

        In fact, the only reason it isn't a FSF approved license is that the FSF approves licenses according to the imprimatur of RMS as opposed to the published definition of Free Software.

        This is plainly wrong. The published definition of Free Software clearly states private derivatives must be allowed: [gnu.org]

        "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist."
        • Why must I follow the GPL when I deploy Linux on my friend's desktop, but should not have to follow the APSL when I deploy Darwin on my secretary's desktop?

          • If you install Linux on your desktop and your friends (and your secretaries too for that matter) you haven't dont anything related to the GPL at all. The GPL comes into play when you *redistribute* the software. So, as long as you aren't distributing the software outside of you organization then you don't need to even read the GPL. The moment you do, you fall under it's clauses. The APSL, however, says that any modifications, even if you've never shown them to anyone, can be requested by Apple and you have to give those changes to Apple if they do request it. See the difference?

  • GNUstep (Score:2, Informative)

    by greygent ( 523713 )
    For those sorry lot amongst you who don't use OS X, perhaps you should look into the GNUstep project and help them out.

    The more done this project is, the more likely you'll see Mac OS X Cocoa developers compiling GNUstep stuff for the Linux folks. If the GNUstep folks so far, Apple might be willing to start open sourcing bits and components of their GUI.

    I was one of the ones that wondered why the GNUstep folks even bothered, but who's piping down now?

    In any case, I don't bother, I use OS X already.

  • New Icon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @01:21PM (#3463058) Homepage
    I believe slashdot will need a new icon image for Open Darwin's Hexley [opendarwin.org]

  • It's funny watching you open source knobbers get all worked up over OS X. Talk about being jealous...

    Apple debuts the most technologically advanced windowing system ever, and it's:
    "Aqua/Quartz is so slow! And it doesn't support network transparency! And Aqua is so candy-coated and ugly! Hahahah!" Meanwhile 2,000 different Aqua themes appear on the various themes sites within days.

    Apple bases their OS on FreeBSD, something that ALL geeks are supposed to be keen on, and it's:
    "They've bastardized the tree hierarchy, and used a microkernel. Microkernels are so slooow."

    Apple brings third-party developers like Adobe and MS onto the bandwagon - developers which Linux has been trying and failing to emulate since day one - and it's:
    "We never needed that proprietary crap anyway, Gimp is 500% better than Photoshop and OpenOffice kills MS Office and... and... and your mom!"

    Apple includes Apache, NFS, and Samba connectivity and it's:
    "Enabling/disabling my daemons with one click is so inflexible. I want more configurability."

    Apple retains their trademark simplicity in plug & play. Mice, keyboards, scanners, you name it Just Work. The open-source community replies:
    "You can do that today in ObscureLinuxDistro 8.3. You just have to make sure you've got x, y, and z modules loaded, use modprobe for this otherwise type cat /proc/modules and you'll see a list of modules. Now go into the XFree86 config file and make sure you see these lines, and..."

    Once again, open source software finishes last place in technology and usability, and its zealotry continue to deny it. Get out of the basement and into the real world, pizzafaces. Your mom.

    • Re:Suck it GNU hippies (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 )

      Microkernels are so slooow.

      If the GNU people say that, then why are they building a microkernel-based OS called HURD?

      I know the community can't be completely represented with generalizations, but to take myself as an example, I haven't complained about any of the things you've mentioned. My only concern is licensing.

      If Aqua's good (and I believe it is), we'll build one.

    • "You can do that today in ObscureLinuxDistro 8.3. You just have to make sure you've got x, y, and z modules loaded, use modprobe for this otherwise type cat /proc/modules and you'll see a list of modules. Now go into the XFree86 config file and make sure you see these lines, and..."

      I utterly agree. I am trying for the last three days to install Slakware on an old PII and for somebody who is used to Apple's Simplicity, It just sucks so much. It's interesting, without a doubt, but you know how frustrating it is if you're not able to just plug in your ADSL Model and go? No, it's patch this, patch that, find that obscure library and that driver which is still in Alpha and recompile the kernel.

      In OS X I just whacked the blooming thing into the USB port and - hey presto.

      Sorry, Linux, 0 points for ease of use.

      • WTF were you doing trying to use Slackware? Oh, I know, you never actually wanted to give Linux a chance anyway, you'd rather be a cheap corporate mouthpiece for Apple.

        If you'd actually spent more than 2 minutes researching your new OS then you'd have found that every piece of literature on the subject says Slackware is highly technical, not meant for newbies and (i quote) "great for people for whom computing is a hobby".

        You know what? Go out, buy SuSE 8 (for a PC dammit, PPC support is still experimental), and then install it on a PC. It worked perfectly, first time for me, no hassle.

        Quit dicking around and pretending you can comment on something you clearly didn't put any effort into finding out about before you started.

    • BOM, you hit the nail smack on the head! Stated differently, Linux is for people that want to do stuff *to* their computer, OS X is for people that want to do stuff *with* their computer. For me, both paradigms are appropriate for different challenges, that's why I use/tweak on both.
    • Funny how everyone who makes the mildest defense of Microsoft gets accused of being a paid astroturfer, while this troll gets modded up to a 5.

      I had replies to some of these points, but I don't really think it deserves it until the author is capable of speaking like a civilized human.
    • Amen.

      The one thing I feel should be said is this:
      It's not up to GNOME, KDE, or any other application developers to give you a great system configuration interface. The ability to configure everything you might need to configure is the job of RedHat, SuSe, Debian, Slackware, etc.

      Why the hell does everyone expect KDE to be able to set your IP Address when you could be using dhclient, pumpd, etc.? If you want to be able to configure NFS with the click of a button, yell at RedHat/SuSe for not including a GUI/CLI program that knows what RedHat installed, and knows how to configure it.
  • Apple will obviously not open source Quartz or allow copies of it's Aqua GUI. The reasons are obvious and have been discussed often enough. There's nothing wrong with that. They need the money and, at the least provide Darwin as an alternative commercially supported Unix to Linux(IBM, RedHat, SuSE etc). Their attention to their Desktop is important, as this provides a real alternative to MS' enormous monopoly, and perhaps even more importantly the Quartz/Aqua GUI provides (at least for PPC) a standard interface for applications. I'm not a big fan of Aqua but it does provide a standard on the platform. This is one of the reasons, I think, for MS' monopoly on the desktop. Think of it as crap or good, but it does make it easier for an application designer to design a GUI. Same for Apple. The controls all look the same and the API's are standard. Linux needs something like this as well. Both GNOME and KDE are good but their lack of intercompatibility with one another does no service to Linux. Choice is good but perhaps sometimes it also leads to confusion, in this case for instance amongst normal users who have difficulty understanding how to use the right mouse button, never mind understanding whether QT3 or GTK is better.

  • ObjC vs. C# (Score:2, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 )
    Having started to use ObjC on OSX, which is obviously supported on Darwin and GNUStep as well, I found it similar in it's ease of use to Java. No one owns ObjC and unlike C# you can compile it with GCC. No one is going to hijack ObjC, but can you say the same about C#.

    It's not much of an argument, but it's worth thinking about.

  • Those who refuse to learn History are bound to repeat it – as a farce. Can’t remember who said that, nor exactly in which words.

    BSD was hoarded by proprietary vendors before, and this almost killed free software at that time. That’s why copyleft, being so restrictive, got so popular: so that free software wouldn’t be hoarded again.

    The same goes for X. XFree hackers even refused a deal to have it GPL’d by the X Group. It’s a kind of idealism, but one which endangers the very continuance of the freedoms we all have come to cherish.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Shuttle is now going five times the sound of speed. -- Dan Rather, first landing of Columbia

Close