Apple Plans To Release Rendezvous As Open Source 348
Snuffub writes "According to MacCentral, Apple announced during an interview today that they would be releasing Rendezvous, their implementation of the zeroconf standard, under an open source license. I can't see this as being anything but great news for everyone involved -- the community gets a mature implementation of an emerging technology, and Apple benefits as more devices are created to support Rendezvous. For everyone interested, you'll be able to download the source from Apple's site in a couple weeks." uglyhead69 adds: "The article is light on details and doesn't mention what license will be used, but it's probably safe to assume that it's the APSL."
uPnP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:uPnP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:uPnP (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps MS just implemented it because they thought it was a good idea and didn't actually try to push it in the marketplace. Either way - I think its nice that uPNP/Rendezvous is starting to look like a level playing field for all applicable platforms.
J
Re:uPnP (Score:3, Interesting)
Check your facts.
--
Re:uPnP (Score:2)
M$' failure to promote this initiative might have something to do with the dismal association most people see in "Microsoft" + "Plug and Play". Also, Microsoft fucks everything up and then charges you for it, which Apple does less often.
Re:uPnP (Score:2)
I don't know enough to be sure, but I THINK this is wrong.
I dont think Apple has enough marketing muscle to push it assuming Microsoft could not.
Actually Apple has a much better track record in pushing technologies than Microsoft does. Part of this is due to the fact that it is often a higher priority at Apple than at Microsoft. Microsoft makes money day in and day out just selling their products whether vendors & consumers adopt a new technology or not. Apple's business model seems almost more like a movie studio. They scratch by day in and day out and reap a windfall by producing "blockbuster" products (Like the iMac or the recent launch of 10.2 which produced more sales in two days at Apple stores than they had in the entire preceeding Quarter). Often these blockbusters are built on the backs of new technologies which Apple is consequently more commited to pushing on third party vendors.
Another part of it is that mac users have higher standards for consistency from app to app & from peripheral to peripheral. They expect things to work "the mac way". So Mac users are much more likely than windows users to reward a manufacturer who follows Apples lead and adopts ZeroConf (for instance) and will avoid a manufacturer who doesn't. Since the market is small to begin with manufacturers intending to sell to it take greater pains not to alienate any significant percentage of it. If half the windows market wouldn't even consider your peripheral because you don't support the newest most snazzy technology - you still have a huge market in the other half to make your money off of. If half the mac market won't even consider your product you might as well not bother (which many don't). These two dynamics reinforce each other - the vendors that actually DO decide to sell to the mac market are more slavish in following Apples lead and so the users come to expect the consequential consistency even more.
Of course Apples success in pushing new technologies is initially confined to the Mac market but that sheltered niche seems just large enough for the new technology to gain a critical mass that allows it to burst on to the larger PC scene.
Re:uPnP (Score:2)
Make Rendezvous Open Source! (Score:5, Funny)
oh wait. they already have?
Re:Make Rendezvous Open Source! (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple have adopted open standards in just about everything they've done without trying to damage them a la M$ & Kerberos. I've seen plenty of Embrace but absolutely no Extend nor Extinguish. Please point some out ...
They've based their entire OS core on BSD/Mach and then went on to release the sources, including those of the usual services. I just downloaded bootpd a minute ago, BTW.
Cheshire Interview about Rendevous (Score:5, Informative)
w00t! (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see where developers could use this to create thousands of cool applications for little tasks here and there, but what is the advantage outside of this? And how would it help the Rendezvous program grow?
what is it good for? (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of processes running on an array of machines. Say for example you have a data center full of racks of 1U servers, and each one is cranking away on some part of the application code. You have redundant processes scattered around too, so if one machine takes a dive, you want the whole application to stay up and running anyway.
Imagine you're the administrator of this system. How do you tell each little process in the system what IP address and TCP port to use so that every other process in the system knows where to find it?
Without Rendezvous, you have several options-- all of them unappealing. You might start with some kind of application specific configuration file format and a cobbled-together system for distributing such data around to all the hosts in the system. You might instead store such network configuration in some directory server on the network, like DNS or LDAP or some kind of custom front end to some kind of evil database backend.
Either way, you quickly encounter what we veterans like to call "the cache coherency problem," i.e. the information in the directory must be consistent at all times with the actual state of the processes in the system. Whenever processes start, stop, migrate or change their profile, you have to update the directory. Solving this problem with existing technology can be expensive. If you don't solve it, then single-point failure modes proliferate and the system becomes exponentially more difficult to manage the larger it gets.
With Rendezvous, the network itself is the directory service. Since all the little processes in the system are responsible for their own advertisements, there is no cache coherency problem. You don't have to assign addresses and ports to all your processes because the application can simply assign itself a set of abstract service names and discover all the instances of those services on the network with Rendezvous service discovery. No configuration files to keep updated. No dynamic updates to LDAP or DNS servers that might get overloaded, or may not be running or in the right place when they need to be.
Of course, there are alternatives to consider. You might think to use SLP (RFC 2608-2610), which you can download now from www.openslp.org, but strangely... SLP hasn't managed to get much traction in industry. Some say that's because it's too unwieldy to use effectively.
You should compare Rendezvous with OpenSLP and see which one you think is better.
--
Re:what is it good for? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, it is funny you mention that, because I've been wondering if/when Apple might introduce automatic clustering. The way I understand it, the threading implementation in Darwin is such that threads can not only be transferred between processors, but also between computers too. Rendezvous could let you find all the other computers on the network that will let you run code (in a sandbox, perhaps) and automatically throw threads to them if it will help.
Imagine the Photoshop benchmarks if everything was spread across a rack of XServes!
<DUCKS>
Re:what is it good for? (Score:2, Interesting)
Time to invest in switches to the desktop if you haven't already, this will seriously increase your network utilization.
Re:what is it good for? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what is it good for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it have to be application specific? Like using Rendezvous is less "specific".
and a cobbled-together system for distributing such data around to all the hosts in the system.
What's wrong with TFTP or NFS or any other network filesystem?
You might instead store such network configuration in some directory server on the network, like DNS
DNS is a directory server?
or LDAP or some kind of custom front end
So Rendezvous has a non-custom front end? That's not good. If my processes are specific to the particular problem domain (probably unique if it demands a "distributed system") then I would rather have a "front end" to match.
to some kind of evil database backend. Either way, you quickly encounter what we veterans like to call "the cache coherency problem,"
Then what do you call it? Because using a database sounds like a very good way to maintain cache coherency. You would rather state be strewn across the network?
i.e. the information in the directory must be consistent at all times with the actual state of the processes in the system.
So Rendezvous is going to guarantee state consistency between processes better than a database backend? It was compared to NetBIOS for cripes sake. I think you've made a pretty stong case against using Rendezvous for a "distributed system". My impression is that other than negotiating IP and multicast addresses a Rendezvous client is otherwise application specific.
Rendezvous is used to setup printers and wireless devices, not orchestrate large scale distributed processes.
Re:what is it good for? (Score:4, Insightful)
> What's wrong with TFTP or NFS or any other network filesystem?
Ever tried to deploy a distributed NFS server? By that I mean: if the primary NFS server goes down, a secondary automatically and transparently serves as a replacement without the NFS client ever having to be redirected? Such things exist. None of them are cheap.
> Then what do you call it? Because using a database sounds like a very good
> way to maintain cache coherency. You would rather state be strewn across the network?
You *already* have state strewn across the network, i.e. the availability states of the various processes that comprise the distributed system. Why try to maintain a cache of that state in a database when the processes can use the network to discover and locate one another directly?
Have you every tried to deploy a replicated database manager? Every transaction on the database must be ACID for this to work with high reliability. (ACID is an acronym, stands for Atomic Consistent Independent and Durable.) Easy to do with a monolithic database manager. Much harder to do with a replicated system. Again, such things exist. None of them are cheap.
My point: distributed systems with more single points of failure provide less reliability than systems with fewer. Rendezvous eliminates an important single point failure mode.
--
Re:w00t! (Score:3, Insightful)
Very beneficial to Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:w00t! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, If that's the only reason, not everybody could hate MS because most of their customers don't even know what source code is, let alone the difference between open and closed.
Re:Two words, rice_web (Score:2)
Peripherals! (Score:5, Interesting)
Many, many possibilities here.
Re:Peripherals! (Score:2, Funny)
Now if I could just find another job I'd be all set.
Re:Peripherals! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Peripherals! (Score:2)
I know plenty of people who are (or will be) running the latest OSX operating system on their 4 year old macs.
I don't know anywhere near that many windows users who 1) use a 4 year machine as their primary machine or 2) are going to install Windows XP on it... they continue using Windows 98.
Re:Peripherals! (Score:2)
How do you think Mac OS X prints? Oh ya, thats right.
Re:Peripherals! (Score:2)
Smart business move (Score:5, Interesting)
From Apple's point of view, anything that puts Microsoft outside a large pool of functionality is good. Essentially, it's an attempt to conduct a reverse embrace and extend. Take something that was already there, improve it, then give it back.
Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed. I've been using 10.2 since the public release, and I'm impressed by Rendezvous, and I can't wait to use it with Linux as well.
Coolness factor (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that the coolness factor may have played a big part in Apple's reasons for this business move.
The hackers of the Open Source community are addicted to cool and will use this technology and exploit it to the maximum. I think this may have an even bigger effect than Sun's open sourcing of StarOffice because an office suite just doesn't have the same coolness factor. Sure, it's very important and the OpenOffice team have been doing a great work but it just doesn't scream "play with me!" to tinkerers and gadget freaks like this does...
What exactly is your price?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, what would be the price that would make all the "Apple's too expensive" camp shut up and buy?
I'm not trying to be fussy, I'm seriously interested...
Re:What exactly is your price?? (Score:2)
Re:What exactly is your price?? (Score:2)
No. I'm a rabid Mac addict, but you're spewing crap logic. The people who want an $800 computer want an $800 computer. You can find usable 17" CRTs for under $50 (often $0) in most cities. I already own two.
Re:What exactly is your price?? (Score:2)
Re:What exactly is your price?? (Score:2)
Apple has always been more expensive - now they are just a little bit more expensive, not near as bad as it used to be. Sometimes you gotta decide what's best for you and buy it. If that means you want all the niceties of an Apple and you are willing to pay for it, great.
mac vs pc price comparison is irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
I started out as a rabid mac user, i did a lot of multimedia stuff in the early days, some time around the Quadra 840AV and a few years into the first PowerPC machines. Macs were fun and i could do what i wanted, which would have been way harder on PC platforms.
then when i went into hardcore web applications development and entered the corporate world, well, as cool as BBEdit is, i couldn't justify to my boss to get an expensive Mac Laptop over the DELL everyone gets. Win2K served its purpose, then DELL hardware and win2k started freaking out, randomly freezing the mouse, corrupting sectors on my hard drive. I lost *a lot* of time.
Then Apple came up with unix at the core of its OS. now as a developer, UNIX makes sense. my dell was crap. so my boss got me my early 400mhz TiBook, with OS 10.1. beautiful thing. it never ever crashes, i never need to reboot it aside from software upgrades, it does what i need it to and just WORKS.
What I'm trying to get at is:
How much are you willing to pay for "It Just Works". Frankly, I will wholeheartedly shell out an extra $1000 on an apple system running OS X, over any PC equivalent.
Why? Because:
1) eventhough linux occupies a special place in my heart while i'm running LinuxPPCQ4200 on an old PPC 7500 pci mac at home, it's still not the perfect desktop OS. It's getting very close with office suites, browsers, email clients, but it's not quite there yet.
2) there is no fucking way in hell i'll ever run windoz for any serious computing, in light of all the security holes this thing still has. Should i forget to disable netbios i don't wanna get fucked by script kiddies. plus the SSL issues, IE5/6+ scripting holes, i mean we could go on and on.
3) in the end i want an platform running an OS which has it all. and that's Mac OS X.
Until OS X came along, i'd say "fair enuff, macos is nice but it's really not all that powerful, not really enterprise-grade material and out-of-this-world networking. you can't really hack into it because you can't get command line. it's not super-stable. provided you've got good hardware, a clean install and some luck, you'll get great stability out of win2k. All in all, provided it doesn't crash on me, i can do more things pertinent to my job in win2k than macos, such as running cygwin".
But since mac os 10.1 came out, and now 10.2, in my book there is no other solution for serious computing, for doing work under tight deadlines, for which you are getting paid non-negligeable amounts of money, and where your ass is on the line, i know OS X's got my back.
Don't get me wrong i'm not saying apple systems are good for everyone, they *are* more expensive.
It boils down to this:
How much is dependability worth to you? How much is your time worth to you? to me, priceless.
Oh another thing worth noting ... apple's "digital lifestyle" concept works very well. i bought a sony digital camera, an ipod, i don't even own a dvd player but my TiBook does play DVDs so i buy DVDs. apple's iSoftwareSuite freakin' rocks. iPhoto totally ownz.
I've installed GNOME and Oroborus, i play Tetris in xemacs under OS X.
My implementation (Score:5, Interesting)
It is in no way a complete implementation, but got me an 'A' grade
Apple didn't really have a choice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Autoconfiguration is Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be nice when they do release some source for this, and make all of the technical documents available. I'd like something to look over about all of this autoconfiguration software.
I mean, am I the only person this scares? Microsoft Outlook had (has) the autoexecute feature that allows virii authors to introduce new and inventive ways to drop rootkits into IIS servers.
Linux has their own little features that have to be guarded against as well. In the basis of security very few of my companies Linux boxes are running any form of FTP. Way too many security alerts, and 90% of the boxes don't need to do file transfers anyway.
Now Apple offers us a really cool and interesting technology that will allow a computer to automatically find a printer. How long before one of these virii authors writes himself an object that allows his PowerBook G4 to introduce itself to a Rendevous network and take control of several machines at once.
Here you go, a really sweet streaming virus.
I for one, hope that there isn't just a way to turn this off, but delete it entirely from a running system. Because as of right now, I'm a little more worried about this than anything new from Redmond about automatically updating my systems.
We use all *NIX on the outside anyway, so that doesn't really apply to any sensitive systems ^_^
discovery != access (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Autoconfiguration is Scary (Score:5, Informative)
This means you don't need to know IP addresses and well known ports, or run port scanners to discover services. If your machine doesn't want to be found by Rendezvous, don't advertise your services with it.
One key thing that makes it smarter than UDDI and the like is that it is service-centric, not device-centric. You don't have to find a machine and try to open special ports to see if it has a webserver or SLP printer or SMTP relay or whatever, instead, you ask for a service that you already know the protocol for, and you find out if any devices that implement it are available.
Re:Autoconfiguration is Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
(BTW, the English plural of "virus" is "viruses"; the Latin plural would be one of "viri" (pronounced "vee-ree"), "virorum", "viris", or "viros", depending on case.)
What I'd like to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ping.
iBook, OS 10.2, anyone around?
It'd be like combining Wardriving with those weird "Beep if someone you'll consider hot is nearby." things they were selling in Japan a while ago.
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
But Rendezvous (zeroconf) is a very interesting technology, I tried to get it working in Linux a while back but the project was not that complete and there were few things you could do with it.
Ciryon
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
Cool start.
I forsee a hiccup... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple uses the APSL [apple.com], then the source code could not be used in Linux [kernel.org]. I'm uncertain if Debian [debian.org] would accept any APSL submissions.
The issue to my mind is that Rendezvous needs popular adoption, and rapid acceptance would be best. If Apple has it in mind to emphasis Windows' network reliablity, then a GPL license would allow the technology to be integrated into Linux, and percolate into FreeBSD via ports. If Apple wants the most rapid adoption a source license can provide, the BSD license would be best, but then Microsoft would be free to embrace & extend.
This is why I root for the GPL in this case. Rendezvous is very cool technology, so Microsoft would either have to ignore it, attack its mindshare, impliment its own version, or bend knee to the GPL. Their own implimentation would be inferior for a time, and due to demand and early deployment, Microsoft would be unfairly judged as having an incompotent implimentation, rather than a primitive one. This would add pressure to move to non-Microsoft platforms. This is good for Apple, because non-Microsoft means Unix, and in many cases, that means MacOS X.
That's aside, however. I'm afraid that an APSL license would cause the source to stagnate except for the eyes of a few Wizards that learn from the implimentation and then develop their own (L)GPLed version.
I think I'm rambling.
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the kernel, no. Only GPL or relicensable code can be used in the kernel. But it certainly can be used in the userland.
I'm uncertain if Debian would accept any APSL submissions.
What part of the DFSG does the APSL not meet?
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:2)
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:2)
Personally, I think the 12 minimum publication of source feature of APSL fails on clause 3 of the DFSG because Apple is imposing an unequal restriction on people modifying their code, because there is no obligation on Apple to publish their modifications for a minimum of 12 months.
Alternatively, one might consider it to fail on clause 5, on the basis that it implicitly discriminates against people that do not have an infrastructure capable of guaranteeing that they will be able to retrieve every version of the code that they've deployed (no matter how briefly, or how limited the deployment) over the last 12 months.
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:4, Informative)
The APSL is not compatible with the GPL. This means that you could not link the APSL code directly into GPLed code such as the linux kernel. However, i do not see why the rendezvous code would need to actually be in the kernel. It seems preferable to me that a linux implementation of rendezvous would be just a daemon or something, like inetd or any other number of things are, in which case it would just be a normal program and could be under any license at all.
If for some reason i can't forsee it is somehow necessary for the rendezvous implementation to be in the kernel, it could just be done as a kernel module; there is some dispute [tux.org] as to whether it is okay for linux kernel modules to be non-GPL, but a lot of people, including Linus Tourvalds, interpret the GPL such that OS kernel modules do not have to be GPLed.
I'm uncertain if Debian [debian.org] would accept any APSL submissions.
The GNU foundation doesn't like the APSL. [gnu.org] However, debian is more aligned with OSI [opensource.org] than they are with the GNU foundation. (Correct me if this is incorrect.) Anyway, in order for Debian to include software in its core distribution, that software must fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org]. The APSL is on the OSI approved license list [slashdot.org] meaning it fits the DFSG and APSL code could be included in Debian's main codebase, no problem.
Incidentally, Debian does maintain [debian.org] a non-free portion to their distribution, it is just that this portion is not considered "part of the main distribution", and it is not always included with the install discs (it depends on how you obtain your copy of debian, as far as i can tell). But that's irrelivant here because the APSL is OSI certified!
The only reason Apple's decision not to use the GPL would be a problem, as far as i can tell, is that some people don't like to release code under non-GPL licenses, and those people may decide not to contribute to a rendezvous implementation. But other than a few offended people, that's about the extent of the problems the APSL presents.
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:2)
Debian generally errs on the side of caution, whereas the OSI seems mostly interested in looking good in the press, so lets dubious stuff like the APSL through.
The last word [geocrawler.com] on the APSL on debian-legal concludes that the APSL probably doesn't even qualify for non-free, because of the insistence on a 12 month minimum source publication period, whereas Debian only keeps source for versions of binaries we are currently publishing.
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:2)
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:2)
You are correct that copyright holders could have multiple licenses or none at all.
But on your first point, if Apple allows Linux kernel to release under GPL, then this is tantamount to GPL licensing it to anyone. If I see a GPL licensed XYZZY in the Kernel, then I am free to take it, use it in anything else, so long as it continues to be GPL licensed.
(Moderation hints: Troll: -1)
Moderation should be done according to how much you agree with the post.
Problems with GPL and APSL... (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL, which may be the reason corporations have been slow to take up software released under the GPL. If as you say, proprietary or APSL and other less open licensed software was not permissable within GPL software, many companies would not want to take up that software. The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software. For example, I worked for a time at a well know power company which shall remain nameless. This company had a software suit which they had purchased which provided for the creation and movement of troubleshooting "tickets". The software in it's basic form was useable, but the company had other needs. They wrote modifications to the software (with the original creators permission) to run within their networks and throughout the company. If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications and release them under the GPL, the company would not have taken up the GPL software.
Freedom is a good thing, but forcing people to open their code is almost as bad as the closed code is.
Re:Problems with GPL and APSL... (Score:2)
Re:Problems with GPL and APSL... (Score:3, Informative)
BZZZT... you're wrong.
The GPL does not require modifications of modified versions of software to be 'opensourced' if the modified program is not distributed to a third party, as explained in the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].
Re:Problems with GPL and APSL... (Score:2)
Re:I forsee a hiccup... (Score:3, Funny)
No worries, I don't see most Linux kernel hackers being really anxious to incorporate a bunch of Objective-C code into the kernel, do you? ;-)
how ya doin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Automatic Bolo server finder? (Score:2, Funny)
Bolo and WinBolo [winbolo.com] rock!
Cheers
VikingBrad
NOW you tell me! (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, Sharp has already embedded this technology in thier printers, so it's not just Epson, HP, and Lexmark that will be supporting this standard.
check out CFNetServices (Score:2, Informative)
Imagine a Beowolf clust... No, seriously. (Score:3, Insightful)
zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problems (Score:3, Informative)
zeroconf breaks applications in several ways, for instance:
zeroconf will be really nice when we figure out how to make it work well without breaking apps. It's unfortunate that Apple is trying to deploy a technology widely that has several serious known flaws and claim that it is a standard before those flaws are fixed.
Re:zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problem (Score:2)
Re:zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problem (Score:3, Informative)
it's been removed.
see draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt
Re:zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problem (Score:2)
Re:zeroconf is not a standard yet, and has problem (Score:3, Informative)
no, mDNS/LLMNR is supposed to use link-local multicast scope for queries, and linklocal IPv4 is not supposed to be routed. however another problem with rendezvous/zeroconf is that (at least in the current specs) it's not clear that mDNS/LLMNR and linklocal IPv4 have the same scope - so you could end up finding IP addresses via mDNS that aren't usable to you, or conversely
you could end up having local hosts that are accessible but which you can't find using mDNS even though they support it.
i.e. this is nowhere nearly ready for prime time
Latest IETF Draft (Score:2)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ze
Re:Latest IETF Draft (Score:3, Informative)
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-07.txt
draf
draft-ietf-dnsext-md
and I think there's another one somewhere about
DNS service discovery, but I don't recall it offhand.
I Have a Question! (Score:2, Troll)
To me, there seem to be no big differences, so why do people have such a problem wiht the APSL
Re:I Have a Question! (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it (and by no means am I any sort of expert here), Stallman's main objection is that the APSL is asymmetric, in the sense that Apple, as the original creator of APSL'ed code, has more and different rights then subsequent modifiers of the code. Specifically, if you change ASPL'ed code, even if you don't publicly release the changes, you still have to notify Apple of the changes. In the eyes of GNU/FSF/Stallman, this is a violation of privacy which free software licenses should protect, and represents a central control over code which free software licenses should prevent. For more info, see This commentary on the GNU site [gnu.org].
Re:I Have a Question! (Score:3, Informative)
Slight correction, which is often forgotten: If you modify the code and distribute the resulting program, you have to make it GPL. If you don't distribute the stuff, there's no requirement to make the changes available. I believe this is actually a requirement of the Free Software and/or Open Source definition (though I'm not absolutely sure).
It Would be Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Endless iterations of the same traditional Unix toolset, tools for the server side, and attempts to mimic Office and the Windows interface, won't cut it. Be imaginative.
When I've tried to explain Linux to people who make corporate buying decisions, their questions boil down to: Why buy a cheap knock-off when the real thing is available?
(Please try to refrain from the usual
Re:It Would be Nice... (Score:2)
Money Making (Score:4, Insightful)
This might be a bit redundant, but it seems to me that the most interesting thing about all this is that Apple seems to have hit on a business model that actually makes money off open source software. First came OSX, which isn't really much more of a modifed PPC port of FreeBSD (Darwin) with a wicked nice (and nicely engineered) GUI (Aqua) slapped on top. Now we have Rendezvous, where Apple is making their implementation of an open standard open source, in hopes that its broad adoption will encourage people to buy Apple's software. Imagine what these guys could do with Ogg. . .
So maybe the moral of the story is this:
Of course, you can't attribute all (or even most) of Apple's financial success to their OSS endeavours, but (and I speak from personal experience here) OSX has changed Macs from cute little toys to a viable and intiguing alternative to x86 hardware. And if Rendezvous takes off, not only will it be a boon for the community, but Apple could do quite nicely as well. In the end though, Apple might be a pretty unique case: Apple is primarily a hadware vendor, and Apple's involvement with OSS primarily adds value to the hardware it sells (I'll buy a TiBook because it's the only game in town for running OSX), and there aren't a heck of a lot of hardware vendors who are in a position to duplicate what Apple is doing.
Re:Money Making (Score:2, Troll)
Thanks for enlightening me. I was under the mistaken impression that the only FreeBSD stuff in the Darwin kernel was the filesystem and network code (and a bit more, I'm oversimplifying). I somehow got the idea that it had a completely different driver model (IOKit) and a completely different core (Mach). Silly me thought most of it came from NeXT. Boy, was I ever wrong! Thanks!
Re:Money Making (Score:2, Interesting)
> I was under the mistaken impression that the only
> FreeBSD stuff in the Darwin kernel was the
> filesystem and network code (and a bit more, I'm
> oversimplifying). I somehow got the idea that it
> had a completely different driver model (IOKit)
> and a completely different core (Mach). Silly me
> thought most of it came from NeXT.
Apple has a good explanation of Darwin here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.
>> Darwin is a complete BSD UNIX implementation,
>> derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open
>> Source distribution. Darwin uses a monolithic
>> kernel based on FreeBSD 3.2 and the OSF/mk Mach 3,
>> combining BSD's POSIX support with the
>> fine-grained multithreading and real-time
>> performance of Mach. Darwin also provides a
>> complete shell environment based primarily on
>> NetBSD 1.4
Or another way to put it:
Darwin, child of NeXT, combines the best of all BSDs, with the finest kitchen sink money can buy thrown in for good measure.
"Heart can reach where hand cannot. Climb over any wall..."
Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Re:Money Making (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed they have. They write their own OS but use parts of open source code to make their work easier, then sell their proprietary OS on top of proprietary hardware. Remember Apple make most of their money out of hardware, not software.
There seems to be a common misconception that somehow MacOS is really an open source OS with some closed artwork/widget toolkit on top. Er, no. In fact, the vast majority of OS X is closed source. The kernel is open, but all the rest, the graphics/widget toolkit, the Cocoa APIs, Quartz, the finder, the applets, the dock, in short most of what makes MacOS X MacOS and not UNIX is closed source.
Making money out of open source code is easy. You just take somebodies code, don't tell them and use it in your own product. Voila, work saved, money made. See the company that ripped off the XVid guys for an example (except they got caught).
What's hard is actually making your own products open source (entirely open source) and still making money. RedHat manage it. CodeWeavers manage it. Apple do tell people when they use their code (well, mostly, G-Force anybody?) and they do contribute code back. However, their software is not in fact open source. It's hardly a revolutionary business model.
Mod me as a troll if you like, but that doesn't make my points any less valid.
Been there... (Score:2)
Autoconfig DVD player? (Score:2, Funny)
Does that also include using the dmca? (Score:2)
Re:Does that also include using the dmca? (Score:5, Informative)
> According to news.com [com.com]apple is using
> the dmca
Yesterday, I wrote a posting "First version of this story did *not* mention DMCA" (read it at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38907&cid=416
> to make sure its itools software does not work
> with any other dvd player but there own internal
> ones
This has nothing to do with iTools (which kinda indicates that you might not have read the article you are refering to). Apple created *iDVD* to sell their SuperDrive equipped Macs. OWC was trying to warp iDVD so they could use it to sell OWC's own DVD drives. OWC was stealing Apple's work, against Apple's license, in order to compete with Apple in the DVD drive market. Apple is the victim here.
> Apple does not care about the opensource
> community
Ha! They have released Darwin and Quick Time Streaming Server (and next month Rendevous) as open source.
OS X includes such well loved open source and free software as GCC, Emacs, Apache, and Perl.
They provide documentation on using open source, such as this page (http://developer.apple.com/internet/macosx/osdb.
And Apple ships with Macs (compressed on the hard drive but available and free for install) and in the OS X retail boxes a free copy of their development suite (which now includes GCC 3.1). Upgrades are free for the download, or $20 for a FedEx-ed CD. This enables any Mac user that wants to, to develop as much open source as their little heart desires, without having to pay for development tools.
> like Enron care about profits above all else.
Companies have to care about their profits because their first duty is to their shareholders. But in order to get those profits (and they have to be real, not cooked books), they have to care about their customers and keeping them happy.
Apple does care about their customers, their shareholders, and even tries to benefit the industry as a whole (Firewire, Rendevous). In contrast, Microsoft takes their customers for granted, uses them, manipulates them, treats them like criminals. Microsoft also doesn't pay shareholders dividends, and their stock prices are no longer going up and up. Microsoft acquired more congresscritters than Enron, because they donated three times what Enron did in the 2000 elections. You can compare one of these two companies to Enron. The one isn't Apple.
BTW, thank you Apple, for gifting Rendevous to the open source community. It was an unexpected, and most pleasant surprise.
Yatta Jaguar!
"It's a miracle! The sea water has once again created new life."
Moll, "Rebirth of Mothra 2"
Re:Obvilusly not the GNU Liesince (Score:2)
Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering... (Score:5, Informative)
Rendezvous is the ITEF standard "zeroconf". It is not uPNP. It might have some things in common, but it is very much a different standard.
Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering... (Score:2, Informative)
Try the forums at http://www.arstechnica.com for more information. The Battlefront contains several threads on Jaguar and the new iMacs. One of the posts contain information and links to back all this up
J
Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering... (Score:2)
From http://developer.apple.com/macosx/rendezvous/
Emphasis mine. I'd say that is pretty clear.
Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering... (Score:2)
Re:Well this is kinda dumb considering... (Score:2)
As for your Moral of the Story. If that is true, then Apple did develop the standard because Apple worked with TI in creating the IEEE 1394 technology.
Re:x86...barff (Score:5, Funny)
The Floppy Drive, no we had that first
The home computer, no we had that first too
The mouse, no we had that one first
The GUI, no Xerox had that but didn't want it, we got it and made it good.
Oh I know SCSI, no wait, that was another first for us.
You must mean USB, well yeah Intel developed that first, but they just sat on it, Apple ran with it and wow, now look where it is.
Oh you mean 64 bit processors for consumers, no wait that was us too.
You must mean M$ programs, no wait we had those first too.
Oh well
Re:x86...barff (Score:2)
^You mean that on board ethernet? Or maybe you ment the on board ethernet that came on my 5400/180?
Funny, I remember the Firewire extension being present in system 7.5.5, and I know I remember it being in System 8, and I also recall seeing firewire products then too.
By native support for multiple monitor systems, do you mean a video card with 2 outputs, or do you mean system level support, becasue if you mean system level, multiple monitor support has been arround since system 7.
What do you mean by uniform type usage standards?
As for post script, I'm no expert, but I would assume that seeing as how system 7 came with a full set of post-script extentions, that it did have support for it.
Cross program cut and paste? That's easy enough, I've never once had a problem with "unreliable" cut and paste, what are you reffering to? Hell, the mac can even cut and paste from within Windows (running in VPC) to the mac environment.
Audio and Video editing systems that creatives want to use. So... the fact that Moby uses a G4 powerbook and some other macintosh systems for his audio work is't a creative wanting to use the mac? Or what about the fact that macs are used in many TV and movie productions. Or how about just the simple fact that the mac niche market is the creative market?
Yes, I'm glad that hypertext=Hypercard, seeing as how Hypercard was an APPLE technology. HTML = NeXT, that's fine, guess who owns NeXT?
Re:x86...barff (Score:2, Funny)
Re:x86...barff (Score:2)
Maybe I just misunderstood the question. Must be my mistake.
Either you did, or I did.
Rendezvous has network effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:network effect = broadcast_traffic++ (Score:2)
Re:network effect = broadcast_traffic++ (Score:2, Informative)
A final requirement is that the solutions in the four areas must coexist gracefully with larger configured networks. ZEROCONF protocols MUST NOT cause harm to the network when a ZEROCONF machine is plugged into a large network.
Flamebait? (Score:2)
Re:Conceptual iPod Rendezvous Use (Score:2)
Re:Apple: The Community Company? (Score:3, Insightful)