Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other? 698
viewstyle writes "There is an interesting commentary on eWEEK discussing the 'synergies' between Apple and Linux after visiting LinuxWorld. It makes a good point that advancement of Linux is good for Mac OS X and vice versa, because of the ease of porting across the platforms (soon to get easier with the X11 on Mac OS X)." Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...
But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)
But this is already happening. Cmdr Taco and Hemos both have Mac laptops, and from what I read online on their pages/blogs, they are their main machines these days!
I am thinking of buying a 12" Powerbook for myself. I have many PCs over here (8+) and an old G4 machine. But I need a new laptop, and that 12" powerbook does look good.
Re:But they are! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But they are! (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers - JB
Re:But they are! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But they are! (Score:3, Insightful)
a) as another pointed out, macs look good
b) if you avoid revision A machines they have a much longer life length than any PC
c) Apple did not integrate TCPA and DRM-related shit, until yet at least
d) most people don't care about the speed of their computer once they don't have to wait for it (ie 1GHz G4 or 5GHz P4, i can't see the difference)
e) big endian
why linux:
f) most of the X11 desktop managers are much faster than this bloated Aqua thing
g) gnu/linux is free
h) much more software choice with linux than macos.
Re:But they are! (Score:4, Interesting)
-Tim
Re:But they are! (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite frankly, KDE, GNOME, and even Linux bore the hell out of me now (I started with Linux back in '91. It was fun back then. It's not fun anymore). I'm having a better time with this goofy iMac than I've had with any computer or OS in years. Why ruin it?
Just my $0.02...
Re:But they are! (Score:2)
Re:But they are! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But they are! (Score:4, Insightful)
-1 Oblivious to Irony (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry, a bit harsh of me, I suppose. I guess I thought everyone knew that everyone knew about the editors and their Macs.)
Re:But they are! (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it rather interesting to see techs whose main criticism of a mac is its price, quoting the difference between a top G4 and a top PC they've built themselves, with price differences in the low few thousands...
It's priorities. Occasionally I spend upwards of 10-14 hours a day in front of my mac. It gets -used-, it affects me, and I want to be comfortable with it.
X11... (Score:2, Funny)
Common Office platform (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common Office platform (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Common Office platform (Score:3, Interesting)
linux zealots wouldn't give two bits about Office, either microsoft's or sun's, if the file formats had been open and documented. Because competitive full featured suites would have popped into existence 5 years ago.
think where open source could be today if the community was able to boast a complete clone (for lack of a better word) of microsoft office. Not just claim it now.. but years ago.
Re:Common Office platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Common Office platform (Score:4, Informative)
In fact you can (and I have done so) write a RTF document with nothing but a text editor (although it's not the most pleasant of things ... but that's not the point :). It supports just about everything .doc does - including footnotes, endnotes, margin spacing, layout, etc.
So the "open file format" issue can't be all that's behind the lack of good open-sourced office suites!
Re:Common Office platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Common Office platform (Score:4, Insightful)
The turning point is normally pointing out to the sender that:
a) If they send a macro virus, they could be liable
b) They may be sending a lot more information that they wish to by using
Oasis working on Common Office standard (Score:5, Informative)
As mentioned in other posts, if the file format had been open and documented there would not really be an issue. However, since legacy formats are starting to punish businesses with real costs, the issue can no longer be ignored, even by those that don't/can't plan ahead.
DMCA and EUCD are two additional reasons for migrating from legacy formats. These two could legally prevent businesses (and agencies) from accessing their own documents if encoded in undocumented, proprietary formats and the tools to manage these formats are no longer licensed.
Chip, yes, but it MS-Office revenue will collapse like a sand castle when it goes -- but that's a separate thread. Since Microsoft has alrady taken a publicly stated position against the open file formats, the collapse will only reduce the overhead costs of businesses, agencies and citizens.Hemos at linux.conf.au (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hemos at linux.conf.au (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only Linux wins, but all platforms capable of running KDE win. Huzzah.
Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? (Score:4, Informative)
chess.tgz [apple.com] on Apple's site. It's right there for the taking.
Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm still waiting for Apple to release the source code to their GNU Chess port, dammit.
You're currently modded "flamebait" for this post. Maybe it's because you would rather rant than research? I found Apple's source for chess here [apple.com]. Hope that helps.
Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? (Score:4, Insightful)
This means that when you run Konqueuer on KDE you will be enjoying the beta testing that thousands of MacOSX users have performed on Safari. This is what open source is about and this is what makes it powerful.
Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Twirlip: corebreech is full of it (Score:3, Informative)
Just so you know - even when pointed to the KDE cvs logs, where one can see the SAFARI_MERGE branch, this corebreech guy still claims the code isn't being released.
You just can't reason with some people, I guess.
Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? (Score:3, Informative)
You can check out the merges the KDE folks have made to CVS from code apple supplied with Safari here [kde.org]
Linux should be careful (Score:2, Insightful)
While they are producing some good stuff now (lets not talk about the past will we) they are a commercial company. That much won't change any time soon
As such their "priorities" so to speak are different and opposed to those of open source, linux, and software.
We could end up just feeding apple a lot in the way of open source projects, all up and dancing in a hoohaa of joy.
What happens when apple change their mind? Suddenly they're not so supportive of OSS. The commercial climate is fickle, and it WILL change
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:2, Interesting)
However, them being a commercial company is part of the appeal.
Things like supported dvd playback, good media support, cohesive destop experience.
And all other things being equal, a computer purchace (thankfully) isn't forever.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.
Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the worst that could happen?
Imagine Jobs has a change of heart tomorrow and decides that open source sucks. So what then? They stop using KHTML. KDE will continue on without them, I guarantee it -- and they'll always have the work that Apple contributed. The xBSD crowd will probably be a little disappointed if Apple stops developing BSD stuff, but it's not going to shut them down or hurt them in any way. Maybe they won't get the benefit of some of Apple's work, if Apple chooses to keep it to themselves, but there's no real subtraction there. BSD software abounds in closed-source applications, yet BSD is still doing just fine (despite what the trolls will have you believe
See, that's the beauty of open source. Companies can -help- by improving the software, but they can't -hurt- by wrecking it for everyone. About the dirtiest trick they could pull would be to try a Microsoftian embrace-and-extend. We've dealt with those before, and they're not that big of a deal in the long run.
I dunno, I say we encourage Apple to do as much as they can with open source software. They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on. They take the best of what's out there, improve it, use it in their products, and contribute back to the community at large. It's win-win, as far as I can see.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:2)
Oh mark this up as insightful!. Apple are leading in pop-kind-of-way the demonstration of "we're commercial, we also use open source". IBM have been doing the same with their support of linux, but for some reason it doesn't have the mass appeal of "Apple's using OSS and it's smooth! polished! slick!".
There's 2 things apple are giving the OSS community. Changes to OSS software projects themselves, and marketing! marketing! marketing!
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't really care so much about OSS in principle, I'd say, as much as they care about having a robust product working very quickly. It happens to be a fact that OSS very often displays those features. It also happens to be a fact that a lot of OSS lacks polish and flair, "sexiness" -- to Joe Public. Very few people question the fact that Apple is very good at making things friendly, useable, and just all around sexy.
It's a perfect match, I'd say. Apple gets the robust code, and the value they add (and charge for) is the interface that they put on the front. The OSS community gets a few patches and bugfixes, and a bit of publicity. Everyone gets something out of it.
Re:I wouldn't be so sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between good -products- and good -marketing-. IBM has good products. Their marketing, IMHO, sucks (at least to consumers anyhow). They're getting as much play as they possibly can out of the Linux thing, in order to try to get out of their dinosaur-era mainframe stuffy-shirt perception. They still have that image though, and they've done little to shake it in my books. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing though...
They're playing to very different markets, of course. IBM sells mainly to stuffy shirts, Apple doesn't. IBM doesn't -have- to be sexy and cool to make a zillion bucks.
I guess my point was just to differentiate the approaches that Apple and IBM take wrt OSS. I think I can strip it down to this: Apple doesn't necessarily have to care about OSS as a philosophy, they're just using some robust, free software to build their products.
As per licensing requirements (and to foster some developer good will), they contribute back to the community. And why not? What they've discovered is that it doesn't matter. People aren't going to -not- buy a Mac just become KDE or (say) MySQL has become a bit better. Well, maybe a couple will, but I'd be willing to be that the prospect of a super-fast, slick, fun set of applications (iLife, Safari, etc) will win more customers over than they'll lose -- their applications get better right along side the free stuff. Apple is selling hardware, and all these cool applications working seamlessly together. The fact that you can get the source code really doesn't matter. Is this not one of the reasons we have free software? So we can all have good quality software and we can all benefit without someone taking it away from us?
IBM, on the other hand, is cashing in on the openness of Linux/OSS and its popularity in the tech world. And good for them! There's nothing wrong with this. It's not appealing to consumers though, not really. You and I are an exception. Buuut as I've already said, IBM doesn't deal so much with consumers, they're much bigger in the big business. Fine, that works for me. Ultimately, I think IBM has more invested in the "success" of free software in the long term -- if the entire Linux development process was suddenly to collapse under its own weight, then it might affect IBM. I'm about as afraid of this happening as I am of getting hit by a comet.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
It DOES matter (Score:2)
From a purely technical standpoint, it might not matter. From a 'how things look to the outside world', it matters a lot. If a company as large as Apple was to have a change of heart, it would be as detrmental to the *idea* of open source to the same extent that Apple support open source has been a positive factor. You can't have it both ways.
Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps (Score:2)
Linux
The fact that gcc is the standard OSX compiler doesn't hurt either.
Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps (Score:3, Informative)
Alternatively, you could write your Mac app in Cocoa and port to Linux with GNUstep [gnustep.org].
Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps (Score:3, Insightful)
Some projects do use wxWindows. Other people take the approach of seperating model and view well, and simply redoing the GUI for each environment on which they want the app to run. Depending on the nature of the project, this can be very easy or very hard.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
no, apple isn't approaching OSS from a philosophical standpoint, like many of us do, but rather from a practical standpoint. and if OSS makes good commercial sense, then it is good for OSS. pissing off the F/OSS community is a bad move on their part. apple knows it. even though office X is nice, m$ is the long run enemy of apple. m$ represents a different direction, different hardware. apple can't sell its os to run on intel. it needs to sell hardware. OSS is just one way to do that. they keep trying to prove they're good citizens, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt.
(writing this on my ibook, running mozilla, while i edit my php/perl files on gvim, and test on apache/mysql, and create graphics on GIMP)
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:3, Insightful)
They're a solid company that is an "early adopter" when it comes to inclusion into their systems. To suggest that they could not be just as innovative in creating x86 boxen is selling Apple's capabilities short.
I'm one of those nutbars who thinks that Apple could actually kick some MS butt by moving towards x86. How many people wouldn't die to have an x86 based powerbook? There is a cachet to Apple hardware, and it is well earned.
If Apple moved over to x86, how many Linux users would switch? I think there would be some significant numbers there. How many Windows users would switch? I think the numbers would be surprisingly large here.
I'm a Windows user, and I'd gladly pay $100 for OSX, and an additional $100 for those wonderful iApps. The only reason why I don't switch to Mac is because I like the commodity hardware platform.
Having said that, I would (and many people I know) would have no qualms about spending a few extra bucks to buy Apple x86 hardware. Apple has one of the strongest brands out there.
Think of it this way, when you spend $100 on a Burberry scarf, are you any warmer than you would be with a $15 scarf? Probably not. Just like a Burberry scarf, the "warm and fuzzies" you can get with Apple hardware would in my mind would give Apple hardware sales the same if not better revenues than with their current fare.
I think Apple could _easily_ eat away at some of Linux's market share... if they moved onto the x86 platform.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it. PC making is a commodity market, driven almost solely by price. Nice design and high quality doesn't sell.
If Apple were to move to x86, they'd have to compete with Joe Clonebaker and the Crappy Componentbuilders. And at the same time, Apple would have to make sure OS X worked with all the bazillion motherboards, PCI cards, etc. available for PCI processors.
They would lose much of the "there is no step three" user experience (hassle-free installation, etc.) they can offer now.
Re:Linux should be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time that the BSD License was created universities and other government funded institutions were not allowed to profit from projects which were payed with tax money. (With the intent that publicly funded science has to stay in the public domain) This has changed in the last twenty years but the intent of the BSD License was and always will be to encourage the widespread use of ceratin technology.
Everybody may use BSD Licensed technology in the way they seem fit. The GPL is far more restricted in that matter (every change has to be made publicly available again) One might argue that the GPL might be the better license for the purpose stated above but it's not. The main reason being the restriction to publish the source code even if your software just uses a tiny fraction of GPLd code.
But many large software projects will not publish sourcecode, not because it might hurt their business but because licensing patented technology may restrict the ability to publish sourcecode.
So even if they wanted to use GPL licensed software legal mumbo jumbo might keep them from doing so.
To make a long story short. the GPL and The BSDL realize different philosophies:
The GPL forces the publication of sourcecode so that the original developer may profit the most (by making the changes publicly available even if contributing to the original project might not be the intent of the other party) This might discourage derivative works because every enhancement automatically benefits the original author and might make competing products less attractive.
The BSDL wants to encourage the adoption of technologies by not restricting the way people use it. So the BSDL wants to propagate technology and not the changes to it. It was never the intent of the BSDL to benefit the original Inventor of the code but everyone else so if a company doesnt want to contribute it is their right to do so and anybody who uses the BSDL must live with these consequences.
So if i want that everybody and their friends use my super duper new software (even if it is this mean old software company from redmond) i would go with the BSDL knowing exactly that the result might benefit others more than me.
If i want to enact more control over my software and the way it is used i would use the GPL knowing that every improvement will benefit my own project but might hinder adoption of my technology by other parties.
So both licenses have their strengths and weaknesses it all depends on what my personal goals are when choosing one over the other.
Regards Jeff
Apple OS X and Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple OS X and Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Apple OS X and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Apple's (understandable, and mostly correct) position is that anything you can do with Linux you can do better with OS X, so it's easy to see why they haven't bothered porting QuickTime.framework.
Re:Apple OS X and Linux (Score:3)
Think about it. Contributing code back to KHTML and X11 helps Apple, because it makes it easier to borrow code again in the future (reduces incompatible changes, and avoids tying up "upstream" developers on work Apple already did). Contributing to Rendezvous helps increase the mind- and market share of a young technology that Apple is backing. Contributing to Darwin gets them, in the best case, free bug fixes in an area they do not feel competitive to start with. At worst, it buys goodwill.
What will QT for Linux do for Apple? I'm not saying it does nothing, but no reason I can think of is as compelling as the examples I gave above. For the same reason, Apple is not going to help Linux by giving it iTunes or iPod software, or in general improve Linux as a desktop OS for nothing.
Uh, soon to get easier? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh, soon to get easier? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, if you use fink, you've noticed that the shared libraries in Apple's X11 distro are named in a non-standard way. I've spent days recompiling things that I'd compiled before I noticed there was a problem.
That said, the opengl support makes pymol nicer.
buggy as swamp in july (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is as good at it gets I'm in deep trouble. One of the synergies between Mac OS X and Linux is that Matlab is available for the Mac again, after Mathworks had previously announced that would no longer release on the Mac platfrom. Very good news for me, however, Matlab for Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX, and it's incredibly buggy. (I am using Simulink, which relies heavily on OroborOSX.)
What kinds of bugs you ask? I can't always navigate through the fields in parameter boxes (one button mac mouse and the key combos just don't do it). I can't use the letters 'f' or 'd' in comments when OroborOSX isn't in the mood (well, there are 24 other letters in the alphabet). Matlab crashes reliably if I choose "cancel" instead of "save" with the "save as" command (in a Simulink model).
And sometimes when Matlab crashes, XDarwin doesn't shut down completely which prevents me from being able to reboot from the system on my internal hard drive -- I have to reboot from an external hard drive and then restart. It happened (again) yesterday while I was working at a coffeeshop.
I'm not sure who's to blame here, and I'm really pleased that Matlab is available, but the integration of these various programs still has a long way to go.
blog-O-rama [annmariabell.com] (more raving & ranting about my experiences with OS X, etc. etc.)
Re:buggy as swamp in july (Score:3, Informative)
I had similar problems with Matlab and OroborOSX. The worst was that OroborOSX wouldn't start up reliably, so that starting up Matlab would often be a half-hour ordeal. In addition it tended to crash semi-randomly, which meant I had to go through the ordeal almost every day.
In the end, I found a way to use Matlab with Apple's X11 beta here at this site [macosxhints.com]. This solved all my problems. Matlab starts reliably and faster, doesn't crash, opening and closing windows works fine, and it's still well-integrated with OSX. All it takes is installing Apple's X11 and making a few small changes to .xinitrc.
You should try it out. Hope this helps.
Re:buggy as swamp in july (Score:5, Informative)
The changes are a reduction of "sleeptime" since Apple X11 is faster, a change to what we "grep" for, and of course the "open" call to X11.app. Apple X11 is a lot faster and stabler for me than XDarwin/OroborOSX. If you prefer not to switch to Apple X11, at the very least you should update OroborOSX since the version distributed with MATLAB 6.5 is several releases old.
Re:Uh, soon to get easier? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh, soon to get easier? (Score:3, Informative)
Like GNUstep [gnustep.org]?
Apple (Score:5, Funny)
funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux has power and flexibility, and the Mac always "just worked". Sometimes I was annoyed that Macs were so closed, and sometimes I was annoyed at the lack of polish on Linux. Between the two I could do anything.
It's amazing, almost *surreal*, that Unix and Mac merged together in Mac OS X. It's truly the best of both worlds.
Of course, I'm still wary of "depending" on Mac software, because of the proprietary lock-in and other evil stuff that companies do. But Apple's continual underdog status has been keeping them in check.
I look forward to more cool stuff from Apple...just getting ready to invest in a 12" powerbook (Mac #8 in my life) and a new Linux-based mini-itx PC to build a home gateway (Linux box #4).
Life is good (well, computer-wise
Works for me (Score:5, Informative)
For me, these boxes are extensions of each other, not competitors, and I've come to think of them as one environment.
MySQL on one...MP3s and image db's on the other. Apache and PHP on both...DVD's play on both... TV on one...DVD authoring on the other. It continues to delight me that I can expand and build as they both mature. This effort started out as an experiment. Now, I wouldn't consider just running one box or one system.
The beat goes on.
OS X means more open source developers == good. (Score:5, Interesting)
soon to get easier with the X11 on Max OS X
X has been on X for quite some time. You could fink it [sourceforge.net] if you wanted, or, if you want something even easier, you could XonX it [mrcla.com] or xdarwin it [xdarwin.org].
What's new, of course, is Apple's X11. That Apple would Aquafy X11 is really a great step forward, and hopefully means that -- and this is key -- Apple will start shipping Macs with X11 preinstalled.
Just as OS X's built in Java Virtual Machine makes OS X a first-rate Java deployment platform as Java apps look and act native without a single end user consideration about VMs, soon OS X could be a first-rate, well-integrated client-side deployment platform for open source software. Most importantly, this will continue to add new developers to open source movements, and that can't be bad. Even if Apple doesn't share everything they do, the fact that you'll have people used to making client-side apps increasingly contributing to open source projects is a great thing.
Not to mention that I've been impressed with what Apple's give back to the oss community, even though they technically often have no reason at all to do so. They've made Darwin open source, and have worked with the BSDs to share code that they have no pressing legal reason making them do so. Safari's updates to KHTML continue to be checked back in to the Konquerer source code by this paid Apple employee [mozillazine.org], which is another great move.
The only way I see Apple's new love of oss possibly being a bad thing is that Apple tends to hire the best away from open source projects and slap them onto Apple-first ones. Though this is great in that these people feel connected to the oss community, it has to shift their attention away from Linux and other F/free *NIXes a bit.
But more developers, especially good client-app developers, is a good thing, and having Apple return their contributions to the community is icing on the cake.
Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, cocoa is an implementation of an open standard: open-step.
Darwin is heavily modified version of the Mach system, it includes elements that do not exist in Mach, like the driver system, IOKit.The fact that darwin does not run on your hardware is irrelevant. The fact that can't or don't want to use the code that is open sourced does not change its value.
If safari is such a poor browser, why would like the source code? Or do you mean that because the browser is of low quality it should be open sourced? You are right, and the reason is simple, the BSD component of darwin is not recent at all. Basically Apple is still catching up, so they hardly have any improvement to give back and can only find a few lingering bugs. If when apple will be using current BSD code and won't give back its improving, then complaining will be justified. Ok, here we go again [apple.com]:- Gcc (altivec and objective-c related code)
- Quicktime streaming server.
- CDSA.
- Open Play.
- Netsprockets.
- Rendez-vous.
- Header doc.
While they were required to give back the changes for gcc because of the license, for all the others projects, they did not have to. The element that will probably be used first by Linux systems is rendez-vous. Whenever the other technologies will be adopted is an open question.Interesting synergy : User Mode Linux under OSX (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what I'd like to see
[sourceforge.net]
User Mode Linux under OSX That would be interesting. Running a complete Linux distribution as a user process under OSX.
Based on the comments from the linked exchange above, Jeff Dike (UML developer) thinks it can be done.
fink (Score:2, Informative)
http://fink.sourceforge.net
I'm currently running windows maker on top of aqua
kiyote
Consistent Message (Score:3, Insightful)
You are not a slave.
Yeah, and... (Score:2)
"Dogs Who Love Cats"! (Score:2)
And twins?
And I love you too.
Here's to love songs!
Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages (Score:5, Funny)
I brought home my Ti OS X PowerBook from work one day. My Solaris/Linux loving spouse immediately downloaded OroborX (sp?), turned on the wireless networking, fired up iTunes and accessed remote Xterm apps for his job. I have asked him to stop greeting me at the door with "Hi Honey! Did you bring your PowerBook?", as it makes me feel he loves me only for my laptop.
Negotiations are currently underway for his own PowerBook, so that I might eventually recover mine.
bluesangria
Re:Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages (Score:3, Funny)
Tell me, do you like me just for my laptop?
No honey, of course not, I love you for the sex as well!
That's OK then...
Sounds like a plan (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point they have 90% of the market to shoot for. There's plenty of room for both to grow together while taking most of their customers away from MS.
More marketshare means more apps. It also means that technologies like OpenGL just might survive and keey DirectX from taking over the gaming world.
Just think, standards that are standard. Programs designed to run on multiple platforms. Sharing ideas rather than secreting them away.
Sounds good to me.
Of course they benefit each other. (Score:2)
But I am disappointed that Quicktime hasn't been released to Linux as a native app and iTunes still doesn't encode in Ogg yet.
StarTux
Preferences (Score:2)
I always knew that penguins prefer to eat small and soft fishes than Apples
{Streaming video, Apple, Linux} (Score:3, Interesting)
The immediate licensing problem in WMP may simply be a side effect of DRM, but of course Microsoft intends to use WMP as a wedge to push its own standards into what is now fairly generic commerce -- as it did with MSIE. I told the rep at the U.S. Mint (who knows if anyone will care) that it was unseemly for the government to tacitly endorse a private company by offering just one format, even providing a link to the company's site to get the player, especially where across town the government just recently busted Microsoft for monopoly abuse.
Anyway, Apple doesn't make a QT player for Linux (right?) but appears supportive of it (right?), and there are options to access QT content from *nix. Meanwhile, Microsoft's antagonism towards GPL is very well known, and may appear over WMP [theregister.co.uk]. Of course, generic MPEG does streaming, which QT plugins will play. (Also, there's Real, yech.) Maybe this is most another Windows versus Macintosh [apple.com] struggle, but I'd hate to see the government take sides, and I don't trust MS.
On standards and compatibility
BTW
Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary, the adoption of OS X on the desktop by Linux users seems quite a bit lower in my experience. Perhaps this is a testament to the fact that Apple is losing the edge in price/performance in the desktop market (even among its own users) and that it's just so much geekier to build your own box.
Either way I agree that both systems compliment one another quite nicely. Then again, as a web developer I produce my sites on OS X, test them on XP and host them on Linux boxes so in my opinion all the OSes have something good to offer.
Let's hope so... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not that difficult to see why ... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, that might change in the future
not all that useful for Linux (Score:3, Informative)
But Apple has made the system much more proprietary and non-standard than it needs to be. The system administration database is different from mainstream UNIX systems made integrating the Macs into my home and work networks much more work than a Linux machine. The window system is completely different from UNIX, hard to port to, and rather sluggish. Apple's software package management is worse than even that of Windows. And the commercial software situation on Macintosh is not all that great either. A big disappointment, too, was that Apple had promised "free .Mac service with every iMac" and then started charging less than a year later.
Altogether, I think Apple has benefitted quite a bit from UNIX/Linux compatibility, by promising a no-hassles Linux-like environment and attracting some UNIX and Linux users. I don't think they really have delivered, and I will probably not be upgrading my Macs--I can get better functionality and more software for less money with Linux. On the other hand, Linux has not benefitted directly from OS X: there is little or no useful software that Apple has donated to the Linux community (Darwin is more of a distraction), and I don't think Apple's "switch" campaign has been all that effective.
I think in the long run, Apple will be forced to become more and more Linux compatible, and then maybe there will be more benefit to the Linux community. Until then, every Windows user that moves to Macintosh is still of some benefit to the Linux community.
iBook + networked Linux server == perfection (Score:4, Interesting)
I have never been happier with my home office setup: an iBook on my desk (with the improved Mac X server :-) networked to a dual-processor Linux box in a closet (so I don't hear it).
I do a lot of AI work, and having the Linux box for long machine learning runs, etc. and for hosting experimental sematic web stuff is great - that leaves my iBook for most coding, running design tools, Microsoft Office, etc.
Apple's recent release of a customized X server really helps a lot (still some work needs to be done on it though). Linux KDE applications look great (fonts!) using the iBook display.
Anyway, I feel like I get both the fun and productivity of Linux with the great experience of OS X. Perfect!
-Mark
Re:obligatory comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:obligatory comment (Score:2)
of course you mean that the 12" iBook is $999. The 12" PowerBook start at $1799.
Re:we'd be good to go.... (Score:3)
Personnally I don't want OS X Aqua on Linux, I'd rather have a more unique experience.
I can see KDE and Apple both dropping good things that each other offers if it doesn't quite fit into what they aim for.
StarTux
Re:Enlightenment (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how much lipstick you put on your grandma, her plumbing still doesn't work like it used to. Likewise, even with a shitty Aqua theme on a windowing system that can't even handle alpha without employing one of many hacks may give you those "pretty stoplight buttons," it sure as hell doesn't give you a clean or consistent interface. It's the same one you had before, exempting a different pixmap in your window decorations.
An interface is a lot more than the color your buttons are. It goes a lot deeper, into the way you interact with the computer.
Re:we'd be good to go.... (Score:2)
Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? (Score:2)
Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? (Score:3, Informative)
KHTML and Rendezvous are two biggies that come to mind, but that is not the point. I don't get the people who always whine, "Apple has taken foo and hasn't given anything back." Nowhere in the BSD license does it require Apple to do anything opensource, and in the GPL they are only required to released the code they used to augment GPL'd programs. Apple has done exactly what they are entitled to do with the code. You can't give something to someone and then cry even though they followed the terms you set forth.
Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea what that means. Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their public CVS server in sync with OS X.
and where is the updates for freebsd?!
As far as I know, Apple hasn't made any. They just take a good chunk of the FreeBSD userland and ship it with OS X, without modification.
Also we give them X11 support but would they ever give us Aqua support?
:sigh: I've about had it with all the "Aqua"-related ignorance out there. Guys, Aqua is an appearance. It's a collection of graphical elements, okay? That's all. It's not software, in any meaningful sense of the phrase. When you say "Aqua," what you're really talking about is the combination of Quartz, which is the OS X display system, and WindowServer/SystemUIServer, which is the OS X equivalent of the X server, the window manager, and the desktop in your operating environment of choice.
Is Apple going to release the source for WindowServer/SystemUIServer? No. Get over it.
Tell me in what ways Apple has been beneficial to the opensource movement
Well, for starters Apple has done more to increase positive public awareness of open source than anybody else. A hundred thousand non-hacker Apple fans saw Steve Jobs stand up at the last Macworld keynote and declare that he thinks open source is great. There has been no better act of PR for the open source community.
Oh, that and the whole thing with Rendezvous and WebCore and Darwin Streaming Server and CDSA and OpenPlay and Open Directory and whatnot. Can't forget those.
Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not true. Many objects present in the current versions of the GNUStep libraries (base, backend, and gui) have no equivalent in Cocoa. Mainly, the Display Postscript code, but there are lots of others. For example, any class that starts wiht GS instead of NS, GNUStep handles Unicode totally different, there are al kinds of macros in GNUStep that don't exists in Cocoa because they are redundant. Supposedly there are scripts that come with OpenStep that convert lots of this stuff over, but GNUStep has made lots of additions to OpenStep, and besides, I don't have OpenStep.
Case in point: I tried to "port" the GNUStep Terminal.app to OS X (don't ask why, I have no good reason), and wound up having to basically #ifdef half the source code. I'm about 75% done with TerminalView, since it uses DPS for everything, however most of it is easily converted to Cocoa. I realize #ifdef'ing everything was the wrong way to go, but I'm learning about all the differences, and my whole point behind this was to port it to OS X while being able to submit patches back to the original developer. I'm sure that I will wind up starting over again and creating a DPS compatibility layer, otherwise the resulting code would be totally unreadable.
In conclusion, yes, some parts of Cocoa don't have any equivalent in GNUStep, but that really goes both ways. If you code for portability, it will be portable, if you code now, think later, it will probably only run on your computer, and probably only at the current screen resolution.
Re:I am confused (Score:3, Informative)
You can add whatever you want on top of code that has been BSD-licensed.
2. Apple used the BSD operating system , not the BSD license (or did they use both?).
Apple used the Mach microkernel and the FreeBSD userland with a little bit of NetBSD to make Darwin (the kernel for OS X). Darwin is considered a member of the BSD family. Much of the code they used to make Darwin was BSD licensed, but there were also some GNU tools like gcc. The Darwin kernel is released under the Apple Public Source License.
Re:Expensive. (Score:5, Informative)
Dual processors? DDR RAM? ATI Radeon 9000 (or GeForce 4 Ti) graphics? Audio I/O? Gigabit Ethernet? FireWire 800 and FireWire 400? DVD-RW burner? Built-in 802.11g and Bluetooth?
Maybe you could build a machine like that for $500. But it wouldn't be easy, no sir.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the vertical integration is at once the best thing and the worst thing about Apple. But clearly without it they'd be entirely forgettable and irrelevant.
Re:OS X also proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh. Enough with the communist ideology, okay? Apple spends a fortune developing wonderful things. If they were to simply give those things away for free, they would be unable to stay in business. I, for one, like what Apple produces, and I like the way they influence the rest of the computer industry-- indeed, the entire consumer products industry. I don't want Apple to go away, so I don't want Apple to make any of their core products "free" or "open." I want them to stay as proprietary as possible, forever.
And so do you. You just may not realize it yet.
Re:OS X also proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about seeing enough of the big picture too see a *relationship* between you and Apple. A big enough picture where you can see that what is good for Apple is good for you, and *ultimately* that Apple reciprocates and sees what is good for you is good for them.
If that doesn't exist, then Apple never can see any benefit to helping you at all, because they just want to help themselves right? Wrong, of course. By helping you they increase sales and usage and commitment (or something like that). That helps them.
So likewise, you want whats good for Apple because (hopefully) there exists a relationship in which you benefit from Apple getting some benefits.
Past examples include:
Quicktime, which Microsoft and others eventually used as the template for a media framework (Quicktime was just first)
Mac OS, which pioneered things like color desktops and UIs in a world of CLI and low res low fidelty desktops. This became mass market with the introduction of Win 95
USB, if only because iMacs could only use USB peripherals, giving USB developers a market
Firewire, if only because Macs use it for their high speed interface for iPods and DV cameras, as well as hard drives and stuff. How does this help you? Well, if you need a high speed serial interface, of course.
Then there's 802.11b, Rendevous, widespread adoption of LCDs, DVD-R, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio, iMovie, etc.
The point? Apple makes a profit making tools and functionality available that was inaccessable, expensive, or nonexistant before. That *is* benefit to you, if you want a $1800 DVD or movie studio, or a $3800 pro quality DVD, audio, or movie studio. Sure, you have to pay for it, but that's what keeps Apple alive and gives you your product.
So yes, you want whats good for Apple because there's a symbiotic (or for some, parasitic) relationhip. If Apple dies, than you (we) need someone else to come along to do this, even if it's Microsoft or your next door neighbor. Until, of course, it becomes a commodity.
Dunno if this is clear. Apple produces A, B, and C. You only care about B, but that is enough because the existence of B gives you a benefit. So already Apple cares about you, because by providing B they have your reliance upon them. Perhaps B+ is what you really need, so you want what is good for Apple so that B+ comes out. And at the end, both sides win.
Life, and certainly this marketplace, is *not* a zero sum game. Both sides can win.
Re:OS X also proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, unless you believe the Supreme Court of the United States
Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't say I follow this. OS X is the closest living relative to OpenStep. OS/2 Warp... Perhaps eCommStation? But that's barely alive, admittedly. Either way, I wouldn't liken GNOME to either of them. GNOME is a pretty close relative to Windows, as far as how the UI works.
That's not a troll or a dis. It's not my style (I prefer NeXTSTEP and the Newton OS as models of good UI), but a lot of people have grown up with Windows 9x/NT, so it's no surprise that the majority of the users who like GNOME share this background with the majority of GNOME developers. Having actually used OS/2, NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody, OS X 10.x, Windows and Linux+{GNOME, KDE} extensively, I think it's safe to say that GNOME works the most like Windows. I could go on and on why, but that probably be over kill.
That said, I must say I'm pretty impressed with GNOME in RedHat 8. A lot of people hate RH for it, but I think it's quite brilliant. As a person who switched from Linux to OpenStep four years ago and then to OS X in the last few years, I became pampered with the ease of use, and most importantly, the consistency provided in OpenStep and OS X. Not to mention the great feature that things usually "just work." I left Linux because it was so bloody consistent, from a GUI user's point of view.
I've had my fill of other modern distros as well. RH8 is far from perfect, but at the very least, it provides a taste of what potential GNOME and KDE holds, a pointer to the kind of consistency that distros, GNOME, and KDE should be working towards. I fear it won't get much better, considering that all too many Linux developers seems to think that appearance is what is worth copying from OS X, while the way things work- how they feel, seems to come from Windows or CDE. Bah.
Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS (Score:4, Informative)
The GUI builder is almost done (I am the pricipal developer of it).
Take a look at http://www.gnustep.org.
GJC
Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! (Score:3, Insightful)
Endless Apple myths:
Ripped off Xerox
Can't use multi button mouse
Uses non-standard hardware
Is a monopoly
Put SoundJam out of business
Owned by Microsoft, a major shareholder
Costs too much
OS X is slow
Lawsuits for no reason
Rips off Linux
any more?
spare parts / hardware / files (Score:3, Insightful)
Instinctively, I agree with that -- don't want to be stuck with something dependent on one company etc.
However, a couple of things mitigate that fear:
- there are enough standard-enough parts n' ports (ethernet, CD-ROMs, firewire and USB, IDE hard drives, etc
- file formats: there are quite a few that are legitimately cross platform. Depending on what you do with a computer, they might not fill all your needs, but for many people, RTF / PFD / html / JPEG / mp3 / ogg and other very cross-platform file formats mean a lot more than the OS being used to open / use / manipulate / save them. Double-edged sword, though, since so many apps love to create difficult-to-share filetypes by default, so if that *is* a concern, it is probably a deal killer. [Ahem]
- there are non-Apple OSes that run on Apple's hardware (a few varieties of Linux, and at least the three biggest *BSDs). Now I'll admit this is a roundabout argument, but
timothy
Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community (Score:5, Insightful)
The "harassment" was due to people copying and pasting widgets directly out of Mac OS X and passing them off as their own. And no, that's not what the failed "look and feel" case demonstrates - that case was lost due to the slack language Apple used in the contract they signed with MS. They gave MS more rights than they thought they had, and when they went to court this came out - hence they lost.
You most certainly can sue over "look and feel", due to a concept known as "trade dress". If I set up a MacDonalds fast food chain with a couple of golden-Ms, you can be I'd have a suit slapped on me within minutes.
Refusing to release a Sorenson codec enabled player or library for Linux, effectively locking Linux users out of an increasing majority of all Internet video content and thus making Linux unviable to end users
Mod -1, Boo Fucking Hoo. Apple signed a contract with Sorenson. Sorenson signed a contract with Apple. Those two companies entered into a deal whereby you're not going to get Sorenson's code for free on your platform. Get over it.
Instead of whining about it, why don't you get off your ass and write a better codec? What's that, it's hard? Well that's why people can and do build businesses around it...
3. Undercutting development of established Open Source projects, like Mozilla and XFree86, by pushing less open alternatives and thus both cutting their mindshare and draining developer talent.
Apple doesn't owe Mozilla anything - you've as much right to demand they use Mozilla as I've got to demand the Mozilla developers come over and paint my house. If an Open Source project can't stand on its own merits, why should it succeed?
And before someone replies 'but now it supports X11', the point is that they aren't the 'default' systems under MacOS -- which means "native" GUI MacOS X applications are useless to Linux
Yeah, and your average Gnome/KDE app won't run out of the box on a Mac either - your point is what? What Apple choses to make their default is their business - face it, X11 caters for a minority, and it's just not that useful to Apple's target market.
It's definitely a prudent move for Apple to ensure it runs reasonably well, since they want to see if they can expand their target market into the Unix workstation market (or what's left of it), but it's by no means their main focus.
In short: Apple is not Linux's friend, and these articles that claim otherwise are stupid and tiresome.
Apple is absolutely Linux's "friend" (in so far as a large company can be friends with a bunch of source files). For god's sake, it's Unix. On The Desktop.
Re:The readers are another story... (Score:3, Insightful)
I still cannot believe
I can't believe Linux cheapskates like yourself keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over! "Too expensive! One button mouse! Proprietary architecture! Not Linux! No apps! It's ridiculous. You're not saying anything that someone smarter hasn't already said and spelled everything correctly.
And I can't believe that these same people keep bothering to come into this section or post to threads that are clearly marked Apple.
You know what? There are some technically savvy Mac users out there, myself included, who (when the threshold is turned up high enough!) actually enjoy and get a lot out of the discussions in this section.
If you don't like the threads in the section.... stay out. You're not adding anything useful to the discussion and just increasing the noise to signal ratio.
The bulk of the content on the site is geared to the OSS, Linux, *NIX crowd. Please join those discussions and let us have ours.