Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Going the Open Sourcish? 192

Posted by CmdrTaco from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
Palmer Halvorson writes "A Wired story reports that Apple will annouce a partial open source OS strategy tomorrow during an "Apple Event" from their Cupertino Headquarters. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Going the Open Sourcish? More

Apple Going the Open Sourcish?

Comments Filter:
  • Englishish.

    Any other questions?
  • Posted by Kromslyth:

    Apple is more of a closed platform than
    Microsoft. The OS only runs on Apples, Apple
    only wants it on apples, Apple doesn't even let
    people like the Be developers get info about
    the G3 so they can make BeOs for it.

    Apple is like if microsoft and intel were the
    same company, and no one else could make pcs.

    The only difference is that apple lost, they
    lost big, they are now the underdog. They
    are a monopoly and would be THE monopoly if
    they could be. This is demonstrated with quicktime, they get developers to make
    a *.mov file that only the new quicktime can
    decompress. I get so tired of hitting "later"
    over and over again. I'm so glad that I finally
    found an mpg of the new trailer so I could show
    it wherever without having to have stupid
    quicktime.

  • Neat! (Score:1)

    by gavinhall ( 33 )
    Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    So we can add preemptive multi-tasking and a decent GUI, right?
  • Posted by PowerPalle:

    Just the right words. Lets wait and see what they pull out of the hat. Personally i think it could be very interesting.

    Lets wait and see what they say tonight.

    PowerPalle
  • Posted by Bill "Willing Boy-Toy of the B:

    I once heard (but I can't verify) that there is a similar effort WRT Hebrew. Apparently there are those who believe only words in the Torah (sp?) are valid, and new words should not be added to the language for new concepts. So, when they need a name for something like "floppy disk", they have to recycle an old word that meant something like, "eviscerate your enemy with a dull wooden spoon" (i.e., something that will hopefully go unmissed in common discourse).
    --
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    ...they are "open sourcing" a non-existent product? Great! When is MS open sourcing W2K?
  • Oh don't be stupid, please.

    1. The LinuxPPC guys aren't worried about having to rereverse engineer the G3 specs, never minding the fact that Apple's probably a lot more willing to legally go after Be than LinuxPPC.

    2. If Be used the LinuxPPC sources, how many people would immediately call for them to release the Be kernel (G3 version only, of course) under the GPL? Would they? Should they?

    There are legitimate legal issues for a closed-source, commercial operating system to have difficulty porting in this context.
  • Rhapsody was mentioned once at FreeBSD.org, as 'this piece of software also runs on Rhapsody.'

    Please.

  • What Apple is 'opening up' is the microkernel and the BSD underpinnings. These things were already free!

    Apple is giving us nothing that we didn't already have -- they're just trying to pander to the free software movement and phenomenon. "Oooh, gee thanks Mr. Jobs for that BSD source -- I never would have seen it otherwise..." >:| The Univesity of Utah gives away their microkernel source, and I think Mach is free as well (not sure on that).

    This is bullshit. Fuck Apple. I'll never buy their products -- they're no better than Microsoft to me. (And at least MS doesn't try to pass itself off as a free software company.)

    I feel really bad for you Apple partisans. Wake up.

  • 1. Yes, I know the BSD license allows the stealth of the code. That's why I prefer the GPL. And no, I don't think the Apple developers were pulling the pud...they were writing pud code. What I mean by that is that while the Mac OS UI is unparalleled (I personally LOVE it), the underlying OS is outdated and crappy. Check out 8.5 -- all we get is the schlocky Sherlock and ...themes?!?! How about protected memory? Or usable virtual memory? They leave the important stuff behind, or just 'borrow' BSD.

    2. They want to keep their UI closed. Okay fine, I'll just not use it or develop for it then. And the Wired article didn't make it so clear that that was Apple's reasonable plan. It looked like Apple was trying to pass itself off as a free software-friendly company, which they are decidedly not.

    3. The Mac OS UI will never become the Unix UI, even though it is the best. Too many Unix people refuse closed-source and freedom-subtracted software (look at KDE, another fine product, but based on closed-source APIs). The fact that GNOME still exists shows that KDE/Qt, and thus Mac UI/YellowBox, will not win everyone over.

    Non-free software just does not cut it. Apple is not committed to freedom. They have repeatedly demonstrated this throughout their history.

  • Sometimes your a pri-madonna and then sometimes you hit the nail soundly into the board (IMHO). The press seems to be skipping the point while it focuses on the conflict. The articles about Linux seems to be more like they are covering a war than a movement.

    Stories about opening software are portrayed more like throwing a litle meat to distract the watchdogs dogs before they devour you. Stories about Microsoft have the ominous feeling like Rome fortifying itself for the barbarian hordes pillaging the periphery of its empire. Stories about Linux seem to portray an unsympethetic somewhat unstable devouring beast, growing daily.

    Its a romantic beast this GPL, and the way its shook the proprietary pillars even to Redmond is going to catch the attention of the press, not the technical details behind it. The press has heralded this fight for maybe a little over a year now, while geeks forsaw the convergence many years before that ran to join the ranks in hopes of bringing down the Microsoftonian Giant. And Richard envisioned it uniquely years before that.

    Its exciting to watch, entrancing to listen to, just like the Gulf War on CNN. So when dealing with the press, everyone remember they are covering a war. They are looking for victory speaches and stratagies, big heros and hope. And the final battle ground will be convincing my mother that this software is safe and easy to use (and maybe even fun too.)
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
  • My understanding of the matter is that it isn't the G3 chip that Be doesn't have the specs to, it is the motherboard specs/chipsets. But what do I know.
  • What kind of English is this?
  • id I miss when they started publishing
    the secritive hardware specs for the macintrash?

    I don't hate macs,...



    thats a contradiction...you're fooling no one.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • Thanks for your typical X86 Linux users balanced viewpoint! You do the fanatically-ultra-open-OS-and-hardware stereotype proud! not.
    oh ya...
    Macs suck! Steve Jobs is a whore and Bill Gates is not that bad!
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.

  • idiot. (Score:1)

    by tak* ( 1121 )
    And next time i hear a wuss agitating about how good is mac, i'm gonna beat'em to a bloody pulp.

    You shouldn't be in a society full of people. Seriously.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.

  • Go here! (Score:1)

    by tak* ( 1121 )
    http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • Also, nerds only work on that which is cool, and I think we have enough cool stuff to work on the way it is. :-) I think all of the best nerds are already working on their own projects.
  • Better jump on while everyone else is.

    I wonder what will be the cool thing after "open source"?

  • mach? (Score:1)

    by i, Mac ( 1975 )
    Wonder how it affects the guys over at Be, Inc.?

    Come on.. the LinuxPPC guys have been able to port to G3 machines with no more help from Apple than Be had. I believe they even offered the necessary information to Be, who turned it down.

    Be continues to spread this FUD about how Apple won't release the specs and that's why they can't port to G3, but it's nothing but a big lie. All they need to do is look at how the _open-source_ LinuxPPC and figure it out.

    Why don't they do that? Look at all the Intel logos on their site. Figure it out.
  • Damn it, Be has fooled so many people with that G3 bullshit.

    Haven't you ever wondered why LinuxPPC runs just fine on G3 with no help from Apple when Be, a company with millions in financing and some great programmers, just can't seem to figure it out? It's not because Apple helped LinuxPPC.

    It's because Intel "helped" Be.

  • NeXT's version was 2.5-ish, while MkLinux uses OSF's 3.0. Reportedly, OS X will be 3.0-ish, with features imported from Utah's 4.0 version. So it's kinda hard to say how close they'd be right now. I suppose we'll know after today.

    -cfw
    --
  • Did anyone else notice Wired's big screw-up?

    The latter half of the article discusses the Perens/Raymond split. After doing an OK job of describing some of the concerns, they say something like this (paraphrased):

    "Free software advocates and open source advocates both are careful to differentiate the movements. Free software is software distributed at no charge, while open source software is software that can be sold, but for which the source code must remain public."

    Lest there be any doubt, the list of "free software" advocates (remember the above definition) includes RMS, the FSF, and Perens.

    That has got to be the funniest screw-up I've read in a while. The implication from the article is that RMS and Perens are opposed to GPL-style software!

    [obligatory clue stick reference deleted]
  • This one's going to be fun to eviscerate...

    Apple is more of a closed platform than Microsoft. The OS only runs on Apples, Apple only wants it on apples, Apple doesn't even let people like the Be developers get info about the G3 so they can make BeOs for it.

    One: the OS does NOT only run on Apple machines.
    Two: Yeah, Apple only wants it on the machines they make. Just as Gateway only wants Windows to run on Gateways, Compaq wants people to run it only on COmpaqs, etc. They're a business, for crying out loud.
    Three: Be's to blame for Be not having the specs. They can get the information they need whenever they're willing to get off of their lazy asses and get it from the LinuxPPC source (using cleanroom techniques, since they want to stay proprietary).

    Apple is like if microsoft and intel were the same company, and no one else could make pcs.

    A company is like a boolean expression. Right.
    Seriously, however, you're not strictly accurate. Consider: the only thing Apple licensed out to clone vendors was the Mac ROM. Everything else could be made by the clone vendors. Now, also consider that the ROM is disappearing from Mac motherboards; The iMac and blue G3's are down to only a couple of things, and Sawtooth (the next generation desktop) will be down to the last few vestiges and will not contain any OS-level code. That goes a long way toward opening up the machine again; especially with an Open-Source hardware layer it becomes a relatively simple process to make a PPC motherboard and port the OS to it (well, OK, it's not simple, but at least it's easier than before).

    This is demonstrated with quicktime, they get developers to make a *.mov file that only the new quicktime can decompress.

    Actually, it's not the version of QuickTime that's the limiting factor there. It's the codec, which is called Sorenson and is not made by Apple. The producers of, say, the Star Wars trailer chose QuickTime/Sorenson of their own free will; no one made them pick that format, they could as easily have chosen any other format (though I've noticed that when done correctly Sorenson gets better quality than MPEG at a significantly smaller filesize).

    They are a monopoly and would be THE monopoly if they could be.

    Apple? A monopoly? Look at the marketshare statistics and tell me that with a straight face. As for your statement that they would be THE monopoly if they could be, so would Red Hat. So would Microsoft. So would GM or Buick or Mercedes-Benz; it's called business. The point is to keep a monopoly from occurring when it stifles innovation (which is always the case in the computer industry).
  • Attacking Linux is like shooting at a cloud of gas. It's not going to have much in the way of results.

    If Apple release the Mach microkernel under OSX, this will allow Linux and OSX to coexist more easily, even possibly running at the same time. If it's a useful UI toolkit or technology, it'll get ported in some form (witness what happened with Borland's Turbo Vision, a formerly DOS-only framework). If it's something trivial and wholly dependent on proprietary technologies, nothing much will happen one way or the other.
  • The Mach and BSD used in NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody are proprietary derivatives; you can't just slap Rhapsody onto an off-the-shelf Mach implementation. An OSS release would change this, and allow it to run better with other systems.
  • Once saturation is reached, survival of the fittest will kick in. Projects which don't scratch anybody's itch and aren't cool enough for hack value will founder, whereas cool projects will keep taking off.
  • That's goodn News for the BeOS, we will finelly bae able to run on the Macs . If apple wants device drivers and other low level developers to work with hem in the Open source way of doing thing then they will have to publish some kind of hardware specification. Then Be won't be able to say : apple doesn't want to give us specs, it is just that we (ir Be Inc.) don't want to support the PowerPc version of BeOS .....
    Thank's apple, I really hope MacOS X comes out soon so that the low level hardware docs of apples blue and Beige G3's has well has those of the upcoming and very exiting G4 boxes (SMP will make it's come back with that chip). Apple will increase its revenue. If apple wants to still have the lead I think they should publish Today the specs of their beige G3's. And when the G4 are released they could released the specs of the El Capitan.
  • The Mach NeXT used is an older variant that probably wouldn't bear much resemblance to what the MkLinux people are using
  • Well...kind of. The OS-X port on Sun was a necessity, because it flat out didn't work on PPC and the SPARC platform allowed for testing. I seriously doubt we'll ever see OS X on anything but an overprices PPC Apple HW box. They're not that willing to give up the old proprietary business that's killing them slowly.
  • Zip..Bang.

    Right on and to the point!

  • Neat! (Score:1)

    by gambit ( 3767 )
    Yes... multi-tasking on a Mac... only 5 years after everybody else had it.
  • [Re:subject]

    Linux might not have eyes, but X sure does! :)
  • Steve Jobs once told me that there had only been three good desktops, and he'd had a lot to do with making two of them. I suspect he feels that a good desktop is too difficult for the Open Source crowd to achieve and he wants Apple to provide that desktop. If that's really his intent, he's mistaken.

    I can't believe how garbled Wired got this story. The next time they call with a question, I'm going to ask them to put Andrew Leonard on the story, he understands this stuff better.

    I would consider this software donation to be good Mac documentation. I don't really think that cleanroom techniques will be necessary to use it to develop other drivers, if you are not copying verbatim, you can consider it a published work and not trade-secret.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Wired wrote me and said they'd fix the way they garbled the definitions of free software and Open Source. They are editing the story now.
  • ...when has Apple ever said anything about 'free'? Well....when?! Huh?! Answer up big mouth!
    When was it?!
  • nope, SGI's are are great. Alpha's a great processor. Too bad SGI is going NT. Too bad
    Alpha's may not be around much longer. I cut my teeth using DEC ALPHA servers at college. I 'hated' UNIX back then but I learned to get the most out of it once I reached a certain point.
    I'll still use anyhting that suits my needs the best. I've tried 'em all (BeOS, Linux, Amiga, BSD, etc.) and I still keep coming back to the Mac hardware to run Mac OS and occasionally Linux and Windows(under VPC).

  • Oh, so you're a former Apple developer huh?
    What did you program? What's the name of the program again? What? You didn't actually produce anything you say?! Well then, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
    Damn anonymous cowards...
  • I said virtually the same thing in less words back in the 'favorite UI poll'. let's see how many people respond to your version of the idea :-)
    Personally I really like the Mac OS X Server UI.
    It's the right blend of Mac OS/NeXTStep w/the all that unix goodness underneath. I had to leave Linux for the time being based on my needs and not on my wants so this is potentially a great thing for me because I can access the Mac OS from OS X Server. Freeing up the other computer for Linux tinkering and what not. I had to have a production stable server (ASIP6.1, linux wouldn't cut it), I had to have the Mac OS, so 2 computers. Now I can run 3 OSes on 2 computers w/out rebooting and I'll be happy as can be :-)

  • big whoop! so what you're really saying is that either you can't finish what you start or you're coding is so bad you couldn't come up with anything worth releasing. you know, if you applied for a job coding they'd want examples of your work, esp. actual programs or projects that can be verified. what do you mean my likes?! I've probably spent more time bleary eyed in front of emacs coding pascal, then c++, then NLP rules than you have just sitting in front of a Mac ever!



  • Nobody around here is going to beleive you til you give us some names. Until then you're just an offensive blustering a.c. and you my dear man are the one who needs to get a clue with your outrageous uninformed comments as to who I am or who my friends are yadda yadda

  • Actually, with OS X Server, the Blue Box and a PC emulator, you could run three operating systems on one box.

    Right now, Linux has excellent command-line processing, but still needs to make its GUIs, installation and maintenance more user-friendly to gain more widespread use.

    If Mac OS X retains both its GUI and command-line processing, it will stand a good chance as consumer-oriented Unix.
  • MkLinux was meant as a trial baloon, and it didn't catch fire. It works. I use it every day, but it was just too far away from mainstream Linux, being based on MACH as a hardware abstraction layer. LinuxPPC has had a hard time getting off the ground without hardware disclosure from Apple. This move will benefit them. It will also allow Apple to fly another balloon labelled; "How can this open source stuff work for us?" They are not about to give out the goodies unless they can see what the advantage is. And I assume the stockholders would agree. (If this makes less-than-perfect sense, please forgive me; I'm writing this with a migraine.)
  • man, if i was was stuck with a flat dull gui like what the mac has, and wasn't able to change it, and had to see it every day of my life on every computer that i came across, i would just shoot myself. Better yet, i would go out and kill everyone else first, then kill myself.
  • Apple + Open Source = Rotten Sauce

    eat up, Bill Gates is watching.

  • This is a fine example of a geek who needs to get out more. For god sakes, take a drive through the country or something. Calm down a little before your head explodes. Do you get this excited over everything in life, or just issues concerning apple operating systems?

    Why doesn't everybody just coooooooool out!
  • They don't need huge gangs of programmers on every project. Most of those apps are finished anyway. When they get released open source, communities of users/developers tend to grow up around the product, and then the little adjustments and fixes start rolling in.
  • Hey all,

    There was, for a while at least, the rumor that
    someone out there would write a "red box" to
    emulate Win32 on MacOS X for Intel.

    Would the someone care to be a WINE developer?
    Hmmmmmmmmmm?

    And if someone could get Bochs in decent enough
    shape, who knows? You could have a (slow) PowerPC port as well, perhaps..

    Any1 out there have opinions about this?

    This announcement is just too cool IMHO; more
    important than the Netscape open-source
    announcement..

    -----
  • Geez...one article without any specifics, and half of you guys go nuts. Lay off already!! Apple hasn't said ANYTHING yet, and you are bastardizing them for hijacking FreeBSD/Mach!
  • hmm it almost sounds like a win-win for Apple and its Mac users. MacOS server doesn't get split up, Apple can still get money for their investment in technology, bugs are fixed and features are added...
    Problem is, you can't port MacOS to pc's or fancy workstations. (ok mac addicts can say pc's are junk but SGI's and alphas?)

  • mach? (Score:1)

    by arielb ( 5604 )
    now if bsd were to come to macs then you won't have the gpl problem. However, you still have the threat of Apple changing the code to mess BeOS up.

  • mach? (Score:1)

    by arielb ( 5604 )
    look if Apple doesn't want to work with BeOS then you don't play games with them ya hear? We're not just talking about 'no help'-this is active discouragement. They don't want BeOS on macs...at least not yet
    btw, look at intel's investments in Redhat, VA Research and Cygnus and wonder why nobody sells linux workstations? Wonder why gcc is optimized more for x86 than ppc? Wonder why Redhat is getting all the attention?
  • BeOS does work with non-Apple G3 (ppc 750 to be exact) upgrade cards. Apple doesn't want BeOS. There's a big difference between not helping and hurting ok? There are no non-Apple G3 computers because Apple killed the clones.
  • They pulled the licencing only on the ROMS, that was the only part of the machine that the Clone Manufatures needed. The future version of the Mac OS puts the ROM in RAM, and puts it all on the CDROM which is the OS. The clones can reappear, and then Apple can have all of the Hardware incompatibilty issues that x86 has now. When you build your Linux kernel how many chipset bugfixes do you have options for. When I build LinuxPPC there are none.
  • Everyone who adds source to any gnu tools, FreeBSD, the Linux kernel, etc, is working for a bunch of for profits (RedHat, SuSE, Sun, HP, etc) for no pay.
  • Yellow Box is not dead, it's still the native development environment for Mac OS X. Carbon is fundamentally a legacy development model, and developers are being told that if they want to start work on a new project for OS X then Yellow Box is the way to go.
  • From:

    http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,33781,00.html?st .ne.lh..ni [news.com]

    'Many observers say that Linux has captured the efforts of the "alternative" developer set, drawing their talents away from Mac OS and other alternatives to Microsoft Windows. OS X Server does have something of an open source core, but it also has lots of proprietary Apple software on top.

    "They're trying to hit Linux right between the eyes," said one source.'
    ---
    Wha? TV & Movie Theme Songs? Oh yeah....

  • Be is whining. LinuxPPC runs on G3s just fine.

    If Be was really interested in supporting
    the PowerPC they'd just do the port. They could
    just as easily support PPC based machines from
    IBM too.

    I like BeOS, it's got some nice features, but Be
    is not being entirely truthful when they say they
    can't do a G3 port.

  • English as she is spoke. Grammar which is considered perfect today was radical in years past; English which was proper then is not today.

    AFAIK, only the French think a language can be controlled top down. They are wrong. Languages are what people speak and write daily. Languages change. If you understood what "soucish" meant, then you understand English. If not, then you have rigidified between the ears and should go join that French language committee.

    --
  • The Apple ][ was such a great success because anybody could be an Apple ][ hacker; adding hardware and software was ridiculously easy. IBM copied the basic idea for their PC, and that's why it took off. It would have been much less successfull if they had locked up the architecture and software as they later tried to do with the Micro Channel Architecture PS/2. That's when they lost big time in the market.

    Apple did not remember the lesson. They locked the Mac up so tight and lost developers.

    Now it's too late for partial measures. If they would release hardware specs, that would be a start, probaly help Linux ports.

    Steve Jobs is their downfall and their saving grace. Without him they have no imagination. He fires them up, but only because he keeps such a lock on the machine and its software that they can perceive themselves as special and get worked up over it. They are doomed to be a niche player with Jobs in control. Someone less talented would doom them to disappearing. It will take someone with more self confidence to make Apple a real player again.

    --

  • Apple has done lots of work on Mach since they grabbed 2.5 (and later the OSF stuff). They have a totally new driver architecture, vm enhancements, and tons of other stuff.

    You do all realize that the primary author of Mach (Avadis Tevanian) is the VP of Software (or something to that effect) at Apple now?

    ... and I've even heard that he still occasionally commits kernel fixes :)

  • I don't think this is an attack on Linux, which really can't be attacked anyway. I suppose if Apple's plan is so attractive that it drains development effort from Linux, that would be harmful to Linux, but that is just a weird scenario.

  • Bandwagon (Score:1)

    by rpk ( 9273 )
    > I wonder what will be the cool thing after "open source"? "Working ?" Naahhhh...
  • WebObjects, which is continually evolving, depends on it.
  • http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16opensou rce.html
  • with everything going open source, there won't be enough nerds to work on it. don't get me wrong, any software is better when source is available but every article you read emphasizes that open source software is successful because of thousands of nerds contributing time and effort. with more and more software opening up, the source:nerd ratio is getting worse. will this not hamper the open source effect?
  • Talk about jumping on the ESR bandwagon of hype.

    If it means anything to you purists, they won't be open-sourcing the entire Mac OSX. Only parts.

    I really don't see how this is going to generate new business for Apple on its own. It seems fairly useless to open-source only part of an OS.

  • mach? (Score:1)

    by prijks ( 9686 )
    isn't the "bottom part" of the OS just a mach kernel? if so, this could probably make life a bit easier for some of the mklinux guys...

  • actually, the French are not the only ones taking that (stupid) position. the Spanish have a "royal academy of the language" too, and I think the German have something approaching. It's stupid, but not uncommon.
  • I for one am going to see what Apple actually does before juding anything.
  • Whether or not you agree with it, Apple DOES have an argument in favor of closedness.
    Namely, they want to purvey consistency and reliability across their product line.

    Apple-compatible hardware, for instance, tends to be true plug-and-play, precisely because of restrictions. I was trying to install Linux the other day and had to really muck around to get the mouse to work properly.

    Interface-wise, Apple wants consistency. Personally, I can't STAND the fact that every X app is completely different. Hopefully, GNOME/KDE will help remedy the situation.

    Basically, where Un*x users like customizability above all else, Apple goes for reduced customizability in favor of ease of learning curve.
  • What bothers me more is the "THE". Why "THE open sourcish"?
  • Yep...And their very first "Related Wired Link" is the story about the "forgotton" RMS...THAT should have been in Alannis' song...*grin*
  • This is demonstrated with quicktime. [snip]I get so tired of hitting "later" over and over again. I'm so glad that I finally found an mpg of the new trailer so I could show it wherever without having to have stupid quicktime

    1) There's a well-known and very easy workaround for the annoyance dialog--set your system's clock ahead a year. Launch MoviePlayer. Click OK. Set your clock back to normal. QuickTime won't bother you again for a year. Adjust as necessary.

    2) The Sorenson codec is simply awesome, and worth the free download to install QT3. [apple.com] It's better than any .mpg I've seen yet. The old "teaser trailer" [starwars.com] is now available in Sorenson. Download it again and compare it to the old version. Trust me. It's worth it.

  • > they get developers to make a *.mov file that > only the new quicktime can decompress

    1) it's the codecs, silly. Problem works both ways, avi's can't be viewed if the proper codec ain't around.

    OPEN Free. In next's case, Open == Multiplatform
    2) Openstep ran on multiple systems, NextOS on 68k and intel, Windows NT, HP-UX and SunOS.

    Personally, Next/Apple should have opened it driver development kit, a long time ago.

  • Now it's too late for partial measures. If they would release hardware specs, that would be a start, probaly help Linux ports.

    Huh? What help do the Linux ports really need? Sure, there is some problems with the latest G3's (read Blue & White), but hell, it's tough to find a PPC Mac that won't run some form of Linux. Even the iMac with it's USB keyboard and mouse run LinuxPPC with the proper patches.

    In case anyone hasn't noticed, the more Apple progresses, the more they seem to become the high end version of a PC. The new G3's have standard ports all over the place. They even gave up the Mac video connector they've been using ever since the Mac II came out in '86/'87. And the next version will even get rid of ADB.

    The chipsets are becomming more standard, the interfaces are becomming more standard (I still have a IDE Performa that doesn't support slave drives, at least you can connect 4 UltraDMA drives to the G3s), and depending on what today's announcement is, the os itself is becomming more standard.

    Apple is doing everything it can to not only survive, but to bring some innovation to the industry. And being a Unix developer by day, Mac programmer by night, it's nice to see Apple build on the strengths of Unix instead of following the same road it's been on, and the same one the Microsoft is carving out for 95/98/NT/2000.

    And as far a Be is concerned, at this point, if Apple gave them the motherboard designs, I would doubt that Be would produce a G3 version of BeOS. If Be really wanted the specs, they could use the Linux source as a learning guide to the internals of the G3. And my understanding is that the chipsets didn't change that dramatically from the 604/604e machines to the original G3s

  • This is good. I've always wonder how much of OS X was derived from NetBSD. I'll take bets: is it 90% or 80%?

    Bah. From what I understood, OS X was supposed to contain the orgasmic microkernel-based technology... careful now, I'm getting shaky... from Mach... yipes, this is bad... but wasn't Mach already opensource?

    Apple is basically saying, ``We want to get lots of good press for opensourcing stuff we stole from the NetBSD people and the Mach people, but we don't want to actually give anything back to the community, like our user interface, which is the only decent thing about our software.''

    Apple is another also-ran in the proprietary PC operating system software managle, along with DESQview, VisiON, AmigaOS/AmigaDOS, and OS/2. If I want proprietary, I'll go with Microsoft: at least then I get lots of device support.

    Apple is more proprietary and anti-open than Microsoft.

  • How could Intel and Microsoft be as much of a "closed" platform as Apple? Even in your imagined scenario, you'd still have two companies providing things, not the single source garbage that goes into Apple computers like the iMac. Of course, you fail to realize that Microsoft and Intel don't always agree on what's best for each other, so you have things like Intel investing in RedHat (not in Microsoft's best interest), and Microsoft using things like the Alpha CPU and 3Dnow! instructions (not in Intel's best interest).

    Not surprisingly, you don't acknowledge the wealth of non-Microsoft OSes that will run on the PC. What else will run on the most modern Macs other than Linux and Apple OSes? And equally unsurprising is the fact that you must never have heard of Cyrix or AMD. After all, AMD supposedly did sell more chips in retail last month than Intel itself did.

    Please return to your iMac and your bowing down to Steve Jobs and quit pretending that you know anything about the industry or that Apple has any relevance to it.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • If Apple has no relevance to the industry, then why are you wasting your time talking about it?

    The comic relief I get from watching Cupertino and its zealots is outta this world (Just like you said, fanatics are indeed an interesting bunch). So, I guess they are relevant in this way, which isn't so bad--every court needs a jester.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Open-source English.

    Down with proprietary languages!

  • mach? (Score:1)

    by Ponty ( 15710 )
    I haven't looked through the mklinux source code, but as it includes the Mach kernel, isn't the majority of what Apple is announcing already open-source?

    Of course, they have been reticent about releasing technical specs for the G3s. I wonder what this means for the folks over at Be.
  • I wouldn't trust Apple any farther than I could throw their entire corporate headquarters. They screwed Newton developers pretty hard. The sooner Apple goes out of business and takes Jobs' Reality Distortion Field with them, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

    Jason Dufair
    "Those who know don't have the words to tell
  • I think people are missing the point here.

    1. Sun OS (pre-Solaris) was built on BSD. Wasn't free, wasn't open source. The BSD licence allows that. Anyone who thinks this is just Apple opening up source which is already open must think that all of the Next and Apple programmers have just been pulling their puds for the last 10 years instead of writing code.

    2. I think what Apple wants is to divide the GUI from the OS. This is trivial with Unix, not so trivial with Mac OS and Windows. Apple wants the OS open-source, while the GUI (which is Apple's crown jewel) is closed source.

    3. If the Mac OS X GUI layer can become THE UNIX GUI, Apple wins. It's APIs would be used to develop apps, regardless of the underlying OS. Whether Linux bigots like it or not, the Mac OS L&F is considered the best one out there. How much more popular would Linux be if it had the Mac OS L&F for a GUI? Is it worth paying Apple a few bucks for it? I bet it would be to a lot of novice users.

    People who don't care about GUIs won't place much value in this. People who want a solid OS with a great GUI should be drooling at the possibilities.

    -jon

  • Yes, I know the BSD license allows the stealth of the code. That's why I prefer the GPL. And no, I don't think the Apple developers were pulling the pud...they were writing pud code. What I mean by that is that while the Mac OS UI is unparalleled (I personally LOVE it), the underlying OS is outdated and crappy. Check out 8.5 -- all we get is the schlocky Sherlock and ...themes?!?! How about protected memory? Or usable virtual memory? They leave the important stuff behind, or just 'borrow' BSD.

    That's why I said Next and Apple programmers, not just Apple programmers. Apple had tried to re-write the OS and keep it backwards compatible (Copland) and failed miserably. So in December 1996, Apple went out and bought Next to get that modern OS foundation. Most Mac users care about the stuff they see (QuickTime, the GUI, even Sherlock and Themes) and don't care about multitasking and threading and protected memory. Apple has been concentrating on making them happy. The Next programmers (now Apple programmers) started with vanilla Mach and vanilla BSD, and added modifications. After about two years of work (some of it GUI-related, but most of it is internals), it's ready for prime time and Apple is open sourcing that work. That's some non-trivial work.

    Non-free software just does not cut it. Apple is not committed to freedom. They have repeatedly demonstrated this throughout their history.

    Even the Great God Linus says that there is a place for proprietary software. I think he's right. I've been discussing open source with a co-worker. My company's main product couldn't be open sourced (probably), but there are certainly parts of it which make a lot of sense as open source. A high-quality GUI with a consistent look and feel and good documentation for novice users might be one of those things which cannot be done via open source. At least, no one has done it yet (which isn't proof, but is evidence).

    -jon

  • Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else as odd that people will spend their time programming for a for-profit company for no pay?

  • They are secondary beneficiaries. The primary beneficiaries are Linus and the other kernel people.

    I do understand this, but I think it even odder to work on something that will be of primary benefit solely to Apple. At least with linux, someone else can make money throuugh another distribution/Support Network/etc.... The major monetary beneficiary of this work on Apple's core will be apple.

  • So, let me get this straight. Apple takes Mach and BSD, then layers the Mac desktop & other stuff on top, and then they release the Mach & BSD portions as "open source" and we're supposed to pat them on the back?
  • aren't these the people who don't allow third party vendors to clone their machines? Did I miss when they started publishing the secritive hardware specs for the macintrash? And now they're trying to entice open-source people into doing free development because they are releasing 1% of the source code? I don't hate macs, but is this really going to have any effect?
    -davek
  • The principal investigator for Mach, Rick Rashid [microsoft.com], is now the VP of Microsoft Research.

  • Bah. Apple's rotten to the core.

    --C
  • They could call it Open Sour(ce)Apple.

    Get it? Sour Apple....

    never mind.

  • >Of course, they have been reticent about >releasing technical specs for the G3s. I wonder >what this means for the folks over at Be.

    Last I heard it meant that BeOS won't run on the new G3's. Check out
    http://www.be.com/support/qandas/faqs/faq-0408.h tml
  • >If Be was really interested in supporting the PowerPC they'd just do the port.

    But to do so would require some reverse engineering and thus opening them up for all kinds of legal problems.

  • If Apple has no relevance to the industry, then why are you wasting your time talking about it?

    Fanatics are an interesting bunch.

    --
  • Cool, now there's going to be Apple Sauce for everyone... Oh, have I missed the point somewhere?
  • At least they're trying. I'll hold judgment until after I hear what the plan is. And if ESR will be there, my interest is piqued.
  • aren't these the people who don't allow third party vendors to clone their machines? Did I miss when they started publishing the secritive hardware specs for the macintrash?

    different companies publish different things. Intel doesn't release the schematics for the PIII, or Motorolla for the G3, or Ford for the Mustang or Gillett for its latest razor because their competitive advantage is that they have this information and others don't. IBM didn't WANT clones, they just couldn't stop them. Criticizing apple for not giving away all their specs is misunderstanding that Apple is at heart a hardware company who doesn't want to surrender their main source of income - their hardware.
  • technologies fail, that doesn't mean that apple is always to balme for not supporting them. Apple also was the company which said go forth and develop GUI and multimedia and user-friendly applications. And the masses did and virtually every desktop spends most of its time with windows and pulldown menues.
  • You really are an idiot.

    Multi-tasking comes in many flavors.

    The MacOS has had multi-tasking since late System 6 (1991). The Mac uses cooperative multitasking. That means that the applications running determine how much of the machine's resources are utilized. A poorly written program won't give up control when it is supposed to. (Some apps {like servers} take advantage of this). Recently, Apple has threaded just about everything in the OS. This is a good thing.

    Windows95 uses (sort of) pre-emptive mt. WinNT uses better pre-emptive mt. UN*X has really good mt. BeOS uses what they call "pervasive" mt, which just means that they have threaded the hell out of the OS. Pre-emptive mt means the OS does the scheduling.

    Whether pre-emptive or cooperative mt is used, it is STILL multi-tasking. Whether one is better than the other wholly depends on what you plan on doing with the box.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close