Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will MacIntel Kill Apple Open Source Efforts?

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the somethign-to-think-about dept.

557

An anonymous reader writes in to say that "Rob Braun (OpenDarwin core developer claims Apple's open source efforts are now dead, because Apple is afraid of assisting OSx86 piracy. First, Apple withheld the source of cctools required to to build Darwin. Now it seems they are no longer releasing the source to OS X's xnu kernel. "

cancel ×

557 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

post-release fear. (1, Interesting)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787137)

I guess the claims of piracy really hurting sales and technological progress really is only true when you factor in the senseless post-release/no-release fear.

Another WRONG Slashdot article (5, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787310)

See this comment [slashdot.org] . Apple made a quick mistake and fixed it, and the sources ARE available.

Next.

PowerPC or Intel doesn't matter (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787151)

Apple only looks out for itself. Anyone who looks at the company's history of openness can see this. This will be a repeat of the open PPC hardware debacle of several years ago. I can guarentee it.

Re:PowerPC or Intel doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787356)

Exactly, Apple has embraced the letter of open source but not the spirit.

Or perhaps it's a mistake? (5, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787154)

So they missed a chunk of headers. It's happened before, and been fixed. I see no reason at all for Apple to get out of open sourcing Darwin. They won't include the TPM related kext's, of course, but the rest should be fine.

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (1)

Raindance (680694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787190)

Yeah. The Intel move is pretty huge-- perhaps it'll take a little time for things to get back to normal with releasing sources for new things.

It would also be enlightening to read whether they're legally obligated to provide these sources.

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (2, Informative)

clifyt (11768) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787317)

Darwin isn't GPL'd or anything like that.

Its original source was licensed under BSD and then later released under an Apple license that was close to the BSD license -- but asked that you submit your changes back to Apple (or something similar).

As such, they are not legally obligated to release the sources in any way. They have only done so because they felt it was a good move on their part and would increase their valuation at the time (of which, the leaders may not think this is longer the case)...

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787474)

They have only done so because they felt it was a good move on their part and would increase their valuation at the time

Valuation never had anything to do with it. Releasing the Darwin sources was simply to make life easier for people developing drivers and other low-level code for OS X. Back in the NeXTSTEP days, it was quite a hassle to deal with showing your AT&T license before NeXT could show you the sources you needed.

-jcr

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (0)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787336)

Basically for what's in Darwin Apple doesn't have to release source code at all. Samba, Apache, Webkit(Safari's core) and various other pieces have to have the modified source released, but the kernel, drivers, and the entire BSD sub layer doesn't have to be released at all. that is why apple choose the BSD license to begin with. They don't have to give back changes, and can fuck the community.

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787458)

They don't have to give back changes, and can fuck the community.

The community licensed the code under the BSD license and therefor doesnt expect anything back, so how can Apple be 'fucking' them? Give over with the sense of entitlement, there are levels of freedom above what you use.

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787250)

I dunno dood. It just wreaks of mklinux [mklinux.org] . I hope you're right though.

Re:Or perhaps it's a mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787494)

Well, here's the problem. Neurosis, wild paranoia, and in fact the entire GNU/Open Source experience, is completely alien to a certain kind of person. Artists [atspace.com] , fashion mavens [atspace.com] , scientists [atspace.com] , and other [atspace.com] creative [atspace.com] personalities [atspace.com] will cut people a little slack for innocent mistakes, thereby demonstrating their sensitive [atspace.com] , tasteful [atspace.com] aesthetic [atspace.com] . It's a rare instinct, this appreciation for beauty [atspace.com] and truth [atspace.com] ; unimaginative squares haven't a prayer.

Dull little people, dutifully performing dull little tasks, should stick to Linux [atspace.com] and Windows [atspace.com] .
Staying cool is for different thinkers [atspace.com] .

But it's still just Linux with a better UI, right? (0, Flamebait)

defile (1059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787157)

Exactly why I resisted the pressure to abandon Linux for MacOS X on the desktop. It's not Linux with a better UI, it's a proprietary system with candy coating.

And its true colors finally come out.

Will the cool hackers [paulgraham.com] still dig it?

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (4, Informative)

Rolan (20257) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787173)

BSD actually, not Linux.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (4, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787228)

Mach actually, with a BSD API and a mish mash of OSS tools.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787313)

Yes. THANK YOU. I really hate the fact that people don't understand this. Mod parent up!

"There's not MUCH Mach in it" (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787426)

(and the vikings sing, "Mach Mach Mach Mach...")

It's booting through the BSD boot process, and the BSD kernel is running single-server, and they have increasingly moved away from using Mach messages because of the overhead. It's got more Mach in it than FreeBSD does, but FreeBSD was already using a lot of Mach code, and they've continued to re-import a lot of updated FreeBSD code (eg, FFS in Panther).

Like everything else, it's a mongrel. It's part Mach, part BSD, part NeXT, part Mac, something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue...

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (0, Troll)

defile (1059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787414)

BSD actually, not Linux.

OH MY GOD, REALLY? I HAD NO IDEA. Oh, right, NOW I remember. Steve Jobs' attempt to manipulate Linus's insecurities totally failed, so they knifed the mkLinux project and looked for more willing cocksuckers at the FreeBSD project.

Sorry about the confusion.

re: "Will the cool hackers still dig it?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787270)

Only the ones who remain true to their roots as artistes and models [atspace.com] . Make no mistake, this is a positive development; Apple's actions will separate the aesthetes [atspace.com] with good taste [atspace.com] from the chaff of dull, dutiful [atspace.com] drones [atspace.com] .

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (4, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787272)

Calling OS X "Linux with a better UI" illustrates a profound ignorance of the OS X operating system, from the frameworks (Cocoa and its related APIs, the best application development framework bar none) to the core technologies like Mach and BSD. Ignoring its top features by dismissing it as a "proprietary system with candy coating" strikes me as counterproductively idealistic. If you feel pressure to switch, then switch! Whatever gets your job done better, and believe me, OS X gets the job done.

Not to mention that it's likely Apple just hasn't put the sources up yet in this situation. It took them a while to post the new Darwin sources, but they got them out. The only proprietary things in OS X are Aqua and related technologies.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787299)

Apple and innovation?
 
  Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative [macsimumnews.com] and forward looking company. They claim Apple invented most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" or "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvement in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.
 
  Case in point "USB":
  When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licensing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where developed on the PC market.
 
  The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple invented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple invented none of those products.
 
  A nice place for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totally mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf parts licensed from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.
 
  It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer interesting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy Mac OS->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogenous environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 solution.
 
  Conclusion:
All things considered, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping between CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed into nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. On the software side half of Apples operating system is also of the shelf available parts from different open source projects. Modern Macintosh is basically a proprietary GUI over standard open source components, running on PC hardware. The difference between Macintosh and the PC has been shrinking over the years and now they are VERY close. It's entirely possible Apple will abandon what's left of the Macintosh and go total PC, hardware and software. This isn't innovation and never has been.
 
  Think different? No it looks like you are thinking exactly the same. Only later than everybody else.
 
/ttfn
iPod is UNIX

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787440)

just in case anyone reads this troll (ok I did :-)

When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB ... In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB

i've never ever heard any mac user trumpet the use of USB. so the entire basis of this is wrong. interestingly enough, intel had a hell of a time getting MS to put USB support into their OS, with plenty of NT4 machines having useless USB ports, and Win95 not supporting it either (Win95 OSR2 had an orphaned USB stack that basically works with nothing else), wasn't until Win98 that USB support "arrived".

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787277)

Not just a pretty GUI on BSD...
Mac OS has a few nifty non-eye-candy features not in most Linux distributions:

No root user, but admin group in sudoers (easy to do on Linux, but not done by default by most distros)
Home directory encryption available at the flip of a switch
Automatic detection and configuration of monitors
Most things just work, out of the box.

All of these (possibly excepting detection of monitors) could be done by a Linux desktop/laptop vendor with their own distro, but as far as I know aren't.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

ethanrider (129483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787311)

It's pretty easy to do hardware support when you control the hardware.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787325)

Which is exactly why I said a Linux desktop/laptop vendor, not a distribution vendor.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787503)

Good answer, but not entirely right. I'm running OS X on a PowerMac Dual G5 and I've got 2 Dell 2005FPW monitors attached to it and it "discovered" and configured them correctly. Apple doesn't own that hardware.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787318)

No root user, but yet the first account you setup has root access. Seems a bit like M$ and their everyone's an admin (at least if you want to be able to install and use what you've installed). How is giving normal users root privileges so great?

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787358)

The first user is in the admin group by default because you have to have someone in the admin group (or you can never install software, create other users, change system-wide settings, etc). Admin group users still have to authenticate before doing anything via sudo, so system-wide bad things don't happen automatically without user intervention.

Once you've made a second user, you can switch them if you want.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787368)

No root user, but yet the first account you setup has root access.

Except that it doesn't.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

linhux (104645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787435)

The first account you set up does not have root access. It has sudo access, which is different. The user has to authenticate (with password) each time he or she wants to do something that requires root-privileges.

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787422)

pardon, why except the detection of monitors? it is a capability of gfx card's which is called ddc ... if your driver has support for it, xfree 4.0 and up and xorg are happily using it ...... it even has nothing to do with distributions
- via unichrome driver supports this
- ati driver supports this
- open source ati driver has this
- nvidia driver is not tested by me, but i remember seeing it there too

ubuntu for example configures your system similar without root account, and home directory encryption like filesystem encryption is not available through a flip of a switch but through an entry in a config file ....

and by the way - as long as there is a possibility to put macosx onto the hardware -i- choose, i will think of trying an install, but i won't buy a dedicated macosx system at the moment

it would have been a big bonus if macosx would have been xen-compatible, so you could run linux and macosx virtualised without big penalties, but this is now in the wild - how long will it take, until apple sues the users, who dual boot macosx/linux/bsd whatever on their machines, because those machines are only licensed to be used with macosx?

happy trollin', this should have enough calories to consume

Re:But it's still just Linux with a better UI, rig (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787493)

pardon, why except the detection of monitors?

Because I didn't know about ddc when my company asked me to research the possibility of producing Linux Desktops & Laptops two years ago.

Linux is just OSX with no applications. (1, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787376)

Exactly why I resisted the pressure to abandon Linux for MacOS X on the desktop

I'm not sure what your point is. Let's say the absolute worst thing happens and the next version of OS X is based on an NT kernel, all the UNIX-compatible stuff is supplied by Interix, and Bill Gates buys Apple.

All the commercial software I've got on my Mac will continue to run.

All the open source software I've got on my Mac will continue to run.

All the software I'd have been using under any other free UNIX will still be just as available as it is right now, and I can continue to use it on Linux or Mac OS.

If for some reason I want to run Linux on my Mac Mini, I will still be able to run all my Mac OS software under MOL.

If I want to run Linux on an Intel box I can, and all the software I would have been using on Linux and all the open source software I'm using on Mac OS X will still be available.

If for some reason I want to use my Mac software on an Intel box running Linux, I will be able to do so using Sheepshaver, under emulation, just as I woudl be able to use it using Rosetta, under emulation, on an Intel Mac.

What would have been the advantage of using Linux for the past three years instead of Mac OS X, even under the brutal worst-case regime I described above? I really don't get it.

Their choice (1, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787162)

Apples license allows them to do this , however it is a large PR disaster towards many OSS developers .Sadly I doubt most people will know or care.
It is a shame really , I was looking forward to a Darwin based OSS-OS

There is one! (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787408)

Try out Open Darwin [wikipedia.org] !

Re:There is one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787476)

Their core developer just said it was dead.

This is surprising how? (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787165)

I am not so certain that this is true, but if so, so what? The license allows for this. It was certain that apple did OSS while it benefits them, but not when it could hurt them.

I would guess that if they do not support OSS and it ends up hurting them, they will then do a Sun and re-open it. Sun did the same with Solaris X86.

Re:This is surprising how? (4, Funny)

Zemplar (764598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787217)

[throws gas on the fire]

This is because Apple is moving from Darwin to Solaris 10 x86 as its GUI code base!





Okay, okay, not stop spreading nasty rumors and get back to work!

Re:This is surprising how? (3, Funny)

nova_ostrich (774466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787341)

Nah, I heard they made a deal with Microsoft, and we're going to see the innovation from Vista finally come to the Mac...

Re:This is surprising how? (2, Funny)

dropdead (201019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787406)

In truth they are moving to a SCO codebase.

[Another splash of gasoline on your fire] (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787407)

[throws gas on the fire]

This is because Apple is moving from Darwin to Solaris 10 x86 as its GUI code base!


That was funny dude! But not as funny as Dvorak's speculation about Apple dropping OS.X and switching to making Windows boxes so they can compete with Dell, Lenovo & Co. [pcmag.com]

I should have become a journalist, this guy actually gets paid for starting flamewars.

Re:[Another splash of gasoline on your fire] (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787457)

Ah heck, screw the journals bit; Become an analyst. IDG and Gartner expected Linux in 2005 to occupy less than 5% of INTERNET servers (i.e. just servers on the web) and less than 1% of ALL servers. These are analysts that make ~200K or so. Basically, they are paid by the industry lead to print whatever they want to say. Amazing thing is that IDG/Gartner have never been right WRT to competitors and yet everybody listens to them. Back in the late 80's/early 90's, they were talking about how OS 3x0, and AS400 would remain the dominant computers ignoring Unix on the servers and Windows on the desktop.

Re:This is surprising how? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787470)

This is because Apple is moving from Darwin to Solaris 10 x86

The scary part is that switching from Mach to the Solaris kernel sounds like an awefully good idea to me. Must... get... OpenStep for Solaris... out... of... head...

Thanks for planting screwy ideas in my head, ya bum! :-P

Re:This is surprising how? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787508)

Careful, you almost made Jon Schwartz cream his jeans there...

-jcr

Sour Apple (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787170)

Open source is/was the coolest thing about OSX. Without it, its just a pretty operating system with limited market share. Apple better not get too greedy - iPods won't be around forever.

Re:Sour Apple (2, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787293)

Uh, maybe in your twisted niche Slashdot world...for most people, the coolest thing about OS X is its interface and top-notch frameworks. Who gives a damn if the Darwin source is available? Have you ever actually needed or used it?

Slashdot posters have a tendency to think their concerns represent everybody's concerns. Kind of like how we always see "Does it play Ogg?" posted, when nobody actually cares about Ogg.

Re:Sour Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787434)

I hate to be the one to burst your Mac faggotry bubble, but there's a MAJORITY of PC users out there who really don't give a fuck what overpriced piece of crap Apple's hawking today.

Dipshit.

Re:Sour Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787460)

..for most people, the coolest thing about OS X is its interface and top-notch frameworks...

Slashdot posters have a tendency to think their concerns represent everybody's concerns


Oh the irony. How many people use Macs again?

Does anything ever kill anything? (2, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787180)

We see these stories all the time [google.com] , I'm just wondering how often these predictions come true. One thing we know for sure is the iPod has survived many attempts on its life.

Code Drama Queens (4, Informative)

maggard (5579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787192)

For all of those crowing "I told you so!" the files are all where they should be, still under an open license. There was apparently a hiccup which Apple fixed as soon as they found out about the oversight.

You may now move on to other pumped-up / days-old non-dramas.

Re:Code Drama Queens (2, Insightful)

javax (598925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787248)

no they are not - just by having a look at the tarball listing obviously didn't tell you so...

Try to find e. g. the XNU sources.

Re:Code Drama Queens (2, Insightful)

hkb (777908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787365)

Uhm, no they're not. Show me where I can go download 10.4.4/10.4.5 XNU kernel source that is compilable on Intel Macs.

Baaaahhhhhhhh (-1, Flamebait)

drpimp (900837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787197)

Indian Givers.....

I shed the tiniest of tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787200)

Honestly, I don't care too much about the kernel. I would however love to see open standards for NextStep/Cocoa, and then maybe more people would use it. It is really nice, but Jobs can't have his cake and eat it too.

Re:I shed the tiniest of tears (3, Informative)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787349)

Honestly, I don't care too much about the kernel. I would however love to see open standards for NextStep/Cocoa, and then maybe more people would use it. It is really nice, but Jobs can't have his cake and eat it too.

You're a decade late [wikipedia.org]

There's a free-as-in-speech implementation right here [gnustep.org]

Re:I shed the tiniest of tears (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787432)

the funny part about that post is that the poster didnt know that and just blindlyu said more people would use it if it were open. guess what? no one uses gnustep.

cctools is now released (5, Informative)

dmoen (88623) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787201)

I RTFA, and I saw this in the email thread about cctools:

>>>I was amazed to find that the gas sources had been split out of cctools, so they could be provided in accordance with the GPL, but no other part of cctools was made available. So I never did get an answer to my question.

>>I see today a much more populated source tree for x86.
>>Thank you to everyone responsible.

>Indeed, I also would like to pass along my thanks, since I was one of the people to comment on this with my concern before.

Doug Moen

We need a "much ado about nothing" tag (5, Funny)

C. E. Sum (1065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787213)

Which would fit perfectly in this story.

A minor problem is blown out of all proprortion, and it's the end of open source on OSX-x86?

Re:We need a "much ado about nothing" tag (1)

guet (525509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787269)

I think perhaps 'As you like it', would be more appropriate, given some of the crowing comments about candy-coated proprietary OSs in the threads above.

Re:We need a "much ado about nothing" tag (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787333)

Unfortunately it would apply to most /. stories given the propensity to emotive overkill round here

OS X vs. Linux desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787219)

I've used Macs for quite some time but can't find any convincing reason to use OS X besides that it looks nice. Recently I switched to a x86 notebook and now I am using Linux and the GNOME desktop and find it at least as good as OS X. Anyone else who feels the same?

Re:OS X vs. Linux desktop (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787372)

I've used Macs for quite some time but can't find any convincing reason to use OS X besides that it looks nice.

Here's my reasons main for using it:

  1. Photoshop. I mostly use GIMP, but there are many things that can only be done in Photoshop.
  2. WiFi that works.
  3. Power management that works, complete with sleep mode (needed on my laptop)

I also love the beautiful eyecandy. Makes staring at the screen all day pleasant. Hopefully much of that will work in the recent OpenGL accellerated X projects, but it will probably take a while to get the same level of polish and elegance that OS X has.

Re:OS X vs. Linux desktop (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787421)

I do. I've recently been using my powerbook with an external 20" widescreen monitor. Fortunately, everything I run in that screen is by X forwarding over ssh. Once upon a time when screen space was limited, having the menu bar for an application in the top apple bar was probably a good idea -- but if I have an OSX app running on the external monitor, I might have to traverse a couple feet of screen space to click the "file" menu item. But running linux apps over there is fine because the menu is inside the application window.

Other nagging issues for me are the lack of _universal_ middle click paste, sloppy focus (scroll background w/out foregrounding it), and lack of _integrated_ multiple desktops (yes I know middle click works in X11 and there are 3d party multiple desktop apps -- these are half solutions).

Erm, that is not an official statement from Apple (3, Insightful)

Jackdaw Rookery (696327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787226)

This is a none story, unless I'm missing something. Some headers were missed off files and some assumptions are getting made from it.

Where is the proof that Apple is changing their policy?

This seems like a story designed to raise OSS hackles rather than anything useful.

Open source is dead anyway... (-1, Flamebait)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787231)

See subject.

Re:Open source is dead anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787282)

Kinda like your sexlife?

Re:Open source is dead anyway... (1)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787300)

Nice one!

I predicted this... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787232)

Not specifically because of the "piracy" of Mac OS X (and I'm not certain that it should actually be called "piracy" - even in the colloquial sense - to buy a copy of Mac OS X and install it on a non-Mac, even if the EULA is enforcable), but the TPM capability of the Intel chipset does make Open Source Darwin a problem. Releasing the source to the OS without making it possible to use the source to bypass any strong DRM Apple happened to have a use for just becomes harder and more expensive.

Re:I predicted this... (2, Insightful)

owenreading (948158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787352)

You can't actually buy a copy of OSX for x86, the only versions on the shelves are PPC. So you must either be downloading it illegally or copying it from a MacIntel install disc, and unless you wipe it from your new Mac, you're installing more copies than you have licences for. So all the OSX86 users out there pirated it somehow...

Digression - "piracy", but first a message... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787505)

Before we get into the digression I'm glad to hear that my prediction has not in fact come true, and a technical glitch has been blown way out of proportion (which is, now I think of it, what happened with the "Apple's ripping off KHTML" flamewar).

---

Onwards!

You can't actually buy a copy of OSX for x86, the only versions on the shelves are PPC.

That's only one of many reasons I haven't personally so much as downloaded any of the bits necessary to install any version of Mac OS X on Intel hardware. Don't make this about me, please, because it's not.

However...

and unless you wipe it from your new Mac

There's quite a few people working on and even successfully running Linux on the new intel-based iMac, as well as people working on running Windows on it.

Personally I think they're all nuts, but there are people who can install Mac OS X for Intel on a non-Mac without being "pirates".

Perfectly understandable (1, Insightful)

thunderlizard (947581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787234)

It seems perfectly understandable to me... Apple slowly reduced access to outside developers (they didn't "kill off" their open source projects, as the main article trolled), because the process was being ABUSED by external, open source developers...

I think that in the end, Apple realized that the few contributions received from the OSS community were not enough to justify the abuses, leaks and other problems, so they took appropriate measures to protect their development environment...

Not The Only Thing It Will Kill (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787240)

IBM dumping Apple last year signed the death warrant for Apple computer hardware. MacIntel is essentially an exit strategy for Apple to ease their way into a purely digital media company.

Or are there still people out there that believe 'Apple chose Intel due to their Roadmap(tm) and superior performance per watt and that the x86 world is just waiting around to throw their money at an OEM selling Intel exclusive x86 hardware running a niche OS'?

Cocoa/Carbon APIs are on their way for Linux/Windows...

1. What is Darwin? (3, Informative)

demon411 (827680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787251)

wondering what the british naturalist has to do with a kernel?

Darwin is used as the UNIX core of OS X. Darwin iteself is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems. It was originally released in March 1999. Darwin currently runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers, and is currently being ported to Intel processor-based computers and compatible systems by the Darwin community.

XNU is the name of the kernel that Apple developed for use in the Mac OS X operating system and released as open source as part of the Darwin operating system. It is a hybrid kernel combining the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from the FreeBSD kernel as well as a C++ API for writing drivers called IOKit. XNU is an acronym for X is Not Unix.[1]

      1. ^ (2005). Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X: Glossary. Apple Computer. URL accessed on December 13, 2005.

XNU (1)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787477)

I thought XNU was the guy that Tom Cruise thinks is trapped below a volcano or something. :)

MacIntel will be the death of Apple (-1, Troll)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787290)

OSx86 is all over the net now. Apple can now forget about selling hardware anymore.
They enjoyed a monopoly in their private market before but they screwed the pooch with the Intel move.

At best they will become an OS and apps vendor unless they can come up with some
really exceptional hardware. But basing their biz on machines that anyone can build with standard PC parts was a bad move.

Their days are numbered now. If they want to survive they're going to have to sell their OS to anyone that wants it and really make it shine way above M$ or Linux.

(I have 2 genuine macs and soon will have an osx86 mac :) )

Re:MacIntel will be the death of Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787322)

"At best they will become an OS and apps vendor unless they can come up with some
really exceptional hardware."

Don't worry! They are as we speak.

And the idiots paying for expensive x86 Mac hardware to run 95+ percent of their software at 1/3 native speed through emulation are helping fund it.

Thanks suckers!

Re:MacIntel will be the death of Apple (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787409)

OSx86 is all over the net now. Apple can now forget about selling hardware anymore.

Does anyone actually believe this? Besides a negligible number of hackers, who's going to trade Apple's integrated "Just Works" system for a hacked, unsupported MacOS that might work on whatever beige box they've got lying around given enough work?

Not the general public, I'm sure

Re:MacIntel will be the death of Apple (2, Insightful)

wootest (694923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787449)

Spend a day at a supermarket. Pick 500 random people throughout the day. How many of them will be able to install OSx86 even when it's more refined? 30?

The people who will be installing Mac OS X on PCs will largely be people currently not buying Macs in the first place. Surely a fair percent will choose to go from buying Macs to buying PCs, but are you willing to bet that they'll all stay there? Drivers and official support will be lacking, as well as software updates. I'm willing to guess that a fair amount of the people that try it out will go back fairly quickly because of the experience being all the more cumbersome over time.

I'm not saying your scenario won't happen. It's *possible*. It's just not very *probable*. The rumors of Apple's death have been, are, and will continue to be, greatly exaggerated.

You got "Steved" (0, Troll)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787296)

In the Apple developer community, this is called being "Steved".

Remember OpenDoc. [wikipedia.org] . Never forget.

Re:You got "Steved" (1)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787439)

So, I read the OpenDoc article. What's a failed document-format-standard attempted by Apple in 1992 as a stab at Microsoft's Office products during a time period when Steve Jobs wasn't even associated with Apple have to do with "being Steved"? ...or the current topic at all?

Mod parent down.

Re:You got "Steved" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787509)

"Before long, OpenDoc was scrapped, with Steve Jobs noting that they "put a bullet through [OpenDoc's] head".

This sort of thing is why few will develop for Apple's proprietary technologies.

I can see clearly now (1)

cyberbian (897119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787309)

Vista sales will be diluted so much by an open source Intel platform kernel as to make Vista a non sequitur. Microsoft has no small interest in seeing this stopped.

Apple has traditionally been a hardware company, and this change of approach is indicative of pressure from Bill to keep OS X off of every box in production.

What amazes me is that people are having a hard time connecting the dots between the anti-competitive Darth Vader of IE and Office fame, and Apple's (the hardware company)fear to have their OS run on everything

It's only a matter of time before the OS will be hacked, and customers chose to run something else. The success of GNU/Linux is a shining example of just how tired customers (Enterprise and Consumer alike) are of having to swallow FUD and bad code.

Bill Gates' fortune be damned, the people are demanding choice, and are being prevented by the huge market force that Mr. Gates wields. I guess that makes Bill and Ballmer red light sabre kind of guys after all... Use the force Steve! The people want your OS, and we're tired of the M$ corrupt crap.

MacIntel didn't kill it (4, Insightful)

MacBoy (30701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787321)

Apple's switch to Intel didn't kill Apple's open source efforts...

People using Apple's open-source efforts to pirate Mac OS X killed Apple's open-source efforts.

Go ahead. Waste mod points on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787342)

...but apple is being childish and short-sighted if they stop the Darwin X86 OSS support. A move that could really help them garner support is being stopped because they're worried about possible missing a few bucks because a couple of hackers are going to get this running on generic intel hardware.

Note to apple: If your position in the industry is relying simply on people's perception that your hardware is "special", you might as well get out of the computer business now.

Explanation from the Article (5, Funny)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787344)

"...unnamed executives at Apple admitted that the sourcecode to Xnu had to be pulled after threats from the Church of Scientology."

I am not suprised; they got their free development (1)

paperclip2003 (732025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787367)

I don't think it is about TPM or hacking:

I think a lot of companies are using OSS as free development; if this really works or not I don't know (most of the developers are the companies own). To a large corporation such as Apple Computer, free development is the holy grail because of high production costs, once they are done with that (base development) what do they need OSS for?

-R

Apple Already Bitten (1)

mysterystevenson (859520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787387)

The Apple has already been bitten, can't put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again ! Look at the Logo ! If you cut an Apple in 2, what do you get ? NO, not spare parts ! A real apple... seeds. That's what we have now, seeds of a new horizon. There will be anew,(TREE).

No boom today, boom tomorrow (3, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787389)

Ok, this one was a false alarm. Tomorrow it won't be. I laughed as much as the next slashdot reader when Dvorak made his silly prediction of Apple on Windows but after thinking about it I think he was probably right.

Think it through folks, there isn't anything in a Macintel that won't be in every Dell this time next year. EFI is the future, we all know BIOS is on the way out and the machines that ship with Vista will most likely be EFI with EPT instead of traditional partition tables. They will also very likely be totally legacy free, USB keyboard/mouse, only SATA drives, etc. In other words, almost identical to the current crop of Apple hardware. We already know Apple hardware will run Vista and it already runs Linux.

If you think Apple is going to have a hard time justifying the premium on their hardware you are right. But the bigger problem is going to be finding a response to customers who begin to dual boot their Macintel to gain access to all of the cheap hardware on the shelves at Walmart or online at Newegg. It is device support that is going to force the issue.

In the end, Apple doesn't care about the underlying OS. Mach was handy, they only need a substrate to run their desktop environment atop. Remember that NextStep was ported to Windows once already and that NT based systems are a small sorta microkernel with one or more subsystems sitting atop it. Win32 and now Vista's stuff are but two which have existed. There was a POSIX one and an OS/2 compatibility one also in the past. Sooner or later Steve will swollow his pride and create a subsystem consisting of a modernized POSIX and NextStep and that will be OS XI. It will also ship with all of the Vista subsystem. That will allow all the device installers to run and gain the ability to run all Windows apps besides. Which also solves the Microsoft Office availibility problem.

Mod Story Down, it was a mistake at worst. (3, Informative)

javaxman (705658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787396)

Ok, I'm going to admit this is somewhat redundant, as a number of posts already point this out, but the story just isn't true.

Might the Intel transition impact Darwin's open source status a bit? Sure, it might. It will certainly make releases a bit slower as code is reviewed and seriously sensitive bits ( if any ) removed, but I'm not sure I see the reason why Darwin builds shouldn't be able to be done going forward...

OSX is overrated (0, Offtopic)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787410)

We can build a better OS. Just add some accelerated graphics to bsd or linux and there you go .

Why is it... (1)

SilentOneNCW (943611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787418)

Why is it that all the headlines these days are so violent?
I'm sure that every time something happens in the tech world, the intent is not to kill someone/something. Won't whoever's in charge of the headlines please think of the children!

Re:Why is it... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787516)

I'm sure that every time something happens in the tech world, the intent is not to kill someone/something.

I'm going to f*cking kill Apple Open Source Efforts *throws chair*

OSx86 piracy? (1)

sepluv (641107) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787423)

From the story:
Apple is afraid of assisting OSx86 piracy
Maybe because I'm not an Apple user(?), I have no idea what this story is about. What on earth is OSx86 piracy?

"Aye...my hearties...I'm a pirate from the good ship, OSx86, a catchy name for my ship....aaaarrrrh...and I always eat an apple everyday 'cause remember a good apple assists in keeping the scurvy away....arrrhh." No...really...that's my best guess.

Forget It (1)

jarod213 (955605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787428)

What an outrageous claim. Like Apple is the Open-source capital of America. A bull comment. Story here: www.semanticparanoia.com

Shooting their foot to spite their face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14787433)

If this is true, I certainly hope that people follow this guy's [apple.com] lead. Best quote, "I don't know how successful that will be, but source-code availability of the core UNIX is a reason that I and some of my colleagues have given to justify going with OS X; not having that makes other BSDs, Linux and Slowlaris[!] more attractive than OS X for some purposes."

Apple Open Source Efforts Are Not Dead! (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787450)

Unless Netcraft confims it!

OSX86 Piracy == increased market share (3, Insightful)

daksis (163887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787478)

I think that we are blowing Mac "fears" of OSX86 piracy completely out of proportion. I have a sneaking suspicion that Steve and his crew would like nothing more than OS-X86 to be available tomorrow running on hundreds of x86 PCs across the globe. Let's face it, for your average person, the OS is moot. Joe Average User wants "tools" to get work done quickly and in time to get home for little league. He could care less what the OS running things looks like.

(NB: We're assuming that consumer OSs are pretty much limited to Windows and OSx here... granted there are other user friendly OS's but they aren't really hitting the mass market....yet.)

If we consider that OS-X has a comparable suite of tools to get work done as your standard consumer friendly MS OS - then the next barrier to entry becomes cost. It's a version of the all things considered equal: most people can't tell you the difference between two HP laptops running versions of windows, so how do you explain to the guy who's trying to buy a new system at the local best buy or circuit city that these two pieces of hardware do pretty-much the same thing, but you're going to pay a 25% premium because that other one *looks* cooler. Joe Average is likely to judge technology in a simple, superficial way; one of the most superficial methods available is price. If the windows pc lets him get email and surf the "inter-web" *and* costs less welp, then that's the choice to make.

What gets interesting is when someone has made this investment and they aren't happy with windows. Currently, they're stuck. Most people don't have a geek friend that will happily burn them a user friendly distro, or spend the next three weeks teaching them how to build a BSD box. The old scenario for someone wishing to switch from windows to OsX would be something like:
Step 1: "Buy new pc that is two or three times the cost of current cheap windows box."
Step 2: "Pray that you really like OSX"

If OS-X is unlocked and allowed to roam free, then people are now free to try out OS-X with a minimal investment in the software. Don't like it? No problem, go back to windows. Shucks, if Apple was really devious, they would be paying people to create live-cd distros of OS-x86 to hand out to people so that you could have as many people trying out their OS as possible. Remember, for your average user, the benefits of an OS designed with usability in mind are too intangible for them to switch. Windows "works well enough". Joe Average User has to see, touch and feel the improvement for it to be real. The only way to get Joe Average to switch is to provide him a low risk environment where he can experience the user-interaction elation that Mac users are always going on about. Mac could have an army of people using their OS on "unsupported" non mac hardware - a great guerrilla tactics way of increasing market share.

"Will MacIntel Kill Apple Open Source Efforts?" (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787501)

That's a poor title. Something like "Is Apple Ending Open Source Efforts?" would be more fitting.

Will Slashdot posting imagined crimes hurt OSS? (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787502)

probably not, except for the time OSS developers have wasted following this non-story
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>