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!

Apple Announces New Open Source Efforts

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the on-the-road-again dept.

323

Today Apple announced a few expanded open source efforts. First, beginning with Mac OS X 10.4.7, the Darwin/Mac OS X kernel, known as "xnu", is again available as buildable source for the Intel platform, including EFI utilities. Second, iCal Server, Bonjour, and launchd are moving to Apache 2.0 licensing. And finally, Mac OS Forge has been launched, as the successor to OpenDarwin as a conduit for hosting projects such as WebKit that were formerly hosted by the OpenDarwin project's servers, such as WebKit. Mac OS Forge is sponsored by Apple. DarwinPorts has already moved to its own servers. Update: 08/08 01:43 GMT by J : The official Apple announcement is now out. Other fun news: Leopard will ship with Ruby on Rails.

cancel ×

323 comments

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

OS X (0)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863133)

It's only a matter of time before they open source OS X and everything else they have software wise, Apple is a hardware company.

Re:OS X (4, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863156)

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

G-funk (22712) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863184)

Already the case. No, Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves. Because Dell would like to sell it to you. And I would like to buy it. Windows exploded and killed itself "for no raisin" for the last time this weekend, and it's getting replace with OS X. I have a mac laptop, I'm already paying for OS X. but I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would, but I can't so thepiratebay it is. Yar!

Re:OS X (4, Insightful)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863250)

Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves. Because Dell would like to sell it to you. And I would like to buy it.
Apple doesn't cater to the commodity market. So, no they won't do this.
but I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would
And I thinkthey'd rather sell you a new $1000+ computer rather than selling you the $100 software (which would increase their costs by having to develop, test, and support a wide variety of configurations).

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

flithm (756019) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863349)

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken. If Apple were smart (which they are) they would rather sell you $350-$1000 dollar software and make TONS of ROI rather than try to compete in the tight hardware market which is currently on a downward trend.

No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware -- but it'll happen. Because Steve is smart dude.

Re:OS X (4, Insightful)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863396)

If you're trying to argue that the hardware market is somehow more profitable than the software one I think you're sadly mistaken.
That isn't what I was suggesting at all. You can develop high ROI & loyal repeat customers by providing an end-to-end solution. The game is to sell iPods, iBooks, and OS X to their customers, just as Microsoft's game is to sell Windows+WindowsMobile+Office. Even microsoft does sell hardware where they can. With the commoditization of the PC, there isn't a lot of space for that. They play where it is profitable & there aren't hugely dominant players & where the average customer is willing to get something better than a commodity (such as input devices).

Development and support of OS X is eased by the fact that Apple controls the hardware.
No one will believe me, just as no one believed me when I said as soon as Apple releases OSX intel, it'll run on commodity hardware -- but it'll happen. Because Steve is smart dude.
I might agree that it can happen, but it isn't going to happen soon & there's no business reason to make OS X available on commodity PCs anytime this year like you want (which is why they didn't--Steve is, as you say, a smart dude).

Re:OS X (1)

wateriestfire (962915) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863460)

"Development and support of OS X is eased by the fact that Apple controls the hardware." what part of the hardware on a Mac does Apple actually control? Is it the Intel processors? or the ATI/NVIDIA graphic cards? face it they only make the case the mouse and the keyboard (not unlike most computer companies).

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863488)

They control the fact that they have no legacy components & can take advantage of recent technologies. Every MacIntel has SSE3. If Apple (or any other dev) wants to make an app that takes advantage of that (sucha as Rosetta), they'll be able to. They don't have to test on low-end PC hardware or every single component you can shove in a PCI slot from manufacturers that have died. The minimum hardware for a MacIntel is considerably higher than the average PC that is on someone's desk right now.

To shrinkwrap OS X & sell it to the Dell users of the world, they'd have to either develop & test like crazy on the lowend hardware (and pull out their hair when asked why low-end systems can't do some of the really cool stuff) or they'd have to specify minimum system requirements which the average user might not be able to see if they meet.

Re:OS X (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863596)

You say they'd have to specify minimum system requirements like it's a bad thing. Sure, some people are going to whine that they can't run it on their 1ghz Celeron, just like they complain about XP, or, god forbid, Vista. Big fucking deal. There's still a huge number of people out there who would be just fine with it. Plus, with a minimum spec defined, you'd probably find Dell and other companies extremely likely to start shipping computers that were OS X compatible, just like they made a point of doing as soon as XP was released.

Re:OS X (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863588)

More information on this strategy can be found here [apple.com] .

Re:OS X (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863368)

I'm rather stumped what this wide variety of configurations is that you speak of.

Mac OS works fine on all recently released Macs, meaning dozens of mainboards and video cards, and will work fine on systems to come. USB and Firewire peripherals are all supported. All hard drives and most memory brands work fine.

Seems to me all they'd have to do is charge equipment manufactures for the privilege of a "Designed for Mac!" seal, and add a little line of code to the new hardware dialog which indicates whether or not the hardware is something that has been tested and approved, and if it hasn't been, make you e-sign an EULA which says any problems that come are not covered under Applecare, and they'd be better off returning it for a certified piece. So they'd lose out on the $300 markup on 25% of their systems for people who would rather buy a (shudder) Dell...but gain a free $50 from the millions of people who would switch over in droves on Dell boxen. Massive profit gain, with the only downside being a slight loss in public love when people blame them for their DOA Dell boxen.

no, i really think Macs aren't universal for one lonely reason: they *like* being a boutique company, and like the shiny image it gives them. the only thing that would make them change would be if the execs wanted more money.

Re:OS X (2, Interesting)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863443)

I'm rather stumped what this wide variety of configurations is that you speak of.
One easy example is that Rosetta relies on SSE3. Apple has released an OS that takes advantage of features not found on "legacy" chips (including rather recent ones). While allowing a "designed for Mac!" brand could be useful, but I doubt anything would be branded that wasn't also high-end & so wouldn't be that much cheaper. (And, to respond to other posters:the markup on bleeding edge hardware is quite high.)

I think that the outright sale of their O.S. to the unwashed masses who don't have the hardware to run it (and run it well) would be suicide. They might develop a rather small niche geek market, who wants a lower-end new PC (rather than a new high end one direct from Apple) with OS X, assuming that piracy in this demographic wouldn't be rampant.

But they'd have many, many more people who would buy it & just couldn't run the damn thing or would refuse to buy it (or a Mac) after hearing of others who couldn't run the damn thing.

Re:OS X (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863400)

I also have a reasonably high end wintel workstation that I've already sunk thousands into and is a year away from needing replacement. If I could buy OS X for intel to run on it I would, but I can't so thepiratebay it is. Yar!

And for every person like you who could earn them $129 buying OS X but deciding to hack up an illegal copy, there'll be ten people deciding to go with a $2499 Mac Pro instead of a Dell. You're right, I'm sure Dell is anxious to sell OS X for Dells. That doesn't mean it make sense for Apple to allow it though, does it?

Re:OS X (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863570)

"No, Apple own't Open source OSX, but they will eventually put it on shelves."

Wait.. are you saying Apple won't Open Source OSX, or that they pwnd OSS?

Re:Your signature (0, Offtopic)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863644)

Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up.

Really? Does that mean I can run down the street with a bomb, and throw it at you? Then walk away? Perhaps the rights must be balanced, but neither is absolutely above the other.

Re:OS X (0)

abes (82351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863196)

There is GNUStep, which is a clone of NextStep, on which aqua is built. Without the resources of Apple, the project doesn't have all the same high-tech gadgetry, but in principle it's fairly close. In fact, you can in theory write a program for GNUStep, and have it in theory compile with Cocoa. I've never tried it myself.

It seemed to me one of the major issues GNUStep had, was that it kept the NextStep interface, which, IMHO, is fugly. It didn't for me want to just use it. I also have memories of it being a bit buggy and crashing a bit.

Anyways, the point is, while I'm sure you are right that people would try to port it over, it's not clear to me it would succeed. In theory if people really wanted it, or if the resources were really there, it would have happened already. It *could have* happened already, just not enough people seemed to care.

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863324)

Jesus Christ, how does this ignorant drivel get modded 3: Insightful?

Re:OS X (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863370)

You must be new here. Any half baked rant about open source will get modded up in the first wave of moderation, then will slowly end up at +3 or +2 over time.

Re:OS X (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863413)

I don't know how these things usually work, but couldn't they just come up with their own license that says that the software and all of its code can only be used on Apple hardware and that attempting to make it work on another platform is a violation, etc?

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

imemyself (757318) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863494)

Would that really be open source then?

Re:OS X (1)

celotil (972236) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863444)

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.

And I refer you to Baghira [sourceforge.net] .

Have a look at the screenshots - mouse hover over the paw for the full menu.

It's a theme for KDE that allows you to make KDE look exactly like the Mac OS X desktop, including tips on how to use KDE's features to "rename" Konqueror as Safari, have the same sorts of drop shadows and alpha-channel transparency on windows, links to dock-like devices, change the window focus behaviour to that of OS X, and so on.

Re:OS X (1)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863495)


Actually, it looks like a poor knockoff.

Re:OS X (5, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863490)

If aqua is ever opensourced you can bet within 24 hours there would be 5 projects on sourceforge to port the gui to Linux and OpenDarwin. Then you would no longer need to have a mac to run macosx or a macosx like environment.
Your post is a perfect example of why open source is not making any real headway into the desktop arena.

It's not that open source is a flawed development methodology, but rather that there is a persistent, and unflinching lack of understanding in the OSS community of what makes Mac OS attractive to a large number of users. I'll give you a hint. It's not POSIX-ish compatibility, it's not Cocoa, it's not even the pretty Aqua widgets themselves.

People are drawn to, and continue to use Macs because of the way the userspace functions. The pretty icons catch their eye, the nifty effects wow them, but in the end, it is how all the pieces fit together as a whole, and how that larger piece works. Commonality of behavior and interaction between various applications makes the user comfortable and allows them to be more productive. The GUI is simply the glue that brings these pieces together. Mac OS applications are user-oriented, while there is still a pervasive developer-oriented ideal running through open source efforts. "If you want it to be different, just code it yourself" is still an underlying principle in many corners of OSS development that completely goes against the core Mac OS attitude, and ultimately relegates the open source community to spending the foreseeable future isolated in its current markets.

OSS efforts have been hammering away at various desktop concepts for years with little success outside the relatively small circle of open source die-hards. They put in new effects, they make spiffier icons, they do all of this, but fail to recognize that improvements to the presentation of information need to be geared to facilitating the user's interaction with it. That's not happening. The reason is ego, Not Invented Here syndrome, and a simple lack of cohesive vision that will never be remedied until there is a sea change in the way developers view their relationship with the user and one another.

Saying that all you need to do is port Aqua and people will abandon the Mac, betrays a complete lack of understanding as to why Mac users love OS X.

Re:OS X (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863521)

Who cares? Everyone spends 99.9% of their time in Firefox and Thunderbird which looks the same everywhere.

However, will that girl be impressed if you don't have the apple logo on your laptop?

Re:OS X (5, Insightful)

Quantum Fizz (860218) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863185)

No they're not, people here on slashdot are constantly bickering whether Apple is a hardware or a software company. It's both.
.

Apple is really a solutions company. They give you the complete package to get done what you need to get done, without you worrying about the fine details. From the high end they'll sell you a server environment (Xserve + RAID + OS X Server), at the low end they'll sell you a system to let you browse the web, play with photos and make simple movies (iMac or MacBook + OS X), etc. And anywhere inbetween, they give you the tools for you to do what you want. They give you the solutions.

Sure they sell hardware, they sell software, but look where they're aiming their market, and you'll see it's really solutions they sell.

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

pyite (140350) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863384)

From the high end they'll sell you a server environment (Xserve + RAID + OS X Server)

Just as a point of clarification... Apple's solutions in this arena are more like mid end. The high mid end, at best.

The problem with Apple's SAN offerings is that while there is some redundancy in the box, you can't connect the same array to two SAN fabrics. This is a serious drawback for any true "high end" work.

Re:OS X (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863504)

look where they're aiming their market. . .

At the people so hip they're square?

KFG

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863529)

They give you the complete package to get done what you need to get done, without you worrying about the fine details.

and without you needing to worry about the fact that you are too dumb to know what the hell it is that they just sold you. "ooohh, it's all appl-ey and brushed metal."

Apple (1, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863200)

Today they are a mixture of both. However, they are moving towards becoming a 'media company', where software will be a bit more unlikely to be given away.

No actually they are open for a purpose (5, Insightful)

DECS (891519) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863261)

As noted in my various articles on Apple and OSS, companies open things for strategic purposes.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery [roughlydrafted.com]
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses [roughlydrafted.com]
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced! [roughlydrafted.com]
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes? [roughlydrafted.com]
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth [roughlydrafted.com]
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

Re:OS X (1)

aergern (127031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863428)

Um. NO. They are NOT a hardware company. Intel designed the new Mac Pro, while Apple designed ALL the software that loads on that MacPro. Watch the Keynote today and tell me Apple is just a hardware company.. then I'll tell you that Microsoft is just a photocopier company. :)

Be careful what you ape, lest you become a monkey.

Re:OS X (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863584)

then I'll tell you that Microsoft is just a photocopier company
  Actually that's fun to imagine, constant paper jams, the occasional entirely blue page... :D

Re:OS X (2, Insightful)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863604)

Um. NO. Apple designed the Mac Pro. Intel built the cpu and some other chips probably. If Intel gets all of the recognition for "designing" the Mac Pro, what is Dell? Apple makes a lot of custom boards and junk (because they're always making crazy, nonstandard, and usually (but not with the Mac Pro) small enclosures) Dell, Hp and what not just throw pieces into a box (actually, I think Dell soemtimes makes their motherboards..) Apple makes the moniter, the mouse, the keyboard, the case, the wireless antennas and junk on the inside plus that iPod you probably own. That doesn't make them a hardware company? Come on. However, Apple also makes the operatiing system, the iLife apps, iWork apps, and the gajillion other awesome programs. I guess that makes them a software company. They are both, hardware and software. They offer full solutions for computing needs, all in one bueatiful package and fully integrated with itself. Sort of like how Nintendo makes the systems not because they want to make hardware, but because they don't want to use other peoples hardware. (I think Mr. Miyamoto said something to this effect, but I'm too lazy to get a quote)

Re:OS X (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863649)

Several points:

1) Apple most assuredly designed the new Mac Pros, as they are an evolution of the G5 case. Beyond that, Apple co-designed the motherboard, as I don't think Intel makes one with Firewire 800;

2) Apple is most assuredly are a hardware company, as they make most of their money selling hardware, just as Dell does. Dell doesn't design their systems, either: they buy in bulk, toss it into a box and sell it. Apple actually does much more industrial design than does Dell;

3) Very few large companies are really make their own stuff these days. Fr'instance, almost any car you buy will be made of components and subassemblies manufactured in twenty different locations and assembled at a central point;

4) And none of that includes the iPods or laptops, which Apple most assuredly designs and manufactures.

Congrats!!! (-1, Offtopic)

DJ_Perl (648258) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863134)

This is most definitely a positive thing! ( That I got the first comment, for once. )

Re:Congrats!!! (-1, Offtopic)

ack154 (591432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863144)

This is most definitely a positive thing! ( That I got the first comment, for once. )

But you didn't...

Re:Congrats!!! (1)

lotus_anima (862243) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863147)

Ha... you got second post...

Official Apple announcement (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863136)

The official announcement by Ernie Prabhakar of Apple is here [apple.com] :

From: Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka@apple.com
Date: August 7, 2006 4:15:51 PM PDT
To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, fed-talk@lists.apple.com
Subject: Apple Opens Up: Kernel, Mac OS Forge, iCal Server, Bonjour, Launchd

Hi all,

In conjunction with this week's Developer Conference, we have four great pieces of news for Open Source developers:

A. Intel Kernel Sources

As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarba lls/apsl/xnu-792.10.96.tar.gz [apple.com]

B. New "Mac OS Forge" for Community Projects

Mac OS Forge, a new community site hosted by Apple, is being created to support WebKit and other open source projects focused on Mac OS X, especially those looking to transition from OpenDarwin.org.

http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]

C. New Open Source Calendaring Server

In order to encourage community participation, source code to the new iCal Server in Leopard Server is now available on Mac OS Forge under the Apache License.*

http://collaboration.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]

D. Apache-Licensed Bonjour and Launchd sources

To further enable and encourage cross-platform adoption, the APSL** sources for Bonjour service discovery and Launchd process management are being re-released under the Apache License and hosted on Mac OS Forge:

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
http://launchd.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]

Apple is more excited than ever about the power of Open Source development to create value for our (and your) products and customers. I'll be offline much of this week due to WWDC, but I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to Leopard.

Sincerely,
Ernest Prabhakar
Open Source Product Manager, Apple
WWDC 2006, Aug 7-11, San Francisco
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc [apple.com]

* Apache License, Version 2.0
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html [apache.org]

** Apple Public Source License 2.0
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt [apple.com]


And as always, Darwin and Darwin component sources are available here:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]

Re:Official Apple announcement (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863526)

The most interesting of these to me is the iCal server. This looks like it could become the best open-source competition to Microsoft Exchange. The Leopard version detailed here [apple.com] looks like a pretty compelling product to have as an Apache-licensed piece of code, and I could see the code getting merged into a lot of other products.

Re:Official Apple announcement (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863618)

It would make a dandy Apache module just like Subversion.

You've got to be sh*tting me. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863137)

After Darwin, Apple has the gall to try freeloading off the community AGAIN?

Darwin on PC (4, Interesting)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863141)

Is there any reason to run Darwin on a PC instead of FreeBSD or other *nix system? Everyone knows OS X has a fantastic GUI, but is there anything exceptional about its kernel?

Re:Darwin on PC (0, Troll)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863159)


No.

The kernel does not really perform all that well and needs some serious retooling.

Re:Darwin on PC (2, Insightful)

quizzicus (891184) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863574)

When making such a strong, sweeping claim, it's usually a good idea to cite a few sources.

Re:Darwin on PC (2, Informative)

Quantum Fizz (860218) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863207)

These guys [vt.edu] might have something to say about that, they've got a supercomputer of 1100 dual G5 Xserves running OS X 10.3.9. There are other OS X supercomputer and distributed cluster projects you can read about here [apple.com] .

Re:Darwin on PC (5, Informative)

oudzeeman (684485) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863288)

vtech used a custom compiled kernel, and have also been using Linux on the cluster. I used to work for a site with a 256 node Xserve cluster that was running the latest OS X 10.4 (we started with 10.3 and switched to 10.4 shortly after it was releases). They still run an up to date 10.4 on the cluster, but now they also have a portion of the cluster running Linux, which performs better than OS X for many HPC applications. They are working on software that will interface with TORQUE/Moab to install either a Linux or OS X disk image prior to launching a job thereby allowing a fully dynamic OS X / Linux hybrid cluster. Xnu appears to have issues with its memory manager. Sites often write their own simple memory manager in order to get the best possible benchmarks for OS X. VTech did it. We did it. Ours was a IOKit driver that loaded at system boot. The first thing it did was grab about 90% of the physical RAM (contiguous). The driver had to be loaded at boot or else this would have failed. Then we wrote a library that would overload the malloc familly of functions to use our memory manager rather than the default. This ensured that our high performance app would always get physcally contiguous memory which improved cache hits and greatly improved the performance of Goto's blas libraries (he has a very low oppinion of the OS X memory manager).

Re:Darwin on PC (1)

njh (24312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863558)

You could make a super computer out of DOS 6.1 given enough computers. Most of what makes a supercomputer is the libraries and hardware. For many single task runs you don't even need an OS.

Re:Darwin on PC (1)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863231)

There are only two reasons: "because you can" (e.g. you get "cred" & can try to hac OS X to run on white box hardware (in violation of the license), etc.) and driver development for Macs.

Darwin isn't designed to be run without OS X for desktop usage & it certainly shouldn't be used in production.

Re:Darwin on PC (1)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863268)

That's not really what it was made for, it was really only a development platform, a testbed, etc.

Re:Darwin on PC (4, Interesting)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863330)

There is little reason to run Darwin if it didn't ship with your machine: it's a decent kernel, but kernels like Linux and BSD have more hardware support, more functionality, and somewhat better performance. However, the technical differences are not large enough for Apple to bother switching right now. On the other hand, if Apple wants to move to generic PCs, porting their user environment to a Linux or BSD kernel might make a lot of sense.

In any case, Apple's future is likely in hypervisors--small kernels that allow Linux, Darwin, BSD, and NT to run on top of them. In a sense, that's what Mach was supposed to be from the beginning, but it's being achieved using different technologies now.

Re:Darwin on PC (2, Interesting)

paulmer2003 (922657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863555)

Am I the only one whom is irrated by the lack there of VIRTUAL CONSOLES?

First post (from a mac) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863142)

First post (from a mac)

Re:First post (from a mac) (3, Funny)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863374)

A little slow... you must not be using an intel one.

Re:First post (from a mac) (1)

Nataku564 (668188) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863497)

Since when did slashdot start liking Intel over PowerPC?

Alot of damage needs to be undone (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863143)

The closing of the Xnu kernel and proprietary nature of carbon and aqua made alot of former macosx FOSS zealots switch to Linux. I am aware that Windows is all closed source but people run windows because it comes with their computers and all the software runs on it.

Most os's today are open source such as Solaris and the free unixies.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (4, Interesting)

Quantum Fizz (860218) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863246)

I'm the opposite. I used to be a FOSS zealot, I've run Linux since 1998, I've gone out of my way to write reports in LaTeX instead of Word and to do presentations in OpenOffice instead of Powerpoint, etc. But now my time is worth more than a few bucks, and putzing around with my Linux box is getting too annoying.
.

So last year when my GF got a Mac Mini and I started using OS X, I've come to realize that I'll gratefully pay money for Quality closed-source software. I've since even bought iWork '06, and I never would have thought I'd pay money for an Office Suite.

So what you say might be true for a select few of the harder-core FOSS zealots, but I don't see why FOSS zealots would have even been on the Mac platform anyway if they're as zealous as to switch merely for the closing of Xnu. But anyway, for the rest of the 99% of the computing populace, this OSS initiative will be welcomed.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863528)

Quality is important, that's why I use Opera not Firefox (yeah, I know funboys will mod me down) however, what's more important is to have the freedom to switch, that's why Firefox is still important to me. I think that Mac OS is a good thing just as long as there is a easy way to switch to another, preferable free, OS (Linux) in case you need.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863552)

I'm the opposite. I used to be a FOSS zealot, I've run Linux since 1998, I've gone out of my way to write reports in LaTeX instead of Word and to do presentations in OpenOffice instead of Powerpoint, etc. But now my time is worth more than a few bucks, and putzing around with my Linux box is getting too annoying.
.

So last year when my GF got a Mac Mini and I started using OS X, I've come to realize that I'll gratefully pay money for Quality closed-source software. I've since even bought iWork '06, and I never would have thought I'd pay money for an Office Suite.

So what you say might be true for a select few of the harder-core FOSS zealots, but I don't see why FOSS zealots would have even been on the Mac platform anyway if they're as zealous as to switch merely for the closing of Xnu. But anyway, for the rest of the 99% of the computing populace, this OSS initiative will be welcomed.


That's kind of funny... Since I'm moving to Linux from Windows for exactly the same reason. I'm sick of messing around with my PC just to make it work. I'm tired of all the little problems with Windows. I'm tired of having to run extra applications in the background just to keep my PC running (antivirus/antispyware). I'm sick of having to pay so much for such a troublesome system.

I've used Linux many times in the past, but it was never quite "there". It always introduced more problems than it solved. As of Ubuntu 6.06, that just isn't true. I've replaced my Windows install for everything but gaming, and I'm lovig it. So much easier to deal with. So many fewer problems.

Yeah, I guess I'd probably switch to MacOS if I could...but money's tight right now, and I really can't justify buying a whole new PC just for an OS. So, for now, Ubuntu is better than Windows.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (1)

greenguy (162630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863583)

Huh. I'm currently typing this on my sixth Mac in 15 years, but it will go the Ubuntu way soon (I've already tried... "release keys?" WTF?). My iBook already did.

Thing is, I won't pay to upgrade from 10.3.9, and I can't friggin' make either Fink or GCC work on what I have. That means I'm stuck with substandard versions of AbiWord and OO.o, and general frustrations with Scribus, Inkscape, etc. All of it just works on Ubuntu.

Not that there haven't been frustrations there, too (wireless? "release keys???"), but by and large, I'm more productive on Ubuntu. More than once -- more than twice -- I've gotten up from my Mac to go use my Ubuntu machine.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (2, Informative)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863248)

There might have been 3 people who switched during the couple of months before apple released xnu for intel because of that. And I doubt there were that many.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (1)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863259)

The closing of the Xnu kernel and proprietary nature of carbon and aqua made alot of former macosx FOSS zealots switch to Linux.

Care to quantify that? What? You can't? You mean you're only talking about a handful of bloggers? And even though many read their rants for amusement, does that bless their scribblings as a bellwether for OS X? It doesn't? Oh, I see.

Some may have "gone over" to Linux, but I don't think Apple loses sleep over it. I don't, and I fail to grasp what bearing it has on Apple's attempts to put code "out there" to interest other developers.

As for the rest of your post ... I will admit to it having been lost on me. Windows is closed, but everyone uses it, but "most" (though, clearly not in terms of market share) operating systems are open, and so what then ... ?

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863277)

Oh please. If you switched to OS X because you are a hard core FOSS person, you're an idiot. OS X is not open source. It never was, it never will be. Linux will ALWAYS be more open. Apple may open the kernel and various low level things, but OS X in total will not be. It's a great OS and if you want a no-fuss desktop with true Unix under it, it's great. If you want to be that hardcore ("Apple was late so forget them") then why did you choose a proprietary closed-source OS in the first place?

As for the comment that most OSes are open today, that's because you can't survive otherwise. No one has survived the desktop/server space except MS (who was once up near 100% of the market) and Apple (who bundles with their computers). Solaris is open because it wasn't profitable enough. OS/2 died. BeOS died. At this point, if you want your new general purpose desktop/server OS to have a chance in hell it has to be open source. The only way to live and be proprietary is to have a niche and run on custom or embedded hardware.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863419)

He says he 'was' a hardcore zealot. No longer.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (5, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863476)

BeOS died because of Microsoft.

During the whole antitrust thing, Be had gone to the DoJ and presented their case to them stating that, basically, with all the evidence they had, it was an open and shut case against M$. the DoJ, for whatever reasons, decided to instead focus on the fact that IE was bundled and embedded inside windows.

Be's case was that M$ was using unfair business practices to force them out of the industry. the M$ contract, to bundle and pre-install windows with your computers was that you were not allowed to sell any other operating system software, even if you bundle windows in addition to Windows, whether it's installed or not, or sold separately.

I believe it was Toshiba that was in talks with Be to bundle their OS as a dual-boot option, but M$ started throwing their lawyers at them.

The reason this didn't hit mainstream was that this contractual agreement between vendors and M$ was protected as a trade secret.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (1)

Tylerious (836357) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863499)

"The only way to live and be proprietary is to have a niche and run on custom or embedded hardware."

Excuse me? Look at Microsoft. They're proprietory, but don't deal in hardware and don't have a "niche". Yet it's one of the most successful companies ever.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (2, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863614)

Microsoft is the exception, because they are 90% of the market. The reason you can't have a proprietary OS is because you can't get past MS. At this point, it is currently impossible.

The only exception I can think of this would be to have a proprietary OS and give it away for free. Even then, you'd have a very tough time.

Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863477)

There is no such word as 'alot'. It is 'a lot'.

No Thanks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863164)

Too little, too late.

Whatever goodwill Apple had a few years ago has long gone away from the open source world. With how fast Linux desktops are advancing, and even Vista is shaping up to be very good(and I say that as a long time Linux/OS X unix person) Apple has pretty much lost its cool with all the other open source developers I work with.

The other open source coders and I probably wouldn't have such a negative opinion of Apple if they had managed to put out a IDE that was A GIANT STEAMING TURD, ie. Xcode. Honestly, someone on the Xcode team has to be adding wait loops to the text editor code - NO ONE can be that incompetent...

PS. Yes, Xcode really is THAT bad. Whoever is responsible for the Xcode mess at Apple needs to be fired - yesterday.

Very nice ... (3, Interesting)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863197)

I wasn't too happy about xnu-x86 and related kernel modules being closed source because the fan controls for the MacBook Pro are software based (in AppleSMC AFAIK), and that means someone can use the source code, and modify it so the fan starts at a lower temperature which should hopefully resolving the heating issues.

Actually... (fan controller) (4, Informative)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863551)

By all accounts the fan control is entirely firmware-based, on both Macbook and Macbook Pro. In other words, no licence in the world would do you any good right now in coming up with a utility or even kernel extension to change the fan switch-on threshold.

This is a marked difference from the hardware sudden motion sensors, which CAN be accessed via software APIs on Macs; this is why a couple of funky hacks using the SMS, like iAlertU, or switching virtual desktops by tapping the side of the screen, were done on Mac notebooks first (IBM notebooks with similar sudden motion sensors did not have APIs exposing them).

I understand why Apple won't release actual APIs for these--the last thing they'd want is anyone accidentally (or purposefully) changing the fans to turn on far hotter than when they do now. What I DON'T understand is why they didn't design the firmware to allow a system preference that uses the current setting as the maximum threshold, with a couple of options to start the fans at lower temperatures.

OSx86 (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863218)

How long will it take for this new kernel to make it in to OSx86

I Thought... (4, Funny)

redragon (161901) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863222)

I thought Apple was evil and torpedoing the OSS efforts on OS X, because they don't want their Intel work to see the day of light, cause someone would hack OS and get it to run on home-brew hardware. Oh, or were people just being bitchy?

Re:I Thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863278)

Apple made a blunder by not releasing source in the beginning. Maybe there are practical reasons for them, but they should have addressed the developers' concerns by at least announcing their intention to open the source.

As it is, the announcement came late and makes it look like that they are just reacting to bad publicity.

What about WebKit? (3, Funny)

cblack (4342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863226)

But what about WebKit, or other projects like it, such as WebKit?

can't read, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863301)

can't read, eh?

Re:What about WebKit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863402)

*golf clap*

You prefer Miicrosoft? (3, Insightful)

bobalu (1921) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863237)

Y'know, with all the crap Apple takes here about fanbois and shit you go ahead and tell me what they do compared to what Microsoft does isn't light years better for everyone in the community.

And yeah, my MacPro order is in already.

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863475)

Seeing as how MS's unified operating system approach made the PC revolution possible by bringing in the mom-and-pop outfits and normal users, I would argue that MS has done infinitely more for technology than Apple.

So far, all Apple did was bring us the first (commercial) GUI...and that's it. MS virtually created the PC gaming industry with DirectX, making it a viable contender to consoles. It made it easy for computer users to use their computers without having to worry about hardware compatibility. It made programming tools (specifically here, VB) that introduced thousands of people to programming who would not otherwise have picked it up (see Linus Torvalds interview floating around on Digg).

Long story short, MS > Apple.

And yes, my DELL Latitude order is in.

Re:You prefer Miicrosoft? (2, Funny)

Nataku564 (668188) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863515)

Wait ... VB a plus point for Microsoft? You know, you almost had me up until that one.

Don't tell me about it, I was there. (1)

bobalu (1921) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863616)

I bought my first IBM BIOS reference in '81. I know the history.

If it wasn't for Apple you'd still be stuck with CGA graphics.

Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but... (3, Insightful)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863240)

I still can't help feeling that at least outside the USA, the future will be Linux - China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and other places with low costs of living and an educated population are going to power the world's economy, and I don't see the rest of the world paying the Microsoft tax.

That said, Windows, Linux, and OS X are all good platforms for open source applications: for work I 'live' using open source applications that really run great on all three OS platforms: Emacs, Eclipse, Ruby, LaTex, OpenOffice.org, and others...

Commercial products that I rely on also run well on all three OS platforms: IntelliJ, LispWorks, and Franz Lisp.

The only commercial application that I love to use that is single platform is OmniGraffle (OS X).

I actually have a psmall oint here: as Linux gets better (and Ubuntu is approaching OS X in usability for my work, and is roughly on par with Windows), people like myself will likely use Linux and non-programers OS X or Windows.

Anyway, I checked out Apple's new OS site FTFA, and it looks useful. Some enthusiasts will likely get Apple's open source OS core up and running with X Windows, etc., and make a free distribution, but I am not sure what the point is.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863296)

I agree. Over the past few years I've seen just how bad Windows is for the average person. This is through a combination of exposure to Linux and later OS X. If OS X didn't exist (or I couldn't afford the Mac) then I would run Linux. OS X is worth the extra cost. But if that is an issue, then I can see using Linux. It may come time that Linux surpasses OS X.

I also agree about the Xnu being open source. It's cute and all, but for practical reasons who cares? They have nice projects that I can see being useful (iCal Server, Bonjour, etc) but to try to take Xnu and such and make something to compete with a Linux distro just seems pointless.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (1)

macurmudgeon (900466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863361)

The point of OSS on OS X is not to make an alternative Darwin OS that can run X Windows. That's already available with FreeBSD and Linux. Hell, Apple offers a nice X environment that looks like Aqua.

The point is to be able to easily add things like Subversion and ImageMagick and other command line 'Nix programs, that don't come with the default OS X install. The Open Darwin group may have had visions of making an alternative Power PC distro. But most of us wanted it because it was an easy Mac version of RPM.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863514)

outside the USA, the future will be Linux - China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and other places with low costs of living and an educated population are going to power the world's economy, and I don't see the rest of the world paying the Microsoft tax.

I agree for the near-term, but probably not for the reason you think. I think areas where people's time aren't as valuable and there are more unemployed people around to do "grunt" technical work, Linux makes a huge amount of sense. In countries where people's time are more valuable, easier systems like Windows and MacOS make a lot more sense. (My old motto was "Linux is only 'free' if your time is worthless.") This isn't meant as a flame, but it's hard to argue that Linux is simpler or more productive than MacOS for most people. So it ends up being a return-on-investment proposition, with all time spent from installation to compatibility resolutions to upkeep and updates on the cost side of the equation. In the countries you mention, it's almost certainly better to hire someone cheap to do the legwork and save the money you'd have spent on a commercial license. In the long run I don't think that will be true, and it's almost certainly not true now in the United States.

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863517)

psmall oint

I know this is off-topic, but that typo really intrigues me. I'm not trying to diss the parent, but how did that happen?

Re:Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863545)

I wanted to add the word "small" in front of "point', and missed :-)

So PowerPC is to remain closed? (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863247)

Its nice that they are opening things back up, but how about us that are still on the PPC platform and plan on staying there as long as they can?

PowerPC is to remain open (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863303)

XNU/PowerPC has been open source for years. That's why people were surprised when the source for the x86 version was not released.

(tapping foot) (4, Insightful)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863280)

OK - let's see the rush of support for Apple that's roughly equal to the bashing they took when Intel XNU source went dark.

Why not open J2SE mods? (2, Interesting)

Vardamir (266484) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863373)

I'm rather annoyed that Apple has chosen not to open their modifications to J2SE 1.5 and greater, since the project is now open source and can even be built on Windows by anyone that wants to ... kind of ironic it can't be built on a supposedly more open operating system.

The reason I really care is that I can't use anything but Java 1.4 on our OS 10.3 systems; I have no interest in upgrading to 10.4 except for the fact that Apple refuses to port J2SE to such an old and outdated os as OS 10.3 .....

Re:Not allowed by Sun (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863468)

Apple's Java contract with Sun does not allow it to give away any of it's Mac OS JVM code.

Blame Sun.

Not Apple.

Re:Why not open J2SE mods? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863469)

Hopefully you'll wipe the crust from your eyes in time to see that Apple really is no more friendly to their developement community than Microsoft is.

All of this PR they're doing is so false and fake that it's a shame that they can legally get away with it.

Retraction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863399)

Does this mean that we can get a retraction from linuxdouche.com or whoever had that lame article about the end of open source on Mac?

Re:Retraction? (2, Funny)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863509)

Douche is the French word for "shower", if you want to insult someone it should be douche bag or douchebag.

LK

It's still Gay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863473)

"You can take the queer out of the Castro but you can't take the Castro out of the queer." -- Steve "Rim" Jobs

Apple is simply trying to strike a balance... (4, Insightful)

TheNoxx (412624) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863518)

Apple's just trying to find a balancing point between the open source philosophy and financial viability. I love the open source idea, and I'm guessing Apple does too, but you have to make some fucking money to support yourself, end of fucking story. I've never seen any other line of work ever that gave away so many man-hours of ingenuity and labor for nothing to the whole world. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I will willingly burn karma to emphasize that people working on open source projects deserve compensation. The groups organized to work on the projects deserve compensation. Perhaps some open source groups will get this in the future and willingly hire translators to work with third-world countries so they can set up an open source or *nix based infrastructure for the entire government (education, military, police, revenue, legislation) in return for some tax funding or whatever.

Just my couple of my petty cents.

Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (2, Insightful)

gnufied (942531) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863537)

http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/8/7/ruby-on-rai ls-will-ship-with-os-x-10-5-leopard [rubyonrails.org] "The love for Ruby has definitely spread inside Apple and we've been thrilled to see the level of interest they've taken to get OS X to be a premiere development and deployment platform for Rails." So what happened to a rather fruitful discussion, we had with Steve jobs. http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172223&c id=14341270 [slashdot.org] Yeah, I know you may still argue like James Golsings that Ruby is alright for generating web pages(mind you *generating*, doesn't it shows the contempt/disregard on the part of James Goslings for Web Developers?).But still shipping a framework is too much.Even none of the flavours of GNU/Linux has done it.But i guess, Apple will eat its own humble pie, when it sees a business sense. Ruby on Rails + Textmate and the push by Rails core team, has created new OS X users.So, lets cash on it.There is nothing called "love for Ruby", as put up by, this guy on the Rails blog.If there is a love, why don't they help in writting Ruby bindings for Cocoa?? I am 101% sure, if tomorrow, there is a "Rails" for GUI development. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Aug-02.html [tirania.org] , Apple will again eat its own humble pie(or cow dung, depending upong your GeoIP), and will ship it with OS X. But i am not interested, I am from India and will cost me a arm and a leg to lay hand on this half baked open sorsed(actually not open at all, if you call Mac open, then Windows is open too!!, but the way Mac zealots project Apple as less evil is funny.I remember, Galadariel talking to Frodo, "if you give me the ring frodo, then you will have a queen in place of dark lord Sauron.And she will be fair, white and terrible to behold." Ahh..there is go again, may not be the exact words, but that is beside the point. I just have this point that, Apple doesn't seem evil as long as M$ is there, but there it gains the ruling ring(the monopoly), it will be one for sure.) product.I am happy with Ubuntu. Thank you very much for your open kernel.(I am bothered to read your license also)

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863607)

If there is a love, why don't they help in writting Ruby bindings for Cocoa??

It's not really love, it's just them looking at Ruby on Rails, and being pissed off because Ruby on Rails is like their own product WebObjects, except it doesn't suck.

Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863617)

Wow, your post is nearly incomprehensible. I don't think you understand what the term "humble pie" means.

Also, Ubuntu's repositories provide a Ruby on Rails package. It's included in the DVD version. Just so you know, your favorite OS does include it, as well as many other frameworks that you probably don't even know exist.

If only they would put OpenOffice on it (1)

bgfay (5362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863582)

I know that there is Neo Office and that's all well and good, but I want to run the same Office software on all my machines. When OpenOffice goes native for OS X, I'll buy a Mac. Probably that day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>