Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Open Sources OS X?/Jobs Permanent CEO 346

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wouldn't-that-be-cool dept.
sudama writes "This report claims that OS X will be completely open source, 'like the popular Linux operating system.' " This is pretty fresh from someone hearing Job's keynote at Macworld, so don't plan your life around this or anything. They've been planning on releasing the core for some time now. The question is how much of the OS will be released. under an open source license.A lot of people have been writing with the word that Steve Jobs, surprise, surprise, has dropped interim from his title. Yes, Dict-er-CEO-for-Life Jobs is back.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Open Sources OS X? More

Apple Open Sources OS X?

Comments Filter:

  • Yes, Cocoa is OpenStep 5.0 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And it's an incredible development environment! Makes the Java libraries look absolutely primitive in comparison.

  • Maybe all (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He said all; maybe it's all! Abandon Linux! Head for OS X! The UI is already done!

  • Re:QuickTime for Linux? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The blurb you quoted is somewhat untrue. The author of the ubiquitous Linux vid player has been including binary only codec modules for some time. THAT is not the problem.. A suitable framework is already there; the people who control the formats (Apple and others) just aren't interested in cooperating with Podlipec (or others).

  • Re:everyone going open (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, if Micr$oft really wants to kill off linux, they should open source Win2k because then we would all die laughing.
  • That may be; I'm not a programmer. But the text-based protocol can obviously be made to work, if not very efficiently. You could certainly write something better than TiK that used TOC; I'm sure Gaim is better than TiK but still not as good as it could be (I don't know; I haven't bothered installing Gaim yet).

    What are the limitations of the TOC protocol? What doesn't it allow you to do, or is it just annoying to work with? I'm curious.
  • I think somebody's on crack. Mac OS X is essentially a GUI and a bunch of tools and apps that run on top of Darwin, which is open-source (see http://publicsource.apple.com/). It should be possible to port Darwin to run on non-Apple PowerPC systems, and then run the rest of Mac OS X on top of that, thus paving the way for the return of Mac clones (except done right this time, not under Apple's control, with no licensing that Apple can suddenly pull if they want).

    But no, the entirety of Mac OS X will not be open-source. You can port Darwin to x86, but since the GUI and other apps are PowerPC binaries only, you can't port the rest of it. First, they couldn't open everything because of licensing from third parties, but second, it doesn't make sense for them. They want to make money, and selling Mac OS X is a good way to make money.

    However, I do expect them to open up more and more components (QuickTime is one I'd like to see). The beautiful thing about that is, since using open source software (and releasing the source code to your modifications and derivatives as required by the license) is so contrary to Microsoft's business model, by opening components such as QuickTime (which is free anyway) they let Linux/*NIX users have it, but Microsoft won't steal it.

    Just like what happened with AIM and Microsoft Messenger: AOL made the TOC protocol and the open-source TiK client, so Linux users could play and be happy, but what Microsoft did is try to reverse-engineer and rip off AOL's proprietary binary stuff instead (which AOL then broke for them). Microsoft refuses to use anything open-source, which I think is hysterically funny.

    Sorry for rambling aimlessly....
  • Very definitely possible. The underlying OS is indeed a *NIX system. I'd say the biggest problem would be user interface, since Mac OS X doesn't use X Windows (thank God) but Linux and most other UNIXes do. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how hard it will be to port Mac OS X apps to X Windows. Probably not terribly difficult, though, I'd imagine.
  • Mr. Harris is correct. No, PowerPC binaries won't run on x86 systems and vice-versa, but FreeBSD has a Linux emulation layer that allows it to run Linux/x86 binaries. What I'm talking about is, hardware developers can make minimal modifications and additions to Darwin to make it work on their specific PowerPC-based hardware, and install the rest of Mac OS X on top of that. You probably couldn't, for example, run those Mac OS X binaries on top of LinuxPPC because of architectural differences, but you could certainly run them on a slightly-modified version Darwin hardware that was very similar (but possibly not quite identical) to Appple's.
  • Actually, although I never personally learned much of it, Apple provided a pretty decent command line interface in their MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Work(shop?) system. They did at least understand that programmers should have access to command lines, although it would have been better if it was csh/bash/tsh-like, so people wouldn't have to learn Yet Another Language to switch between the two.
  • That's xanim, not the QuickTime for Linux project. Also, Podlipec can't get access to stuff like the Sorenson codec, because according to Sorensen, Apple won't allow them to license the codec to ANYONE else, even under NDA. Pretty sucky.
  • No, MacOS X is not totally open source. The GUI and other higher-level stuff absolutely are not open source. There has been no change, it is still just Darwin which is open-source.

    But some of you have got to stop criticizing Jobs and Apple for lying. It was shoddy reporting by the person who wrote the article, and a crappy post by Cmdr. Taco. Jobs never said that the whole OS was open source, and if Rob knew a damn thing about Apple he'd know that will never happen in a million years. The MacOS is the GUI of the MacOS. That is Apple's crown jewels. I hate to tell this to all you Linux users who were wetting your pants with glee at being able to steal the GUI(that is not flamebait, there is a post marked up saying that very thing), but it ain't gonna happen.

    OTOH, the real new from today was what was announced and what wasn't.

    All the new apple.com stuff is really great, and will be very attractive for new users and other ones. The child protection software sounds very promising, the mac.com e-mail address is good publicity, the free web space that integrates with the Finder could be very useful(especially if we could get more than 20 megs), and so are the other features like iReview and the free space for a home page.

    In addition, the new UI for MacOS X, named Aqua, looks a little chessy/child-like but also looks to have some great features. I think it's a step in the right direction. Also, the fact that Mac users will finally have an advanced, buzz-word compliant OS is very exciting. Also, Jobs dropping the interm part from his title is good news for Apple and should be great news for the stock.

    However, there is something that has been glossed over, and that is that there are no new machines. In case any of you have forgotten, the fastest Mac currently shipping is only 450MHz, and the prices are way too high. The G4 may be faster than the PIII and the Athlon, but it's not twice as fast. With Intel at 800MHz, Apple has a serious problem. No one here knows how serious, but I would bet people high up at Motorola, IBM and Apple do. What they know and we don't is when Motorola's new, 700MHz and over G4+s will actually be coming. Many Mac users have for a while been holding off the hordes of critical PC users with the claim that faster Macs would be here, now, at MWSF. They are not.

    Apple looks to have the software part of the bargain all wrapped up, with MacOS X, Quicktime, the Internet integration and many new games and apps coming to the MacOS. However, if you start seeing games appearing that require 700MHz PIIIs or K7s to run, and Apple is still only shipping 450 or 500MHz G4s, I would suggest selling your Apple stock.

    The fact is, this issue may be almost completely out of Apple's hands. If Motorola and IBM can't deliver, Apple is going to screwed. The only good choice left for Apple at that point would be to bail out on PowerPC and go to Alpha or x86(Alpha might be better because it would do something to differtiate between Macs and PCs). However, as I said, Motorola is working on much faster G4s, and they have demoed one at 780MHz. If they can ship them by Spring or so, Apple will be OK. But consider Motorola's recent record with delivering chips on time.

    As a Mac user, I am now extremely worried about Apple. I will be buying a new computer in the late summer of next year, and I can tell you that, like other Mac users I've talked to, I will not buy a Mac if they are 1/2 the speed of a comprably priced PC.
  • But I very much doubt that Apple's going to Open-Source everything. It might Open-Source more than Darwin, but I don't think it'll do it all (or even as much as it even can).

    My guess is that the author of this article misinterpreted what Jobs was saying. I suppose we can dream, though.
  • Back in reality, ZD writes:

    Apple also unveiled Mac OS X, a new version of its operating system software, and said that its revamped Web site will include several new features such as iReview, a review guide, and iCards, an electronic greeting card site.

    Greeting cards? I guess they could use it to generate advertising but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. Meanwhile, the stock is back up to $105 while the rest of NASDAQ keeps sliding. When it hit $50, I promised myself I'd buy as soon as slid back to $40!!
  • I think this would be great, if it's REALLY complete (ie, open-sourcing the little GUI part as well as the grunt-work OS underpinnings)...

    Also to be wondered is how QT will be "built in" and open-sourced... will sorenson codec make this transition? Perhaps... perhaps not.

    --

  • The real trick is providing a command line interface, and yet convincing 3rd party developers that they really should develop apps with GUI use in mind.

    Assuming they can do that, and developers don't slack off, this will be a very good thing. Command line tools, while not perfect for many things and many people, have a few benefits: automation being one of them. I hope Apple provides a full suite of tools, superior to their counterparts, that interoperate with the OS.

    Another thing: The thought of scripting the OS using Perl is a cause for salivation. As it is now, Applescript integration with the MacOS is VERY powerful in this regard - I'm partial to Perl, though.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Someone change this from 'flamebait' to 'informative'. Despite the somewhat inflammatory tone, what he says is correct. You can use multiple button mice with your Mac, and the other buttons can do things.

    I would like to see 2 button mice become standard with the Mac though (3 goes away from the simplicity they're going for, but 2 is fine - 3-4 buttons can be assigned to macros, etc).

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • If OS X is made open source, maybe now we can write new prog's for the mac.

    This is not a crazy idea. MacOS X Server will allow you to access a command line (tho' it tries to remove the need for one). I hope the Apple engineers & mgmt. team aren't stoopid enough to remove this from MacOS X Consumer. The minimum tool set you'd need (I think) would be make, gcc/g++, and possibly GNU binutils; some system headers and libs would be nice too. Then you could (in theory) be on your way. (Aside: I *think* a ported GNU suite is provided in the Server release; anyone care to clarify that?)

    A big drawback for seamless Unix/Mac integration at the application level, though is the lack of X Widnows support in MacOS. Sure, you could run a freeware X server like MI/X, but it would be nice to compile an X Windows app on MacOS X and have it run on the Mac desktop, or to run MacOS X apps remotely via X Windows.

    But all in all, the future is looking more promising for Apple's OS -- hope I get to see a port for my box (was a 604e, now a G3..)
    -----

  • That was a fairly accurate report of the expo keynote with the exception of the open source bit. Jobs merely reiterated that the core of the operating system, aka Darwin, is fully open-source. There lies the confusion, and underscores the need to double-check facts before posting a story here.
  • They /cannot/ open source it all. They're just trying to cash in on the linux hype - and they need it too! MacOS X is a solid platform, but it's expensive and not well-known. How many admins would really run their server under a *macintosh*?! Not many, that's for sure. But they have first class hardware.. hardware I suspect would rival the best Athlon or Intel systems on the market right now.

    So, it's marketing, and it is a good move for /them/. It's not so hot that they're gonna piss off the developers they may be trying to recruit to help them out.

  • "Apple Couldn't right a decent OS if they tried."

    Now, I happen to be the owner of an Intel Machine and a Mac, and comparing Windows and MacOS is a joke. In every aspect, MacOS is better looking, more convenient and more stable....in fact, MacOS is propably the best consumer OS out there. I use LinuxPPC and Suse Linux, each on my respective machines, and what I think the majority of Linux-frenzied Slashdot readers seem to fail to notice is that THERE IS NO WAY Linux can become a consumer standard. Just setting up Linux can be a major problem if you're a John Doe with little or no knowledge of computers. Therefore, I think making derigotary comments about MacOS is inappropriate, especially since you're propably a Windows user.
  • That comment of yours sure taught me never to underestimate human stupidity. Your comment was based on little or no knowledge, powered by ignorance. Apple makes excellent computers, excellent hardware and use superior processors. It's a shame the PPC isn't an industry standard. I wonder on what you base your assumption that Apple makes crap computers.
  • "Well, it's actually very simple. I sit down infront of a Mac. I try to use it. It's slow, annoying, and lacking a disk drive. I therefore exclaim loudly, "This computer sucks!" and go
    about my business."

    The MacOS may not make the utmost use of the great hardware Apple makes, but it is hardly "annoying" to any professional user. The lack of a floppy drive merely demonstrates that your computer use is obviously limited to out-dated and clumsy technology. If you wanted a floppy drive, you should have stuck with a Wintel box or gotten an external one. I presume you have an iMac....now, I am a developer for the MacOS platform, and I'll tell you this: The MacOS is an extremely developer-friendly platform, well suited to multitasking. I'm not too fond of the iMac, though....but then again, it's just an extremely successful Apple marketing ploy. If you want a real Mac, get a tower...like those tempting G4s.

    And by the way, I find it inappropriate to present an ill-founded personal opinion to the Slashdot reader community....maybe you should vent your frustration on somebody else....=)
  • Quicktime is probably one of the last products Apple would ever opensource; not because they make much money of it (eventhough they earn quite a lot), but because a lot of stuff in Quicktime is licensed from other companies, most notably the Sorenson Codec. And I can't imagine that Codec ever to be opensourced, sadly enough. So while Apple could theoretically opensource the frameworks for Quicktime, it'd be basically useless without all the Codec's, probably just able to play a few audio formats and some basic movie formats.

    Sad but true. So Apple is not to blame if Quicktime isn't opensourced. But of course I'd be really happy if Quicktime indeed became opensourced, and even happier if that included all the licensed stuff. While mtv plays mpeg-movies, it can't be accused of doing it with high-quality...

  • Personally, I think this reporter is on crack. I watched most of the keynote, and he did not mention this in the parts I saw. He did say that it had a BSD kernal, which was "the same thing" as Linux, and he probably said that Darwin would be OSS, but we already knew that. open sourcing the rest of their OS is simply not in their interest. They are going to make a lot of money selling OS X, and if they allow it to be used on non-Apple hardware, it eliminates one of the biggest advantages they have over the Wintel world. Someone could port the Apple UI to Intel hardware, and Apple can kiss their market share goodbye.

  • That page [fsf.org] reads like a religious zealot's "These products are Evil, and these are Blessed" list. Not only should the believer not use the SCSL on their software, they should also avoid software that is published under it. I guess in the same fashion a "True Christian" avoids movies with Patric Duffy or Richard Gere, since they are evil, heathen buddhists.

    I am quite thankful that I'm not associated with that cult that once upon a time actually had a point.

  • In August 1997, Microsoft signed a five-year commitment to support Macintosh versions of its software and has been pleased by the arrangment, Browne said ...

    Well, when Office 2002 (which could be the last version for a while) finally ships for the Mac, the old MacOS will hopefully have been dropped. It would be beyond stupidity if anyone shipped a product at that point for a dead API.

    I'll bet a six pack that all MS's development will be on Carbon, not Cocoa/YellowBox/OpenStep.
    --
  • Yup, BSD is the historical choice from Next. I believe that BSD was also used when Mach was an academic project (worked on by several Apple/Next engineers), so the code is very stable.

    Still, it should be possible to put a Linux subsystem on Mach, as that's what Apple did with MkLinux. The code is out there, so except for licence issues, someone will probably do it.
    --
  • Apple really should provide LanMan / SMB support built-in, along with Novell and NFS support. Network interoperability has always been one the huge arguments against Macs in corporations, Apple has heard people bitch and has *never* fixed the problem (insisting instead that the NOS vendors emulate AppleShare on the server).

    This is a long standing bitch of mine, ever since the old days when the AppleTalk NLM kept taking down my Novell 3.1 servers.
    --
  • it appears that he was only talking about the BSD kernel being open source, not the extenstions on top of it...

    these extensions are what forms the 'consumer' and 'UI' basis of Mac OS X, namely:

    Quartz - Postscript based 2d Graphics
    OpenGL - 3D
    Aqua - UI
    Classic, Carbon, Cocoa - the API's...

    etc...

    but either way, this keynote rocks! The fact that apple is moving the kernel in this direction not as a consolation but because it will benefit everyone, is great to see...

    I could be wrong, they could be open sourcing the entire thing, but I somehow don't see apple paying NeXT engineers to write a UI that everyone else can grab and use as they please...

    my 2 cents, i see a long and bright future for apple...

    and they haven't even announced the new hardware!
  • Greeting cards? I guess they could use it to generate advertising but it seems a bit of a stretch to me.

    I haven't gotten the impression so far that it will be advertising based. More of a way to get the average consumer say Joe Six Pack and his wife Ethel to visit. For instance Joe and Ethel, who just recnetly purchased their first PC, can't use it either becuase it doesn't work or they can't get it to work with an unamed OS. But you see Ethel, when she can get online, loves to send her sister Marge "e-cards". If Apple can get Ethel to visit iCards and register to send Marge "quailty greeting cards". What kind of computer do you think Joe and Ethel are going to get next? ;)
  • As far as some of the familar cli tools, ftp, telnet, ping, possibly Perl and GNU tools will be their. If you check out http://www.apple.com/macosx and check out the "Core" section it basicly says that Apache will ship installed (or optionally anyway) on every system, I assume to replace the current MacOS Personal Web Sharing. That's a pretty powerful replacement!
  • Come on, Mountain Dew and Dog Cows are far cooler than penguins! I just have to say, of all of the programmers I've seen, I associate with the Macintosh developers the best.

    For example, note the use of the word "developer," this is in stark contrast to the word "hacker" so affectionately used amoung Unix types. To me, hacker sounds like a hack, or like someone who breaks into systems. (Sure, the jargon file says otherwise, but language is dictated by usage, not by fiat--As Leslie Lamport points out when discussing how to pronounce LaTeX, or rather why he won't tell you.)

    In d e v e l o p you'd read jokes about spotted dick all the time, it was pretty fun. And, as far as API documentation goes, nothing has ever come close to Inside Macintosh (not to mention The Human Interface Guidelines, which inspired the book Snow Crash).

    Anyway, Apple disapointed me far too much, and after Windows caught up and I needed NT (to work on a Macintosh project, no less!), I just stuck with it. When I met some cool Linux users and stopped consulting, I started using it. I was quite impressed with all of the Unix and GNU tools. It was also the best place for me to do TeX stuff.

    After Linux didn't work so well with my video card (X would freeze), I went to FreeBSD in frustration. It was far more stable than even Debian stable. Sure, Linux isn't supposed to crash (I could still log in and kill the processes from another machine), but having X freeze effectively loses all of your work in that session, making it basically just as bad as when Windows freezes. There's just something nice about one distinct group working on the project, too.

    Speaking of fiat, I'm affraid by "open source" Apple might just mean "see the source," as in the Sun usage. Sure, "open source" isn't supposed to mean that, but it's starting to look like it. Sure, freesoftware is an awkward name, but the so called replacement for it might be worse in not too long. I'm getting really tired of these "reluctant disciples" telling me how to say and pronounce everything.

    Anyway, I like the heritage of BSD more, and OS X is going to actually use some of BSD. I think my next system will be a PowerPC. If I can get all of the GNU tools to work in OS X (sure thing), I'd stick with that. Why pick a wm and windowing system when you got the MacOS! (Even Carbon is better than Gnome/KDE... or at least it's better documented, and I think designed truely well. Apple seemed to be the only types to really understand regions.)

    They can drop the ball on this one, or they can carry us on into the next millenium, just as soon as it starts next year.
  • If Apple can't 'right' a decent OS, they probably wouldn't have sold 1.4 million iMacs so quickly.

    The fact is, the Macintosh has its niche in the marketplace--over half of Adobe's annual revenue ($500+ million) comes from their Macintosh products.

    MacOS is more than a decent OS. It's incredibly easy to use, even to the level of 'stupid'... which is perfect for the market they're trying to attract. When 30% of the purchasers of your product (iBook) are *switching* from Wintel to Mac, you're doing something right.

    Apple is crafting an operating system that is mainstream in the consumer market. Come find me when Linux is commonly used in the household. WHen you have to edit a text file to change the color depth of your monitor, my mom, brother, friends, or acquaintances won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Given, Linux has its niche, too--and a great one--but it can't touch Apple in the consumer market. That's plain fact.

  • One of the other articles I read (at PRNewswire [newsalert.com]) said Jobs was Apple's iCEO. Is that a misprint or are they extending the over-used lowercase i thing all over the company? Normally I would say it was a misprint but with the iMac, the iBook, etc., I figured it was possible. Strange, hackneyed, but possible.
  • They've been using Hitchcock for a while, I've had a Think Different poster with him on it...for two years now.

    Theres no sense getting all pissed at Apple, get pissed at the families that sell the likeness to Apple to use.
  • It could indeed imply a (non-Apple) port project to x86, but it would probably be as popular and well supported by ISVs and other developers as Solaris x86 is. (Which is to say: not very.)

    x86 is an unworkable albatross owned body and soul by MS. Don't look for Apple to bail you out at the expense of their own bottom line.

    And, since OSX is based around Quartz (PDF-based graphics) rather than X, there is no way you can use the GUI source to port an XWM. You could, theoretically, tack on the Quartz UI to Linux, tho, and retire X.

    SoupIsGood Food
    • As you say, which license would be picked is ambiguous, and has significant implications.
    • Compare to Mozilla. [mozilla.org]

      Not all of Mozilla was Netscape's to give away. Notably bits from Bitstream, RSA (now Network Associates), and GUI stuff from sundry vendors.

      Even if Apple "open sources" all of their code, that doesn't imply that Adobe [adobe.com] code is treated similarly.

      And I frankly worry more about Adobe doing "evil proprietary stuff" than I do about Apple. DPS, Type 1, Postscript, and PDF are more pervasive than MacOS. Greater danger lies there.

    • What precisely is the "operating system?"

      Much of the old "GNU/Linux" controversies come out of the quite legitimate issue of which parts are Linux, and which parts are "GNU."

      Similarly, there has been much arguing over whether Internet Exploder is part of the "Windows Operating System."

      And the ambiguity strikes again here; "the whole OS" could vary from merely being some bits of Mach to being inclusive of MS Office and OS-X development tools, WebObjects, and OPENSTEP.

    I'm game to disbelieve anything claimed on Slashdot until there's code available via FTP/CVS...
  • One of the things that has limited the popularity of the mac has been the difficulty to get software that will run on a mac.

    Huh? What have you been smoking?

    The real issue back then was that Microsoft was punishing Mac users (= non-Windows users) by selling buggy software and making the file formats incompatible. For example, MS Word for the Mac could not read WinWord 95/97 files for half a year or so, until MS decided to release an extension. And the Mac version of the Office Bar was so buggy that whenever you installed MS Office on a Mac the first thing you did was drag the Office Bar system extension to the trash! In short, MS Office on the Mac was almost unusable. No wonder people skipped to the Windows world! Granted, Apple did lots of stupid things too, making it even easier for people to jump the fence.

    Only after the monopoly lawsuits started did MS start thinking that hey, maybe we *need* an adversary. Then they bought Apple stock for 100 million USD and made a stable and nice Office version, which incidentally did follow the Apple UI guidelines and did read Windows file formats out of the box. Coincidentally, Apple's decline stopped around that time. Steve Jobs' introduction of the iMac mostly made old Mac fans who didn't like the Windows world return to their roots. It also attracted new people who found it fashionable to be computer illitterate.

    --Bud

  • The source code to Solaris isn't publically available (though it's not too hard to get hold of) yet, though Sun have publically commited to making the source available. Don't expect the complete source available from the start, and it won't be Open Source TM either. I currently expect this to start about the same time Solaris 8 comes out - in a few months.

    Bit like "close, but no cigar"

  • I'd mod it down too, if I hadn't already posted.

    Let's see... you provide absolutely nothing to back up your claim, which was laced with insulting words. To top it all off, you then move to insult Mac users.

    If that's not flamebait, I don't know what is.
  • There's a difference between criticism and flaming. Criticism presents facts to back up its arguments. It also tends to avoid the use of blatantly insulting words, such as "crappy." It stays on topic, for example it doesn't switch from discussing an interface to the people who use it.

    You did none of these. You simply flamed.
  • MacOS may have a nice UI (for things that are best done with a mouse, at least), but the rotten guts of MacOS are another matter.

    In the past, Apple have not had incentive to invest in the relatively unsexy area of operating system internals. After all, their competition was Microsoft, who despite having memory protection in their OSes, manage to put in enough bugs to not be too reliable.

    The advent of Linux as a well-known OS will raise the bar, making it harder to get away with mediocre OSes, and forcing Apple (and Microsoft) to invest more in making their systems work reliably.
  • Actually, Linux is more of a monolithic SVR4 clone, with bits of BSD thrown in where it makes sense to do so. Or that's what it has historically been, anyway.

    The problem with the NT kernel is that Microsoft tend to put unnecessary (and potentially compromising) things in kernel space (or its equivalent) to get better benchmarks. As of NT4, it's not a microkernel; you can't separate the Windows layer from the kernel (as you could have originally; I believe someone made a UNIX layer for it). And if you move the mouse, CPU utilisation goes up to 100%.
  • Need I remind you that you can't take a working binary from an i386 Linux system and run it on a PPC Linux system.

    ...which is irrelevant if the "Mac clones" to which the original poster referred would be PowerPC-based (the original ones that Jobs killed were, and the original poster said "return of Mac clones", so I suspect the intent was to imply PowerPC-based Mac clones - heck, if they're not PowerPC-based, I'm not sure I'd consider them "clones"...).

  • Bullshit. Mac users are notorious for criticizing the Mac. We have high standards, and Apple isn't immune to mistakes (you have seen the typical Mac user reaction to QuickTime 4's interface, right?).

    We just don't appreciate the constant slurs on our intelligence. The whole 'dumb luser' stereotype has grown very thin.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Tim -

    I'll agree. Alt-tab is one of the (few) things Windows got right. It is of definate use.

    I personally prefer the BeOS implementation above all others, though. The 'twitcher' is pretty damned nice from a usability aspect, IMHO.



    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • ---
    Don't they just end up meaning that the company in question gets to be the sole distro? Or is it more like they're the only ones who have the right to make a profit off of it?
    ---

    Yeah, this is kind of how companies work.

    People need to realize, Apple giving ANYTHING away is a benefit. Why? You don't have to choose it. What this provides to you is a choice - more choice is good.

    In the Mac community, there has been a long history of developers going "Gee, I wish we had X feature" in the OS. Now, they are starting to have a place to make the changes necessary.

    While Apple certainly isn't going to stop anyone, Darwin isn't necessarily focused on creating tons of different distros. It's aimed primarily at adding improvements to the core OS, with forking as an option.

    Apple gets free development and bug testing, the community gets tens of thousands of hours worth of free code.

    ---
    I don't see how that could really help the companies (esp. in the case of Mozilla, since Netscape will distribute Netscape 5 for free anyway, so there's no profit to protect).
    ---

    The problem is that Netscape didn't want to worry about GPL-esque 'viral' code. They wanted to be able to combine the fruits of the open-sourced code with their own proprietary code. Netscape is doing this as well, as Netscape Communicator will have functionality not present in Mozilla.

    Apple would be stupid to give away everything, esp. their UI code. Other than some hardware benefits, their UI is one of their biggest selling points.

    As for a comparison, check ESR's site (as well as Bruce's, I think). RMS doesn't like it, but then again, RMS doesn't seem to like anything to himself and his license.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • On a side note, Word 6 for the Mac was so bad, Microsoft had to start selling Word 5 again because Mac users hated it.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Apple should make it easy for command line conniseurs, but they also need to encourage developers not to get sloppy. If at all possible, all features should be available from a graphical interface.

    I'd hate to see software being written that is configured by editing a text file. This is fine for Linux, but for the MacOS... Well, it's just plain wrong.

    I'd still like complete command line support, GNU tools, Perl, etc. These things should come on the CD, as an optional install for 'power' users.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Those developers you cite are now not only Apple developers, but comprise the head of Apple's development group (Avi Tevanian comes to mind).


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Yep. And from I hear, it's not nearly as good as the Mac version.

    (I haven't used it much on the Windows side of things)

    If so, they need to ensure platform parity. Once the Windows version works fine, Linux would be the next logical step (just don't bother asking for the complete source code - it's not all theirs to give).

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • 1. Apple uploads source code to everything to an FTP site.

    2. Someone downloads source code.

    3. Apple is sued by stockholders.

    4. Apple goes out of business (for real).

    Say what you will, but Apple isn't lying to anyone about their intentions and stipulations. Read the license, and it will all be clear. Why is Apple cheating? Nobody. Don't like the license? Don't contribute. It's all there on their site.

    I can't believe people hold it _against_ a company simply because they won't give away millions of dollars worth of R&D and development time. What is Apple going to do, sell support? Seems like a conflict of interest, as they're going to 'ease of use'.

    Bitch about them not using the more restrictive GPL if you like, but it makes no difference. Unless you can figure out a way for them to stay in business (and - gasp! - prosper) under the GPL model, there's no way in hell they or anyone else is going to listen you.

    Code doesn't deserve to be free. It's a nice gesture, and potentially rewarding for everyone if done right, but it's not a right in the same way people have a right to live outside of slavery.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • My guess is that they're waiting for Linux to cut a larger swath in the desktop market. If it can gain a few more percentage points, they might just do it.

    I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, though. QuickTime isn't exactly trivial...

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Read here for more info:

    http://www.maccentral.com/news/0001/05.quake.sht ml

    ...sounds like his next project may be MacOS X _only_.

    He has a history of liking NeXTStep, and today made his second MacWorld Expo appearance...

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Where is the Linux marketshare in the desktop arena? That may take a couple years.

    Companies don't just make silly decisions like open-sourcing their crown jewels without a reason, and a port takes a while.

    Not to mention that vast portions of QuickTime don't even belong to Apple to port.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • I guess the general idea is that it's better to have 70-80% of the functions available using consistant key combinations than 100% with inconsistant key combinations.

    Key combinations are worthless if they don't carry over from app to app. While the Mac doesn't cover some of the more obscure commands, most of the ones that are supported are very common in multiple apps.

    Note that this is really a developer choice. Apple has just evangelized consistancy for so long, developers keep it in mind and users chew them out if they do poorly.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • The original plan was, in fact, to open-source a slightly sanitized (non-Netscape and non-exportable code removed) Communicator.

    That was done, and the Mozilla folks spent a couple years with it before deciding the codebase was complete crap and rewrote the thing from the ground up, producing the Mozilla we know and love today.

    You can still see the original "sanitized" Communicator tree in the "Mozilla Classic" CVS branch.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Crap. (Score:2)

    by BJH ( 11355 )
    Apple cannot, I repeat, CANNOT open source OS X in its entirety - its licensing agreements with thrird-parties would prevent it. I'm willing to bet that Jobs was just rehashing Darwin again (and we all know how far that has gone since it was released...)

    One other point - anyone lese think that the Dock at the bottom of the screen that shows minimized windows looks almost exactly like the same feature in any number of X Window WMs (Window Maker comes to mind)?
  • What are you talking about? OS-X Consumer will automatically hit 100% market share on all shipping macs within a year of it's intro. What more do they need? Oh you mean OS-X for x86? One word... not a chance in hell of that happening.

    Though i'd love to see it myself, 1/2 of what makes the mac a mac is the fact that it just works. You don't need to care about IRQ's or anything like that. Only the rarest of cards have ever had any requirement other than plug it in, insert floppy, run installer, reboot...

    The PC is a commodity platform... everything about it is 2nd rate compared to Macs, Sun boxes, SGI's, etc.... The performance is WORSE, until you get to dual CPU machines, which Apple will be remedying soon.

    And lastly, there's just not that much money for anyone but microsoft to make selling OSes for x86... Be charges what? $50? .... Apple would be much better served by striving to cut the iMacs price point even further. A lot of home users would rather get a new machine rather than deal with the percieved struggles of repartitioning and installing a brand new OS....

    Shall i continue?

    :)
  • Not to say that Quicktime is shoddy or anything (it's not! especially on the Mac, it's very transparent... install a new version and all of a sudden your apps have features they didn't have before),

    But Apple has a vested interest in making sure that Quicktime works best on their platform... Because if QuickTime or an equivilant appeared for Windows or Linux, (and no... AVI's and DirectX don't quite fit the bill) then Apple would indeed be in trouble, as far as the high-end (content creation) part of their market is concerned.
  • You'd most likely need to recompile apps, unless someone writes up a PowerPC emulator... but then what the hells the point of that? You're talking huge slowdown, there. Going the otherway isn't so bad, i don't think - emulating x86 on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, or any other risc... but the reverse would just be nutty...
  • So long as they had other closed API's (such as display, etc...) MSFT would have no issues with that, i don't think. Office doesn't seem to spend much of it's time making low-level system calls, to my knowledge. But then how would i know?
  • Ummm small tidbit, but maybe go check around the web or buy a book (MkLinux... whatever the whole name is...) and find out what Mach is.

    One thing for sure is that it's in no way based on BSD... Mach's a microkernel... it manages the hardware... BSD runs on top of it. And the beauty of Mach is that you would theoretically be able to run other OSes/environments on it simultaneously...

    I'd go on, but then you'd find i don't know much more beyond that... but go look for yourself somehwere.... Carnegie-Mellon would be a good place to start.
  • Up until KDE and Gnome arrived, X seemed to me seriously dated... now they're here, but the MacOS has 15 years of usability testing behind it...

    and besides that, how dare you call the Mac's interface old, when Linux supporters always point out that because linux has a unix heritage, it has 15 or 20 years of lessons learned behind it...

    Same thing applies to the mac interface, and even more so, because at least 10x more people have used macs in their lives than have used unix...
  • Come on people, learn to read. Darwin is what is/has been open sourced. Mach and BSD have been open sourced a long time, the OS X kernel is based of these. Unlike Linux Apple is going with a microkernel which I think is a much better choice for the kind of work you're probably going to be doing on an OS X box. It sure does make me happy to see all this coming about, a couple years ago I was figuring Apple was going to go under. OS X is a culmination of YEARS of work by Apple's software people. I see people complaining it isn't completely open sourced and how some idiots want to make the backend Linux rather than Mach. Apple would never open source all of it's GUI stuff and basically give its OS away for free. The kernel is open sourced so it is much easier for developers to work on the platform since they can go look at the kernel's code rather than read a manual describing how it works. Apple won't change the backend to Linux because it has already tweaked the Mach kernel to be backwards compatible with existing Mac software. And the 12 month transition I think is an excellent idea because it gives companies plenty of time to get their hands on production copies of the OS and develop on it rather than having beta software that is being changed every month or two like Win2k. The only thing I am worried about with OS X is if I will be able to run it on my powerbook or not. With a desktop I'd have a little more expandibility but my powerbook I can add memory and disk space and the like but there isn't much I can do about the processor. 128x128 pixel icons must look beautiful on a 21" cinema display but how about on my 14.1" screen on my PB? I can't wait ti play with Adobe's stuff on OS X though, a stable kernel would be nice for those >2MB pictures. Speaking of Adobe, does the new GUI remind anyone else of MetaCreations software just a little bit?
  • The quality of writing in this article leaves a lot to be desired. For some reason I don't trust this author....

    Not to seem off-topic (because really, it's not), but seeing how /. is adding more topics (like that "programming" one (or maybe I didn't notice it before)), could a "rumors" category be added? I'm sick of all those unsubstantiated rumors in which all the comments go "wow! that's amazing," then, "whoa, something's wrong," then, "IT'S A HOAX," then "SLASHDOT SuCkS! CHECK YO' SOURCES!! MORONS!!!!"

    Ah well, just my thoughts.
  • For 2 and a half years, Steve Jobs called himself the Interm CEO of Apple. He finally decided to take the job full time.
  • your GUI designers are brain damaged.

    Are you a professional crackrock smoker or do you just play one on TV?
    #1 - linux doens't HAVE gui designers. There are however people who write windowmanagers for the X windowing system which is completely independant of linux. Hell X is run on every *nix out there.

    #2 - secondly there are undoubtedly going to be some people that will write a windowmanager to mimic the look and feel of OS X if they so deem it usable.

    #3 - thirdly OS X is the next progression of NeXT, if I'm not mistaken and there happen to be several windowmangers that can be configured to handle just like the NeXT/Openstep. Although I could be wrong about the progression part.

    #4 - I shouldn't feed the trolls. It makes for a bad day.
  • Correct. Whoever misinterpreted Job's statement that OS X was open source doesn't seem to know that the underpinnings (Darwin) are already open. I think it was just a simple misunderstanding. It seemed clear to me when I was listening that Jobs was speaking about Darwin being "like Linux". OS X will have all of the other fun stuff sitting on top.

    One more beta in the Spring and then a release in the Summer. Looking forward to playing with all the new doodads. And thankful that Jobs has solidified his position at Apple, although he still retains the iCEO title. Good humor and fun to see them growing as a company again.
  • I certainly won't contribute to any of these efforts, but I won't write another CD player either. However, there are projects I am interested in for which comercial solutions exist, and I would contribute to those projects if they were opened up.

    With as many people online as their are, there is no question that some people will be interested enough to commit time and resources to these projects. If you have any doubts, look a little more closely at Mozilla. For an even better example, look at the projects people work on which interact with closed software, but are themselves open (wine comes to mind).

    Your point is excellent. Some slashdoters clamor for large projects to open up, when they themselves probably wouldn't contribute. Actions do speak louder than words, and a lot of energy could be wasted trying to patch a huge beast instead of replacing it. On the other hand, any step towards more freedom is a step in the right direction. Would you condemn a nation for improving its laws rather than starting from scratch? Would you criticize those who encouraged the nation to open up?

    This is not a disagreement, merely a clarification of the situation as I know it.
  • If they really open-source MacOS X it will mean even more monetary losses for the company.

    I doubt it. If they open the source to OS X, they'll no doubt continue selling what will become the premier distribution of the operating system. 99%+ of their current operating system customers will want to buy the OS off the shelf rather than construct it on their own, and I'd bet a whole lot of linux and interested WinXX users will want to check it out too and will find it easier to drop $100 than to invest a couple of days of work to get it running. Looks like more sales, not less, to me.

  • Even if we knew the exact API, it couldn't work like WINE does. Wine is not an emulator, it's more like a translation service. Mac binaries are all compiled for PowerPC's, so you would have to emulate a Mac-system (not just the libraries) in order to run them

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Yeah, what a shame that they would buy a pretty decent machine. Have you used the iMac? They're really nice consumer machines. Say what you will about the OS, but it's better than Windows 98.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Because the Mach kernel is _really_ cool. That is why.
    It also extends the flexibility of the OS, remember, apple was going to provide Rhapsody on intel, and they, did, and it wasnt too hard.

    Think of Hurd. Now think what power it would have if there was a company backing it as its sole operating system. Think of that that company as apple.
    Think Different
  • >The quality of writing in this article leaves a
    >lot to be desired. For some reason I don't trust
    >this author....

    As it says, it's is a "live coverage" page, that's being rapidly updated as the keynote progresses. Someone's sitting there typing into their box and updating the page as fast as possible.

    It's not meant to be a journalistic article, just a rapid update for those of us who don't have streaming QT at work. So there's no fact checking goin on. He hears something wrong, it gets inputted wrong, he doesn't go back to check his facts till after the keynote's over.

    I, for one, doubt that Apple'd open source the WHOLE MacOS X, not after spending so much on its development. Prolly, they'll just releast all the low-level stuff, like the Darwin release.

    Tho, it's be teriffically cool if the DID OS the whole thing.


    john
  • Just because Apple releases the Code to MacOS X/Darwin or whatever other components it's releasing, doesn't mean that it will release compiled binaries for free, or even allow the distribution of free binaries. This would create an obstacle for the vast majority of Mac users, who would rather just buy an easy-install CD. However, serious MacOS developers could get a much more intimate picture of the core of the OS, hence improving application performance, or making more effective OS modules. In this way, Open Source !=(freeware for most), yet provides benefits for developers, and creates a better application base. Better OS, better apps, same or increased profit. Peter Pawlowski
  • Would the release of the Apple source code emable a port to the X86 platform? Sure, we all love linux, but from a GUI standpoint I'd rather use the MacOS over M$FT any day. Also, could it be possible to create an X WM based on the Apple source??



    They actually have various themes for gnome, kde, and window maker that change the UI so that it works just like the MacOS or quite close to it. They also have Mac emulators for linux as well.
  • This poses an interesting question... Will the continued recognition of open source by the corporate community be genuine, or are they simply paying lip service? Will they use a "real" open source license? Will the presence of commercial interests change the open source community? If so, how? Will people be less willing to code "for free" when there are companies willing to pay -- but they pay for what they want, not what you want...



    I would think that most of what we have been observing as of late are attempts to make things that are closed source open source if two conditions apply:

    1. The product is becomming obsolete or sales are dropping to levels that make its' continued presence in the marketplace not worth the energy they are putting into it.

    2. The product has lost market/mindshare and it needs a shot in the arm (Mozilla/Borland).

    If I was a corporation I would be looking at these options in great detail if I needed a boost. It makes your company look good and secretly you get more and more money in the process; while placating and convincing people with programming know how that you are a good choice to work with. Do I expect to see Microsoft ever to release any version of windows? No. Do I expect someday to see some crappy program to come down the pike with a restricted opensource liscence? Yes.
  • Would the release of the Apple source code emable a port to the X86 platform? Sure, we all love linux, but from a GUI standpoint I'd rather use the MacOS over M$FT any day. Also, could it be possible to create an X WM based on the Apple source??

    Just curious to hear soe opinions ;o)

  • Windows 2000 has been behind schedule for over two years. The codebase is around 40 million lines of code--taking into account average programming accuracy, that's around 600,000 defective lines of code. Gee, I wanna run right out and buy it!

    True, that's only conjecture--but MS has been under so much pressure from Linux, the Government, and the media lately that they're desperate to get Win2K out the door, no matter how buggy. I agree with Eric S. Raymond; Windows 2K will be a train wreck of an OS.

    "The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version that I ever heard.... And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason. You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs." -- Bill Gates, qouted by Klaus Brunnstein of FOCUS magazine, 4 Nov 1995

  • Well, I just listened to the keynote live & noted that Steve Jobs pointed out that Darwin, the OS X *kernel* will be open-source. He did not mention that Quartz (and QT, etc) would be. So, nothing new there .... check out publicsource.apple.com [apple.com]

    Pete C

  • For a look at the Mac OS X interface, check out the Mac OS X page [apple.com]. Interfaces on nearly every platform have become rather stale. I've been skeptical about Apple's ability to improve the situation. However, the new interface looks increadible! The animations seem actually helpful while still looking quite impressive.

    I worry about the speed hit machines will take because of this, but who knows...when NeXT first appeared, the interface was more visually pleasing than anything else around. Half the interfaces today are some derivative of that look. Apple seems to be taking things one step cooler but have put a twist on it: instead of just looking cool, it also looks friendly and approachable.

    Check it out!

  • Too late,we already have "the popular Linux operating system"
  • I feel that this is just a marketing ploy to try and ride the Linux popularity wave while Apple can, since open-source or closed-source, Apple couldn't right a decent OS if it tried.
    I have to pretty much disagree with you here. If they wanted to ride the "Linux" wave, wouldn't they just drop "OS X" and go with Linux? It seems that they still believe they want to be "on their own" so to speak. Maybe they can still jump on the linux bandwagon by slowly transitioning all their "OS X" code into Linux. I'm still waiting for the first big company to release their very own linux distro. I've been thinking it would be IBM or SUN, but who knows, maybe Apple will beat them to it! I just hope it's not Microsoft Linux. Can you imagine Microsoft Linux with a new custom enhanced API?!?

  • First, all Apple announcements about prospective new OSs have to be viewed with skepticism. The New Apple OS has been Real Soon Now since about 1994. Wait until the thing ships to customers in volume before getting excited.

    If the bottom level is truly open-source, that's a big win for clonemakers, who will now have all the information they need to build machines that run the software, including providing their own kernel port if needed. Since Jobs is the one who killed the Mac clone industry, that probably won't be the case. So watch for kickers in the "open-source" license.

  • If OS X is made open source, maybe now we can write new prog's for the mac. One of the things that has limited the popularity of the mac has been the difficulty to get software that will run on a mac. Now, maybe, we can look at the code and port more applications over to the mac environment. Who know's? Maybe now we can write a good interpreter for mac software on PC's.

    -----

  • The question is how much of the OS will be released. under an open source license.

    The second question, is what type of open source license?

    Just because they release it under an open source "model" 'like the popular Linux operating system.' doesn't guarnette that it will be Free (as in speech).

    Open Source does NOT mean freedom. Open Source in this case probably means the 'marketing' people at Apple are doing a 'fine Job'

    Second what is the deal with all these companies claiming that they are part of the Open Source movement, etc, blah blah. Serously, if Apple really wanted to go Open Source all they could do it right now, right here. All Apple has to do to become an Open Source company is upload all it's source to one of it's many public FTP sites, slap a copy of the gpl.txt in the .messages file and post a notice to slashdot. BANG Apple is Open Source. No marketing bullshit, no fake PR in everyones face, no half truths. Just do it Apple don't act like a little fucking tease, do it, get it done with, it's over. Then claim your frame to the Open Source world.

    A company or person has a right to release any program, in any way they see fit. If this is a binrary only release, source code release, source release under the GPL, over even no public or private release at all. In which ever way this company or person releases their program, I will respect that (even though I may not use it).

    But for a company or person say they are going to release it in XYZ manner then be a little piss ant about it, doing it part XYZ and the other half ABC way, I can not respect that. Stick by your gun and do what you say, don't be fucking stupid about it either. If Apple truthly wanted to be an Open Source company, they could do it right now, right here, but they don't. They are going to stroke their investors off with thoughts of Linux and VA Research's opening climb, piss around for a couple months, then do some pathic and very restrictive release. By that time their investors will have already got off and Apple will fine some new BS way to feel up the investors in just the right way

    Actions not only speak louder than words, actions are the ONLY way to speak. Hello Apple? I can't hear you, you will have to Speak up.

  • I hope that everyone realizes that if MacOS X really is opensourced that that doesn't mean that it will be GPLed. If Apple does opensource MacOS X then it is likely that only some of the code that would allow for extensions to be made to the operating system, etc. much in the way that UT was opensourced not too long ago. 'Opensourcing' is more of a marketing thing - it sounds like it'll be all great and everything, that Apple too is jumping on the open source bandwagon... but no. If they really open-source MacOS X it will mean even more monetary losses for the company. Obviously it would be a boon to the open-source community... but I really feel that this is a marketing ploy to make people feel like Apple is a great company. Just my two cents. - Iodine
  • Not clever marketing, just bad reporting. They're not opening the whole thing, just Darwin and some components - and it's already been done, and yes, you can download it. http://publicsource.apple.com/

  • Re:Crap. (Score:3)

    by Evangelion ( 2145 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @10:38AM (#1401350) Homepage

    That's probably because OS/X is based on NeXT, which *drumroll* Window Maker and Afterstep both clone.

  • Aqua... (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @03:39PM (#1401351)
    Aqua's the new OSX interface; no one's used it yet (outside Apple anyway) but there are plenty of previews. Check it out at http://www.apple.com/macosx [apple.com].

    It's very pretty, and frankly I wonder if Apple fired its own graphic design team and hired a legion of demo-coders to implement it instead; it's undoubtedly the coolest-looking interface I've ever seen (with the possible exception of the BlueSteel theme for E, and the supposed interface for the new AmigaOS which, sadly, never showed).

    However, the good looks don't always translate to practicality; check out the three buttons at the top of the window (I think they look like jewels). They look exactly alike, except for color, until you mouse over them. Then all three get little symbols (X for clode, + for maximize, - for minimize) embedded in the jewels. It's still bad interface, though.

    In other words, Apple isn't getting it completely right with this revision. Hopefully they'll correct the mistakes by the time OSX is released; then it'll be really cool.

  • Re:MacOS for X86 / WM?? (Score:3)

    by wchin ( 6284 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @04:16PM (#1401352)

    RFC959 wrote: I don't know what graphics system OSX uses, but I suspect it's either X-like or MacOS-like. We're talking about multi-user machines here, remember? X is what you wanted to get rid of, and MacOS is built with the assumption that you've got one machine, one framebuffer, and one user (and one GUI!) in your "computing environment", none of which is necessarily true anymore, making it an unsuitable starting point.

    You're right. You don't know what graphics system Mac OS X uses. It uses a lightweight window server (which runs as it own process) with multiple rendering engines, including Display PDF, Quickdraw, and OpenGL. This is not like the graphics system on most other OS's. It relies on high speed IPC to implement a client/server graphics solution.

    See Mac OS X Graphics [apple.com] for a newbie and shallow overview, and a technical overview from Stepwise's WWDC '99 Graphics Coverage [stepwise.com]

    This system has some real tangible end user benefits. For example, even when an app is busy waiting, an end user can still move that app's windows and panels and the refresh of the window still happens (unlike Windows where you start getting lots and lots of white space). Since the lightweight window server maintains the backing store, you get great UI performance even with sluggish apps. This model may have performance benefits compared to the overhead of lots of threads... it's a different approach as compared to the BeOS approach... both have their strengths and weaknesses and both are superior to most other graphics systems available.

    As for age, this system is an evolution of the Display Postscript window server model introduced in NeXTstep in 1988. It's not new, but it is significantly enhanced and competitors still haven't achieved the 2D graphics user experience given in the original NeXTstep 1.0

  • Re:MacOS for X86 / WM?? (Score:3)

    by spiffy_guy ( 30225 ) <spiffy&babel,acu,edu> on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @10:27AM (#1401353) Homepage Journal
    OSX stems from Next which ran on x86 stuff fine. In the beggining apple was going to support x86 port of it too. There are two reasons they aren't now. 1. Microsoft 2. Hardware control. The fact is that apple likes having nice hardware control. Remember when they switched from 68k to PPC? Only apple can do that. How about the switch from adb to usb, apple is why usb finally caught on. The reason macOS is much better than win 9x with less development cost is because apple controls their hardware.

    Side issues:

    The problem with mac emulators are that apple has rom's on every mac that you need to run macOS. Those roms are illigal to copy and distribute.

    Serios sysadmins are thinking of running serious systems on mac hardware. Buy 2 G4s install linux or OSX and you have full redundancy, great speed, and decent price.

  • QuickTime for Linux? (Score:3)

    by netsrek ( 76063 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @12:47PM (#1401354) Homepage
    Now, what I'd like to know is why they didn't just adopt Linux for the kernel and toss a MacOS API on top of that. Oh yeah-- and do something about making QuickTime available for Linux, too.

    Isn't the problem with QuickTime for Linux the various codecs that are used by it, like Sorensen?
    I thought that was the reason there isn't a client for Linux that can play most of the movies that are on the web.

    There is however a library for QuickTime at this page [linuxbox.com].

    This is from that page.

    Be aware of one thing: Quicktime for Linux won't read any of the movies you download from the internet. Quicktime is a wrapper for many different kinds of compression formats. What you know as "Quicktime 4" is really a distribution of libraries which contain certain compression formats not found in previous versions Quicktime. Regardless of the version number, each Quicktime distribution is able to read and write a basic set of compression formats that you can manipulate on Linux or any system not officially supported by Apple. Only a few of these compression formats are built in Quicktime for Linux because 99% of Linux developers can't use any commercial code in their software. Since 1998 Apple has licensed all the internet video formats for their own use. What you can do is create Quicktime movies.

  • Well I think this is a good thing for me. (Score:3)

    by slashdot-terminal ( 83882 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @09:53AM (#1401355) Homepage
    The very fact the a company that makes very good hardware (compared to some of the things that the PC market has) but has an interface that is a little geek limiting (I really like command lines and such) is now taking the opportunity to make a unix like interface that dosn't need to have totally graphical features and is Open Source! This is quite nice as well because it will also have full hardware support and be free of some of the hoop jumping of other PPC and related OSs.
  • If MS open-sourced Win2k - and provided a license that wasn't completely obnoxious - would you use it? When the first group scrapped the UI, ported X/[WM of choice], and posted the tarball, would you run to download it? Would you volunteer to fix the problems in the Registry, or ACLs, or the DCOM subsystems? How about dumping that eMac WM/GTK theme, and just running OS X, with the latest set of patches from [mythical OS X guru]? Would you give up your spare time to help with the ports to OS X? Or will you instead write another CD player for Linux?

  • The quote, in it's entirety (Score:4)

    by FascDot Killed My Pr ( 24021 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @09:54AM (#1401357)
    "OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system, with Quartz, Open GL and QuickTime all built in."

    Items of note:

    1) The third phrase ("with Quartz...") has nothing to do with the first two, so the real quote is "OS X will be completely open source, like the popular Linux operating system...".

    2) "Completely" implies the whole thing, so Rob's (?) question is answered.

    3) What does "open source like...Linux..." mean? GPL?

    4) This entire thing is clearly smoke out of someone's ass. Why don't we wait until Apple's announcement of the anonymous CVS password before we piss our pants in excitement.
    ---

  • Re:Darwin (Score:5)

    by adam ( 1231 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @12:59PM (#1401358)

    Actually, they probably didn't adopt Linux for the kernel because MacOS X is basically NeXTStep 5.0.

    NeXTStep, for those of you who haven't been around that long, was the Mach/BSD-based OS that Jobs' previous company, NeXT, created in the late 80's. NeXTStep was way, way ahead of its time, but the developers made some choices which ended up being different from what the rest of the world did -- using Objective-C instead of C++ was the biggest one. Of course, the _incredible_ GUI development libraries and utilities of NeXTStep were later retooled into "OpenStep", and there is now at least one free-software project to reimplement it (GNUStep).

    I have no doubt that the "advanced OO development environment" called "Cocoa" is actually just another retooling of the NeXTStep libraries/utilities. Which is fine, 'cuz they really are good.

  • Darwin (Score:5)

    by rrwood ( 27261 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2000 @10:16AM (#1401359) Homepage
    I've been watching Steve Jobs' Reality-Distortion effect via QT4, and some people are missing a fine distinction. The lowest-level "Darwin" code is to be open-source, not Apple's proprietary higher-level OS (Carbon, Quartz, Cocoa, and all the other goofily-named bits).

    Darwin is pretty much analagous to the Linux kernel, though it is Mach-based, rather than a monolithic kernel.

    The BSD-based system interface that rides slightly above Darwin is also to be open-source, which is not surprising since it derives from the various *BSD's out there.

    Judging from some discussion on various mailing lists, a lot of the developers are not too impressed with the slow speed at which Apple has been releasing source. This may be typical online whining though. Several Apple people have responded back in a very sincere-sounding manner, asking for patience. I'm inclined to agree with them, since Apple has really only jumped into this Open Source thing recently, and it takes a long time for things to change in a large company. As well, they have to make sure the code they post really belongs to them, that it's in decent enough shape to share, etc. Give 'em a little more time, I say.

    Now, what I'd like to know is why they didn't just adopt Linux for the kernel and toss a MacOS API on top of that. Oh yeah-- and do something about making QuickTime available for Linux, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close