Apple Announces New Open Source Efforts 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.
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
.
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.
You prefer Miicrosoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yeah, my MacPro order is in already.
Both Windows and OS X are good for OS apps, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
No actually they are open for a purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
(tapping foot) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Development and support of OS X is eased by the fact that Apple controls the hardware.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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is simply trying to strike a balance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my couple of my petty cents.
Re:Official Apple announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple fell in love with Ruby?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Darwin on PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alot of damage needs to be undone (Score:2, Insightful)
Retractions, Please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any of those sites now care to print a retraction, and admit they actually had no solid information whatsoever, that they were building their stories up from the fact of this delay plus rampant speculation?
For a few weeks there it seemed every tech site on the planet was decrying how Apple had abandoned Open Source, was not giving anything back, was closing the kernel, and how this was going to negatively impact Apple's customers and benefit Linux on the desktop.
And now, at Apple's own developer conference (of all places) they release that source code. Isn't anyone pointing that out to the sites who said it wasn't going to happen? Or are they already claiming that the only reason Apple did it was because of their articles?
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a business. If what you say were true, they would be a software company, not a hardware company. They already did the Mac-licensing thing in the 90s.
I would really be interested in what you're basing your claim on that hardware isn't more profitable than software, at least for Apple. Would you tell Apple to stop selling iPods and instead be a FairPlay/iTunes software licensing company? Get real. Even Microsoft saw that approach fall apart with PlaysForSure.
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no. The downside to selling PC-compatible OS X that people seem to keep forgetting is a company based in Redmond.
Without getting too much into the Linux for the desktop argument, I think its hard to deny that a PC-compatible OS X would be the biggest challenge to Windows thats ever been mounted. Unlike Linux, or BeOS, or even OS/2, Apple has an incredible combination of worldwide brand recognition, reputation for user friendliness, and a broad software base. Right now, Apple and Microsoft can manage to stay in coopetition in the OS market; Apple can take as many pot shots at Microsoft as they want, because as long as OS X only (officially) runs on Apple hardware, Apple is not in direct competition with them. The moment an OS X box appears on shelves at your local Best Buy that Apple intends for you to install on your Dell, HP or Lenovo, that wall is down.
The reason you arent going to see OS X for PCs any time soon has little to do with profit, and a lot to do with the fact that doing so means a fight to the death with Microsoftand no, I dont think Im engaging in hyperbole. In that circumstance, Microsoft would do everything they could to kill OS X dead. No Microsoft Office for Mac. No Microsoft anything for Mac. License changes to make running Windows on Mac hardware illegal. (And this is without suggesting any dirty trick like Microsoft was accused of in their fight with DR-DOS and BeOS, both of which were arguably far less threatening than OS X would be.)
Re:Retractions, Please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is the right thing to do if you make remarks about someone or something that are untrue.
Not hardware/software--integrated (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple does not sell hardware; they sell computers. Computers are products that are made up of both hardware and software, which work together. The question is not one of raw profits, but of vision and strategy in the computing market.
Yes, I know Microsoft makes a lot of money with operating systems. But first of all they don't cost $350-$1000 (where did you get this number in a discussion of OS??). Also they are literally the only company succeeding with an OS-only (no hardware) strategy. And I think you'll find that the margins on that piece of their business are falling fast, as are the boxed-product sales volumes. The OS is a commodity in consumer products, whether you're talking about a cell phone, microwave, or home computer. It just comes on the hardware and it's built into the price.
An integrated product is what makes the money in consumer markets. It's how Sony and Apple have made the majority of their money, and both companies have been around longer than Microsoft. A good computing experience requires a good OS, which is why Apple works so hard on it. They sell computers (not OS) to consumers (not system builders) and their most relevant competition is Sony, Dell, Gateway or HP (not Microsoft). It's a fundamentally different approach to the computer business that a lot of people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Changing that mid-stream, in the midst of dramatic success and growth, would be phenomenally stupid.
Repeat after me: just because something worked for Microsoft last century, doesn't mean it will work for anyone else today.
No company in the computing business will ever duplicate the MS success, just like no company in the phone business will ever duplicate AT&T's success, just like no company in the steel business will duplicate U.S. Steel's success. Times change.
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple is simply trying to strike a balance... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with free software. I've written some myself. However, I object strenuously to GPL style "free" software that forces me to release my software under the same license if I use it. None of my software went out GPL. If you want to make it free, make it *completely* free. Don't tie a huge pile of strings onto it and call it free, because it isn't.
The huge fallacy of the software market is that software should be free because it has no material cost. Such logic completely disregards the value of the labor that went into writing (and maintaining!) the code. The principles that underly the philosophy of the FSF are closer to communism that most modern day communist regimes. Both would have the hard working and diligent stripped of the products of their labor.
Thankfully, the FSF does not appear to believe that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Re:Don't tell me about it, I was there. (Score:3, Insightful)
.
And in reality your statement (as well as mine here) are quite misleading because both systems could only simultaneously display a handful of colors (out of a palette of 4096).
But anyway, if you're going to dis Apple at least do a proper comparison.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:0, Insightful)
They're neither. They're in the fashion business.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple fell in love with Ruby?? [yes!] (Score:3, Insightful)