Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th May 2006 15:00 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Mac OS X "Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system. Mac developers and power users no longer have the freedom to alter, rebuild, and replace the OS X kernel from source code. Stripped of openness, it no longer possesses the quality that elevated Linux to its status as the second most popular commercial OS."
Order by: Score:
Huh?
by vinterbleg on Wed 17th May 2006 15:13 UTC
vinterbleg
Member since:
2005-07-11

How can porting the kernel and modifying it be an issue if it was open?

- Simon

Reply Score: 1

RE: Huh?
by maxx_730 on Wed 17th May 2006 15:22 UTC in reply to "Huh?"
maxx_730 Member since:
2005-12-14

Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Huh?
by JacobMunoz on Wed 17th May 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
JacobMunoz Member since:
2006-03-17

"Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."
- Careful, my friend. You're in dangerous waters here. ;)

I agree, open licenses are becoming more important to those that don't want to be assassinated by their platform's vendor making bad decisions. When you have a copy of the code for yourself, you can make your own decisions - good or bad as they may be. (usually good)

But on the other hand, there are waaaay too many lawyers getting involved in this whole 'code derivative' game (like SCO being funded by Microsoft to kill the spirit of open source). I know there's many licenses out there, and they all have their caveats - so one does have to be careful when copying.... ...sometimes. But odds are that if you don't release your modified (and maybe illegal) code, nobody's ever gonna know - and I don't think anyone, ANYONE!!! *cough* government *cough* has the right to change that (or break into your house).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Huh?
by Matzon on Wed 17th May 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

This can happen to GPL too - Apple is the original copyright owner, they can do as they please.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Huh?
by devurandom on Wed 17th May 2006 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, not completely. The XNU kernel on which Darwin runs is based on BSD, and I don't think Apple holds the copyright of BSD.

That is, if XNU was based on a GPL kernel, it would have been under the GPL too, and closing it should have been legally impossible. Your statement is right if and only if Apple rewrote XNU from scratch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Huh?
by maxx_730 on Wed 17th May 2006 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
maxx_730 Member since:
2005-12-14

Not true. With the GPL you could fork it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh?
by kadymae on Wed 17th May 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

No, under the GPL you can't close the code, even if you hold the original copyright, because the GPL applies to derivatives and modified work, which a fork is.

Now, the BSD lisence is entirely another matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Huh?
by Wrawrat on Wed 17th May 2006 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

To my understanding, you can close all parts of the code that you own. You cannot "unrelease" versions that were covered by the GPL, but you can apply a new licence to your code.

Anyway, that's what Trolltech and MySQL AB are doing. Of course, this doesn't apply to a fork: I'm talking of an original project.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Huh?
by kadymae on Wed 17th May 2006 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh?"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Aha. I was unclear what you meant intially.

Yes, if there is a version of the code that was never GPL'd, then yes, it can be closed no problem, because it was never really "open" though it may have been distributed free of charge.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Huh?
by Wrawrat on Wed 17th May 2006 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Huh?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, I'm not the original poster, but I suppose that's what he meant. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Huh?
by Get a Life on Wed 17th May 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

No, under the GPL you can't close the code, even if you hold the original copyright

Copyright holders are free to license their work as they see fit. This includes not making subsequent releases of software previously released under the terms of the GPL available under the terms of the GPL. Copyright holders own their own work, which they then license to others. They don't license their own software to themselves.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Huh?
by Get a Life on Wed 17th May 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

It's interesting to think about the ramifications of the expiration of the copyright on GPLed works in the distant future. Or how muddled by uncertainty the determination of the copyright status of some software will be in such a distant future. There will, in any event, come a time when the "viral" nature of such code will disappear.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh?
by nberardi on Wed 17th May 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Well you don't truely have freedom of licensing unless you are free to take your software in the direction you want. And I thought the OSS movement was all about freedom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Wed 17th May 2006 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

The free software movement is not about freedom of people but about freedom of software. So it is nothing obscure to prevent people from taking away freedom from software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh?
by nberardi on Wed 17th May 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

What is the difference. Software is made my people? If people don't have freedom to make the software, how can the software be free?

It sort of sounds like the USSR, where the economy was given (or free) to the people, but the people weren't free to do what they wanted to better them selves.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Wed 17th May 2006 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I don't see any relation to the USSR, but I also don't understand your first statement.

That's because as a developer who distributes software under a certain licence, I have no power over people's freedom anyway; in particular I can't prevent them from making software!

But, I have power over my software which I want to make free. To ensure it stays free - and further work done on it - I use a licence which prevents deriving software from it which is unfree. Sounds perfect for a developer who wants freedom for software.


Let's see: If you fight for freedom of people, it comes down to protect people against other people. If you fight for freedom of software, it comes down to protect software against some people.


In the end one can hope that the society, or people, benefit from having free software. One can fear that this benefits will be destroyed by people building unfree software on top of free software thus attract people to fall back to unfree software which is not the best for them in longer terms.


But to be pragmatic, me as a developer can decide to do a gift to the public by releasing free software. But I want to get something back eventually - if someone improves my software, I want to benefit from these improvements, too. As my gift gains in value or as I can use these improvements myself (I wrote the software because I needed it myself in first place).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Huh?
by nberardi on Thu 18th May 2006 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Blah. Blah. Blah.

So you are allowed to choose how your software is distributed and under what license, but Apple is not. Sounds like you are making a hipocrit of your self.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Thu 18th May 2006 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

This is absolutely not my point!

The topic was that if the kernel would've been GPL, Apple would have to stick with the GPL.

That is, because the originate work wasn't done by Apple, and Apple didn't have any copyright over it. It was done by others and released with BSD licence. If Apple would've chosen Linux, it couldn't do what it did now and perhaps that was a reason because it didn't choose Linux.


But anyhow, you talked about "freedom" and that the "OSS" movement (in particular it's more the free software movement" isn't really about freedom as they clame they are. I just wanted to point out that they indeed _are_ about freedom, but about freedom of software and not of people.


This doesn't affect (and that was part of what I was talking about!) software of others, in particular software under a BSD license, and _no_ serious member of the free software movement would want to dictate anyone how (under which terms) he/she has to distribute it's software. All they talk about is that they themselves wouldn't release "unfree" software (but would be ok to release the BSD way), wouldn't use "unfree" software and _suggest_ to others to do the same. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to forbid others to use _their own_ work to create unfree software.


They - and I - would never come to the idea to forbid apple to do anything with their (apple's) software, or the software they got from others, as these people decided in history they want to allow what apple does (seems to do) now. And that's perfectly fine and creditable!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh?
by robertojdohnert on Wed 17th May 2006 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

Its because of the fact it was BSD licensed, Apple has the true freedom to decide not to share should they choose not to. With the GPL it would have forced Apple to do something it didnt want to do. But the truth of the fact is that Mac OS X is just another UNIX fork.

" Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Huh?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 18th May 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

True freedom? *LOL*

GPL would not have forced Apple to anything at all. They can change their license whenever then want, to the extent they are the copyright holders. If they're not the copyright holders, then of course they don't have that right (according to the GPL), but that's only fair when they are gaining from other peoples free work ;)

But one can ALWAYS change the license term for the future, for all code where one is the copyright holder.

The BSD does not allow me to change who is the copyright holder. It does however allow for sub-licensing (which the GPL doesn't, I might add).

Mac OS X isn't Unix btw.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Huh?
by Moulinneuf on Thu 18th May 2006 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[5]: Huh?
by Chicken Blood on Thu 18th May 2006 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

BSD is UNIX :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution


Wow, your grammer and punctuation was almost flawless there. Guess you're better with the shorter sentences!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Huh?
by Moulinneuf on Thu 18th May 2006 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Its not grammar ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Thu 18th May 2006 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

> GPL would not have forced Apple to anything at all

Sure it would have, because Apple was not the copyright holder. This discussion was not about which license _Apple_ chose, but about wether Apple would have chosen another kernel (like Linux) if it wasn't GPL. That was the starting point of the whole discussion as you can read back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Huh?
by eggs on Thu 18th May 2006 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

Actually... if you GPL a version of your software, for ease of use, lets call this version 1.0. So you have version 1.0 of MegaProggy GPLed, people like it, yada yada yada. Now you develop a new version that you will release as 2.0 of MegaProggy. However, you decide you don't want it to be GPL any more, you want it to be proprietary software (closed source). Well thats too bad. version 1.0 is GPLed and version 2.0 is a derivative work of 1.0 and thus cannot be closed source. However, you could make version 2.0 licensed under a GPL compatible license.

The only way to move GPLed software to closed source is to start over from scratch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh?
by pyramiao on Thu 18th May 2006 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
pyramiao Member since:
2006-05-14

"Actually... if you GPL a version of your software, for ease of use, lets call this version 1.0. So you have version 1.0 of MegaProggy GPLed, people like it, yada yada yada. Now you develop a new version that you will release as 2.0 of MegaProggy. However, you decide you don't want it to be GPL any more, you want it to be proprietary software (closed source). Well thats too bad. version 1.0 is GPLed and version 2.0 is a derivative work of 1.0 and thus cannot be closed source. However, you could make version 2.0 licensed under a GPL compatible license.

The only way to move GPLed software to closed source is to start over from scratch."


That's not quite true, if you release version 1.0 (i.e. the whole of the code is copyrighted to you) and version 2.0 has no code from other people (or the code they contribute has had the copyright transferred to you) then you could make version 2.0 into a closed source product.
What you can't do is make Version 1.0 closed source that will always be under the GPL (which means that potentially somebody could add in all of the v2 functionality and directly compete with you - but you couldn't use their contributions since they were under the GPL without make yours v2.0 GPL as well).

Hopefully the above made sense,
Steven.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Huh?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 18th May 2006 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's not entirely correct. As long as the code is mine alone (e.g. I'm the only copyright holder) then of course I can at any time change the license for future releases.

However, if the code contains parts that belong to other copyright holders, then I have to remove those parts.

The copyright holder is not bound by the license.

Or put another way: I can take a GPL'ed project, remove all code not owned by me, and rerelease under a non-GPL license. Of course I'd have to rewrite all the GPL'ed code not owned by me. Probably not worth the effort, should I ever want to (and I don't).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Fri 19th May 2006 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I can explain to you where your misconception lies.

You yourself as a developer have every right on your software. A license given to anyone else can give him some rights, like the right to use it or to distribute it. The GPL in particular gives the right to do quite many things. And it is offered to anybody - accept it and you get the declared rights on the software.


There would be also the possibility of selling your own rights, like some record contracts forbid the artists themselves to distribute their music.


Only if you do this, you wouldn't be allowed anymore to release your software under another license or to other licensees. But this is _not_ part of the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh?
by aliquis on Thu 18th May 2006 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."

Yeah, because the BSD license allows that and the GPL doesn't. What's else is new?

Reply Score: 1

Not sure...
by tophfisher on Wed 17th May 2006 15:13 UTC
tophfisher
Member since:
2006-04-07

I can't tell... But is their only proof the fact that Apple has not released the recent source code for x86 darwin yet?

They have in the past had large delays between releasing OS X, and then releasing the Darwin code.....

Reply Score: 5

Apple are now directly comprable to MS
by jaduncan on Wed 17th May 2006 15:15 UTC
jaduncan
Member since:
2005-11-19

Both vendors are playing a soon-to-be-obselete game. The thing they appear not to get is that the OS is becoming a commodity, and a business based purely on charging for it is in a lot of trouble going forward.

The interesting thing about Apple is the way it is managing to deversify into iPod/iTunes sales, but if you think their ethics are any different to MS, just look at the lock-in DRM there.

*Sighs* Proprietary vendors, you just can't trust them.

Reply Score: 5

Troels Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, Microsoft is really getting close to being obsolete.... puhlease.

First of all, Apple is not in any way a business based purely on charging for an operating system.

Second, Microsoft is not a business based purely on charging for an operating system. They have a pretty big software catalog.

Third, only a very small percentage of people install operating systems, most just use whatever is on the machine, which usually happens to be windows. If the OS was really becomming a comodity you should be able to sell computers with other operating systems on them and have NORMAL people buy and use them. I just don't see that happening, and my guess is that that wont happen any time soon.

Reply Score: 5

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Both vendors are playing a soon-to-be-obselete game. The thing they appear not to get is that the OS is becoming a commodity, and a business based purely on charging for it is in a lot of trouble going forward.

Oh man...this tired old argument again (modded up? Why?).

If the OS was a commodity, Apple would be out of buisness! Their OS and stylish casings is all they got! And a lot of people don't care for white casings with rounded corners, but they do care for the OS. If Apple lost control of that, the market would be flooded with non-Apple Macs.

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Two points to make

1) I'm not sure it is the OS that sells Macs. I think it may be the casing and industrial design, and that they would double the sales overnight if they shipped with Windows.

2) You have to ask an interesting question. Why exactly would Mac sales collapse if it were possible to run OS X on non-Apple computers.

Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy.

So why would they stop buying it and buy white box hardware to run their OS X on, with all the alleged attendant disadvantages?

Reply Score: 2

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy.

So why would they stop buying it and buy white box hardware to run their OS X on, with all the alleged attendant disadvantages?


It dilutes the Mac brand name? Imagine having to explain to people that running OS X on some franken-PC isn't the same as running OS X on a Mac?

Reply Score: 0

Quoth_the_Raven Member since:
2005-11-15

"Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy."

Well, you just negated your first point with the above statement. There would be no integrated experience if OS X were to run on vanilla hardware. It's the whole integrated package that we Mac users want.

The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings"

Silly thing to say, the fact that Window's will run on almost anything with an x86 chip in it is a source of instability (mostly due to misbehaving drivers), but it is one of the sources of Windows massive market share, as well as Linux's.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

This is what you said:

"Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy." Well, you just negated your first point with the above statement. There would be no integrated experience if OS X were to run on vanilla hardware. It's the whole integrated package that we Mac users want. The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings.

That's exactly the point I was making, and it has not been answered. You have asserted the experience is integrated and that Mac users value it, but you have failed to draw the logical conclusion, which is that if OSX would run on white boxes, no mac people would buy it, and so it could not hurt Apple Mac sales.

The mac people argue at the same time:

1) The integrated experience is better and is the buying motive for mac users

2) If OSX were not locked to Apple hardware they would stop buying it, and instead buy white boxes.

Please, tell me how these two propositions are consistent! If the integrated experience is what they value, they would carry on buying it. So releasing the OS would not damage Apple at all.

If they would not carry on buying it, and instead would turn to white boxes (which by the way are also argued not to be cheaper!) it cannot be better, it cannot be a buying motive.

In fact, if you followed the MacContortions of some people to their logical conclusion you'd find yourself arguing that Mac buyers who value the integrated experience that only OSX on Mac can deliver, if given the choice, would pay more for cheap white boxes to install OSX on, thus forsaking that integrated experience for something like the unintegrated Windows experience.

Consistency, please, consistency!

Edited 2006-05-18 06:27

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@jaduncan

Both vendors are playing a soon-to-be-obselete game. The thing they appear not to get is that the OS is becoming a commodity, and a business based purely on charging for it is in a lot of trouble going forward.

hahaha nice sarcasm

That phrase you typed reminds me of that failed doctrine: communism. Promises the weak of being exploitation free from the strong but ended up in PURE 100% LOCKED IN exploitation of everyone, strong and weak, by the strong.

Thanks for the laugh. Made my day.

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That phrase you typed reminds me of that failed doctrine: communism.

Oh wow. Another communism comment!

And what exactly reminded you of communism in his/her comment, given that he/she was talking about the direction economics tend to go in when a market matures and becomes saturated?

Reply Score: 0

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Because in the United States, people mistake their economy as an embodiment of 18th century capitalist theory, and anything that hints that business reliance on government-imposed monopoly and secrecy tends toward irrelevance is communism, because that which is known as the private sector disagrees.

Reply Score: 2

tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

how...

every one of my songs (100+gigs worth) can be played on my powerbook... my XP box... my PSP.... my xbox.... my iPod.... a linux box.... if i had one.... or any other MP3 player...if i had one!

how can that be... i'm locked in! hum....or am I?

"its not what they're selling.... its what you're buying!"

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lock in? with iTunes/iPod?
by WorknMan on Wed 17th May 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "Lock in? with iTunes/iPod?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

every one of my songs (100+gigs worth) can be played on my powerbook... my XP box... my PSP.... my xbox.... my iPod.... a linux box.... if i had one.... or any other MP3 player...if i had one!

Right, and I can export all my MS Word documents to RTF, so no lockin there either ;)

Reply Score: 1

Not good for apple.
by Caspian on Wed 17th May 2006 15:17 UTC
Caspian
Member since:
2006-01-01

I don't think this is a good thing for apple at all. One of the big draws for me at least to osx was darwin. Now it's gone. Oh well, apple just lost another customer because of their bone-headed decisions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not good for apple.
by JustinF on Wed 17th May 2006 15:26 UTC in reply to "Not good for apple."
JustinF Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think this is a good thing for apple at all. One of the big draws for me at least to osx was darwin. Now it's gone. Oh well, apple just lost another customer because of their bone-headed decisions.

Darwin is still going to be there, no? It's not gone. You just don't have access to the source to recompile it. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of Mac owners don't even know what the kernel is, let alone want to recompile it. This doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not good for apple.
by Nelson on Thu 18th May 2006 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good for apple."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Seems to be such a big deal to the people who use it as an excuse to down microsoft and windows..

Oh well, I guess since it's not microsoft it must be okay.

Reply Score: 1

...so what?
by stew on Wed 17th May 2006 15:22 UTC
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt this will make much of a difference. Source code availability of the kernel is something the majority of users is not interested, at all. If that was of any importance, Windows wouldn't be the success it is.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...so what?
by chlordane on Wed 17th May 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "...so what?"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

The only reason Windows is a success, is because people dont want to learn anything other than what is forced upon them...and the fact that the richest people in the world got there because they were put there by other rich helps also.....besides, most people do not know what Source Code is......

So of course Microsoft would be the top choice, most windows user I have met say that Mac OS X is harder to learn, which is not true.....

Yeah, Apple made another mistake, that will definitly cost them in the long run, I will still buy Apple....

at least until Apple and Microsoft merge....

Edited 2006-05-17 21:37

Reply Score: 1

Does it really matter?
by shadow_x99 on Wed 17th May 2006 15:22 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

Apart from Corporate Users, who do need to recompile their kernel?

No big deal for normal users. For corporate users, I suspect that there will be some Mac OS X Server Edition or licence that will allow you to recompile your kernel or something.

No big deal really.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does it really matter?
by postmodern on Wed 17th May 2006 17:13 UTC in reply to "Does it really matter?"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

Using the same logic one could argue "Apart from activists, who needs Free Speech, big deal...". When a "liberty" is removed or impeded, such as the ability to alter your kernel, your not just hindering it for the current set of users who depend upon it but for all possible future users as well. When these "technological freedoms" are hindered the possible future creations that would have been made possible by them become impossible.

Now I've heard this cry-of-wolf story before, that Apple is going to lock down their OS instantly. This argument has always been hinged on the fact Apple is slow to post the x86 branch of their source code. Even if Apple decides to do this, there's plenty of old Darwin x86 branches to work from.

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Does it really matter?
by shadow_x99 on Wed 17th May 2006 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it really matter?"
shadow_x99 Member since:
2006-05-12

It's like when you wish to modify the Windows Kernel, you can if you have the moneay to buy the license! That's right, you can pay a special license that will give you the Source Code for Windows 2000/XP and recompile it yourself.

I bet that Apple will do likewise...

Modifying OS X's Kernel is a not a right but a privilege, and this privilege is no longer free, you will have to pay...

I feel sorry for scientists who relied on that for their precious research, but I bet that a good Linux Distro will do just fine!

Reply Score: 1

Oh please.
by skwirlmaster on Wed 17th May 2006 15:23 UTC
skwirlmaster
Member since:
2006-02-17

It's because of the fear of pirates... yes... pirates. Because there are THAT many people out there who not only want to steal OSX, they also want to go through the hastle of trying to find warez for OSX.

Give me a break. This is a thinly veiled lie. What apple wants is to stop sharing the code. This hasn't happened all at once, they have slowly been working to kill of the darwin project. A cookie for the person who links to the recent article talking about the slow death of darwin.

Apple wants control of their products. This was inevitable, but the excuse was worse than expected.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oh please.
by suryad on Wed 17th May 2006 17:43 UTC in reply to "Oh please."
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Out of all the posts I will have to agree with this one the most. Linux looks prettier and prettier day by day. So does a distro based on MINIX 3!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh please.
by Get a Life on Wed 17th May 2006 18:39 UTC in reply to "Oh please."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple basically desires to make the cracking of its x86 releases more difficult. It isn't a matter of stopping it (at least for now), but a matter of making it harder and slowing the process. It's basically a matter of not subsidizing the development of third-party operating systems "OSx86" that run their proprietary software without requiring people to pay the markup on Apple hardware. Apple has received little tangible benefit from releasing the source code to XNU up to this point, and so it loses little and gains some marginal amount.

Apple never had to release the source code, but did so anyway. They don't require a lie to stop. There are a lot more people that want to run "pirated" versions of OS X on their existing PCs than people that use XNU's source code for derivative works.

Reply Score: 2

JonInAtlanta
Member since:
2006-02-17

Why it's almost put them out of business!

Reply Score: 5

zambizzi Member since:
2006-04-23

What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business"?

That's madness.

However, going forward we may see some of these numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining.

Reply Score: 1

chiwaw Member since:
2006-02-05

"What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business" "

Please, pick up a dictionary and go read the definiton for "sarcasm".

"numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining."

Mmm. Momentum. I also heard that circa 1996. Yup, a decade ago. You guy's Open Source momentum sure is one fast rabbit.

Reply Score: 1

zambizzi Member since:
2006-04-23

I remember hearing that as well, however in 1996 there wasn't corporate backing in the (B)illions of dollars around every corner and on everyone's lips in investment circles.

Reply Score: 1

Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business"?

That's madness.

However, going forward we may see some of these numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining.


You know that "business", in Linux zealots' point of view, is you release your software with GPL. Eventhough you release your software for free, but not give the source, you're out of "business". So if you dare to sell your software, you're miles away from "business".

Reply Score: 1

zambizzi Member since:
2006-04-23

Eh? Are you talking to me personally? Wow, I hadn't realized that I was a "zealot", nevermind representing all "zealots" and those who use the GPL license everywhere.

Anyhow, I'm not sure I was able to follow this, it was a little incoherent. Both closed & proprietary and free and open source software are viable business models. Everything must be put into perspective given the current market, the type of software you're selling, and who your competition in the marketplace is.

In the 90's, Microsoft had an advantageous position in the marketplace as they were the cheapest deal in town, (arguably) the best software for the personal & corporate desktop, and not "much" by the way of competition. Today, competitors are seeing chinks in the armor and are going for it, they may or may not succeed, that's for consumers (on all levels) to decide.

Reply Score: 1

Maciek Member since:
2005-11-15

Have you ever heard of a thing called sarcasm?

Reply Score: 1

as they ever....
by marcell on Wed 17th May 2006 15:24 UTC
marcell
Member since:
2005-07-11

wanted to have darwin open for a long time...

Reply Score: 1

Sad News
by Troels on Wed 17th May 2006 15:28 UTC
Troels
Member since:
2005-07-11

This is pretty sad news, but i believe the number of people bothered by this is pretty insignificant. Strong FOSS believers won't touch a mac anyway as a lot of the system is closed, and most users wont know what this kernel thing is anyway. This pretty much leaves geeks with spare time and a tiny part of server administrators, and i doubt either group has a lot of members.

And while it is pretty disheartening, it wont stop me using my Intel Mac, in fact it might do me a favor as it removes an item from my already way too long "Things that i would like to play with but can't find the time for" list. :-)

I believe the only anti-piracy thing they can do that actually might hurt them is if they add something that is inconvenient, like win xps activation can be.

Reply Score: 2

Pirates will be pirates...
by Fusion on Wed 17th May 2006 15:28 UTC
Fusion
Member since:
2005-07-18

Closing the kernel source will not halt piracy activities in OSX.

WindowsXP, for example, is closed; so are hundreds of other proprietary software titles. Hacks, cracks, and patches exist in abundance for these proprietary titles. So, what gives? If someone really wants to pirate something, they just need the will and a web browser.

This announcement is largely pointless. The published kernel source on Apple's FTP wasn't even in sync with what's used in production...and certainly not what Apple has internally. Maxxus is probably laughing at this right now.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pirates will be pirates...
by starnix on Wed 17th May 2006 15:42 UTC in reply to "Pirates will be pirates..."
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

Could it be that now that the open source community has helped Apple get OS-X into fairly stable, fast shape, they don't need them anymore? Thanks for nothing Apple.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Could it be that now that the open source community has helped Apple get OS-X into fairly stable, fast shape, they don't need them anymore? Thanks for nothing Apple.

I think this has to do with Leopard. Leopard will be the first x86 version of OSX in retail channels, and as such, extra security measures will be taken in order to prevent people from running this on non-Mac PCs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Pirates will be pirates...
by suryad on Wed 17th May 2006 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pirates will be pirates..."
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Give it a few months and watch the open source community hack OS X wide open and have it running on a better platform ala AMD computers.

Reply Score: 1

v Apple closes down OS X ...
by Duffman on Wed 17th May 2006 15:29 UTC
Stopping the spread of comon lies
by Moulinneuf on Wed 17th May 2006 15:31 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

" the users of which care least about openness. "

The author make the above quote but like all the liar before him who spread this lie to him he dont back it with real accurate data.

The normal user care about openess , but when openess dont deliver a Macbook or MacBook pro fully working they just dont see the point , its not that they dont care , they would use openess if openess provided the same feature or better feature as closed source.

Its like if for digging a hole closed source provide a full shovel and Open a spoon or to be assembled ergonomic radical new shovel at twice the price of the normal shovel but you whont hurt your back using it , you just need to assemble it.

Its not that people dont care its that people have been lied to and told you dont need to have it Open or its not an important part.

Apple is playing stupid again if you look at at boot camp experience people will do it anyway and they will only loose sale to those who where willing to pay for it.

Just like not offering Dell the chance to ship there older version so that they get paid for an older version and the upgrade , and increasing there number of user at the same time.

If you provide a product that people whant at a good price the pirate cant compete.

Reply Score: 1

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

That made absolutely no sense at all.

Reply Score: 5

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

then your too stupid to get it , its not that it dont make sense , its that you have no sense to begin with.

It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart. It has everything to do with your poor command of the English language. Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence. You have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws. "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again...

There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post (I'm wishing I didn't bother now). It made NO SENSE.

Reply Score: 2

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

"It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart."

Thats exactly why you dont get my comment , and I aint your sweetheart.


Sorry honey. I didn't say I didn't get it. I said it made no sense. It made no sense because it was very badly written. Your confusion arises from the assumption that I misunderstand your points. The fact is that your points are unclear because you use run-ons, a lack of plurals, punctuation, definite articles, etc (which are all completely forgivable for a non-native speaker). What is more problematic is your rambling non-sequiters and your terrible metaphors.

"it has everything to do with your poor command of the English language."

No it as to do with your lack of understanding of the subject and news that goes with it. I discuss something which as no value directly for you hence you dont get what I am talking about and from what angle.

I understand it just fine. It's really not rocket science. Interesting that you find it should be so challenging to me. I have given you no reason to believe that. Your post is stocked with assumptions (I obviously rattled you). Your assumption that you discuss something which is "of no value dirctly to me" couldn't be more wrong.

"Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence."

I read what you wrote. Not what you tought.


Ahem...Look up 'futile' in the dictionary.

"you have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws."

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14633&comment_id=12...

http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=4417

" "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again... "

Nope , you said it dont make sense , not that it was poorly written or explained. Your not interested in what I have to say , or what is beeing said at all.


OK, listen carefully - IT MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE IT'S POORLY WRITTEN AND EXPLAINED. I'm sorry and I really don't want to be rude. I might be interested in what you had to say if you could make a cogent argument!

"There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post"

They dont like to be called and shown as stupid ;-)


Heh, there you go again. "Whoever disagrees with me is stupid."


No , again , your too stupid to understand it. Good example is the problem in Africa , the rest of the world seems to not care about it , but in reality most people have problem sustaining and supporting themself , let alone try and help more then they already do , there is also the fact that they think someone else is paid to take care of it , and its actually the case but those funds are diverted or missused.


Wow, way to go off at a tangent. Can you keep one consistent thought in your head? Next thing you'll be talking about your Aunt Mabel's arthiritis and thinking it's somehow relevant.

Most people dont understand computers and dont get how they work , if someone tells them they dont need the kernel to be Open they will believe them because they dont think that they personnaly use that kernel.

Most people don't care. Everyday users have no idea what open source is or how it affects them. They just want to get their work done. Normal people do not sit there recompiling and patching their kernels.

but I dont worry , you whont get it.

Don't worry, there's really nothing to get. Ah well, I won't resort to calling you stupid (repeatedly), just because you don't "get" it.

Reply Score: 4

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Psst! Chicken Blood, don't feed him.

Reply Score: 2

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Psst! Chicken Blood, don't feed him.

Ah, bugger. I've been trolled and didn't even realise it!

Thanks for allerting me to my folly :-)

Reply Score: 1

eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

I decided to fix your post for you.

-------------------------

"It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart."

Thats exactly why you don't get my comment, and I am not your sweetheart.

"it has everything to do with your poor command of the English language."

No, it has to do with your lack of understanding of the subject and news that goes with it. I discuss something which has no value directly for you. Hence you dont get what I am talking about and from what angle.

"Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence."

I read what you wrote, not what you thought.

"you have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws."

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14633&comment_id=12...

http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=4417

" "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again... "

Nope, you said it doesn't make sense, not that it was poorly written or explained. You're not interested in what I have to say, or what is beeing said at all.

"There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post"

They don't like to be called and shown as stupid ;-)

"(I'm wishing I didn't bother now). "

Now you know, don't worry I am nice enough to use my real name and not change it, I am really easy to skip over.

"It made NO SENSE."

No, again, you're too stupid to understand it. A good example is the problem in Africa. The rest of the world seems to not care aboutit , but in reality most people have problem sustaining and supporting themself let alone try and help more then they already do. There is also the fact that they think someone else is paid to take care of it, and its actually the case but those funds are diverted or missused.

Most people dont understand computers and don't get how they work. If someone tells them they dont need the kernel to be open they will believe them because they dont think that they personnaly use that kernel.

But I will not worry, you won't get it.

--------------------------------------

I also fixed the extra space you put before every comman, but there was no way to bold that change.

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Moulinneuf is a troll with a script that outputs Klingon. Here's how a conversation with Moulinneuf works:

Moulinneuf: This is traitor license , these are people lie , people I am expert .
Person: Mistake #1. Mistake #2. I can't read what you're saying.
Moulinneuf: No you one not know English , you wrong , you just don't know what is .
Person: No, you're the one that isn't speaking English. It's hard to tell if you're mentally handicapped or just a non-native speaker.
Moulinneuf: No my English perfect , you do not know English, I am the one that know what I talk about.

Just treat him like a kook on Usenet or a homeless person with schizophrenia on the street corner talking about the aliens. It's just not worth your time, unless you like playing with people that are intentionally being annoying.

Reply Score: 5

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

You can come to my parties if you want. Why hold grudges over Internet trolling?

Reply Score: 1

Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

First..not to be a dickhead... but i just cannot understand your post. Secondly... i use linux and os x ..and frankly, i could give a r@ts @$$ about having the source code. I am a user.. not a developer..not a programmer..not an admin. ok.. now people in the darwin community may be pissed.. and i understand that.. but do you seriously think that the majority of the already small community of mac users is out there recompiling mach??? Personally the last time i recompiled my kernel on my ibook was NEVER?.. ok.. thats it.. sorry if i was an ass.

Reply Score: 1

Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

I normally do not respond to posts like this. However yours was particulary ascerbic and elitist, so I will give it a try. First take note that most of what you have posted is gibberish.

"You need the klingon decoder ring in the get a life cereal boxes apparently."
What you don' seem to get is that I have a life. Being a professional chef and parent and student doesn't really leave me much time to recompile the kernel on my mac. Beyond that there is no necessity in the life of joe user to do so. NONE whatsoever.

"your someone who is giving freedom away"
Actually..no I am not. Look at the license that apple distributes their code under. other than mach and the gnu programs in the userland.. they can pretty much do what they want. I am no more taking away peoples freedom than you are enlightening them.

"It look to me like its 3 against 1 , wich make you the minority. "
Yet another rediculous and fallacious statement. To imply that as a regular user, I am in the minority of computer users when compared to devs, programmers, and admins is just false. I would say that if thats how it looks to you.. get glasses. You are not seeing things clearly. Mach is released under a berkley -style license.. not the gpl... where does that leave your statements Mr. Stallman?

"No thats not it , since they can close the kernel , they probably will target other things , pray , its not something you like doing."
Like what..reading my email? Riding my bicycle? You use the "slippery slope" argument, that assumes that if they do A than they will do B necessarily. Sorry.. fallacy. It implies no such thing other than from the squirming mass of your paranoia mind.
You than continue your personal attack by stating that i could not understand the feelings of the Darwin community. What kind of 37334ist arrogance gives you the right to doubt my compassion? You than follow it up by stating , after I apologize for sounding like flaming you that i am not an as.. but that I am stupid. Personally.. I'll take stupid compared to your arrogance.

Reply Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"However yours was particulary ascerbic and elitist"

I tought I was being really insulting , I guess my basic english is really not that good.

"First take note that most of what you have posted is gibberish. "

Wow , the new definition for gibberish in the making.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:gi...

"What you don' seem to get is that I have a life."

Yes , and those who compile kernel dont ...

"Being a professional ... kernel on my mac. "

Do you even know what a kernel is ? what recompiling the kernel is , what its for and how to do it , you must be one of those people who set there VCR - Tivo to record a show will they watch it ( Just insulting you here , I dont assume you really do it ).

"Beyond that there is no necessity in the life of joe user to do so. NONE whatsoever."

I could make a list , but I dont think that this particular list would apply to you in anyway , hence your not going to give a rats ass anyway.

"Actually..no I am not."

In reality you are.

"Look at the license ... much do what they want. "

Yes , blame the license , its always someone else fault isn'it.

"I am no more taking away peoples freedom than you are enlightening them. "

No you are actually agreing with an action that they did not use to do before , because you dont care and are not touched by it directly , removing the little freedom others had , I dont enlightnen people , I dont think I really inform them , I just make them think a little.

"Yet another rediculous and fallacious statement."

Redicoulous , another new word ...

"To imply that as a ... is just false. "

No because the majority of mac user are in : Education , graphic design and computer web programming.

" I would say that if thats how it looks to you.. get glasses. "

You say a lot of things.

"You are not seeing things clearly."

Actually , I do.

"Mach is released under a berkley -style license.."

What as the license to do with access to source code that they provided before and now stopped ? They removed a Freedom , they did not change the license wich is APSL and there EULA btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

"where does that leave your statements Mr. Stallman?"

I am worst then Stallman ;-)

"Like what..reading my email?"

Yes , they can decide to make it pay per email ...

"Riding my bicycle?"

You ride your bicyle on a Mac , I sur would love to see that.

"You use the "slippery slope" argument"

No , I use the they are removing something that they use to give before under false pretense among other things , because you personnaly and your friends who think like you let them , because you dont use it and dont give a rats ass.

"that assumes that if they do A than they will do B necessarily."

No , with Apple its not assuming , its just a question of when.

"Sorry.. fallacy. It implies no such thing other than from the squirming mass of your paranoia mind."

Yes my mind concoted how Apple act towards open Source code and what they do normally with it. If my mind had that much impact I would get myself brainwashed to do things the way I write about.

" You than continue ... the Darwin community. "

Its nothing personnal I dont give a rats Ass about people who dont care about other people when they are not affected by it.

"What kind of 37334ist arrogance gives you the right to doubt my compassion? "

The I dont give a rats ass , why should I give a rats ass about your right , wants or anything else ? NOTHING , I do to you what you did to me.

"after I apologize for sounding like flaming you that i am not an ass.."

Your an ass , but not for your comment , for your actions , approval of Apple conduct in this affair.

"I'll take stupid compared to your arrogance."

Its not really your choice to make. What you call arrogance is more rage of having something more taken away from me because real thief who dont care dont pay and do whatever they whant are used as an excuse.

"Being a professional chef"

One would think that you woul ddo a parralel between source code and recipe , but no , you must have all original recipe ...

Reply Score: 0

piracy?
by Morin on Wed 17th May 2006 15:34 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

... and they really really really don't intend to add features to the kernel which they don't want their competitors to clone?

Reply Score: 5

Just to let you know...
by paulicat on Wed 17th May 2006 15:37 UTC
paulicat
Member since:
2005-08-26

That all cracked/hacked versions of osx that work on greybox pc's all used the original (from osx) mach kernel.
There was never any need to recompile the kernel to get it to boot on ordinary pc's.

Reply Score: 5

Speculation?!
by mattboy99 on Wed 17th May 2006 15:44 UTC
mattboy99
Member since:
2005-07-06

THIS IS ALL SPECULATION! Oh Geez, come on now... Until I hear an official quote from inside the loop, this is just rubbish!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Speculation?!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th May 2006 15:47 UTC in reply to "Speculation?!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Until I hear an official quote from inside the loop, this is just rubbish!

If this is rubbish, than why is one unable to download the sources for the Intel version of OSX, from the day it came out?

Mmm? Oh, and using caps does not magically turn this into speculation.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Speculation?!
by kfet on Wed 17th May 2006 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Speculation?!"
kfet Member since:
2005-07-06

> Mmm? Oh, and using caps does not magically turn this into speculation.

Don't dismiss mattboy99's post too quickly just because of the caps - it IS pure speculation, the rant by the InfoWorld reporter points to only one source - Apple, and only two words coming from them: "in flux". That's all. No other sources of information, no "pirates", no "fear", and not a single word about a decision not to publish the source code.

I say wait and see, as already pointed out - Apple has had large delays in the past before posting sources.

Reply Score: 5

And now?
by grep on Wed 17th May 2006 15:47 UTC
grep
Member since:
2006-04-22

I don't get all the rage. The kernel on Mac OS X is compiled and built to run on Mac hardware. What's the need to go recompile? So you can "roll-your-own" mac? Get a clue people. You don't need the source. And even if you had the source, what would you do with it?

Just my 2c.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And now?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th May 2006 15:49 UTC in reply to "And now?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Get a clue people. You don't need the source. And even if you had the source, what would you do with it?

Look further than your own nose-- there's this whole world beyond your own desk. OSX' kernel contains lots of desktop-specific stuff that performance freaks (i.e. scientists) will consider bloat. Previously, they were able to remove this bloat. Now they cannot anymore.

And those people will not like that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: And now?
by grep on Wed 17th May 2006 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE: And now?"
grep Member since:
2006-04-22

Scientists use Mac OS X? Dude I ownded a Mac Mini and sold it as they anounced their switch to Intel. I'm amazed as to why a scientist would want Mac OS X? I don't see how proprietry software would ineterest a scientist.

And yes I am an Open Source fanatic, if you wanted I'm sure you could tell I use Linux?

( michael@valhalla :: ~ ) uname -a
Linux valhalla.pluto.co.za 2.6.16-1.2111_FC5 #1 Thu May 4 21:16:58 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
( michael@valhalla :: ~ )

I just don't see what all the ooh-ing and aah-ing is about. They are a proprietry company just Like Microsoft. It was bound to happen someday.

Edited 2006-05-17 16:13

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: And now?
by ronaldst on Wed 17th May 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And now?"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Why would a scientist insist on open source OSes? O_o

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: And now?
by devurandom on Wed 17th May 2006 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And now?"
devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06

why a scientist would want Mac OS X?

Because it's easy to use (not all scientists are computer geeks) and it can run many Unix apps used by scientists. I personally run Linux too, but I know of many labs using MacOS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And now?
by DrillSgt on Wed 17th May 2006 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE: And now?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Look further than your own nose-- there's this whole world beyond your own desk. OSX' kernel contains lots of desktop-specific stuff that performance freaks (i.e. scientists) will consider bloat. Previously, they were able to remove this bloat. Now they cannot anymore.

And those people will not like that."


Valid point, with the exception of one thing. People in the scientific community rarely use OS X. Instead they use one of the other Unixes which they do not have the source code to anyway, or if they need the source use one of the BSD's or Linux. OS X, as Apple has always been, is geared towards the graphics designer, not the hobbyist, not the home user. There is a reason why thier market share is so low. This is not a slam or a troll, is just a fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: And now?
by godawful on Wed 17th May 2006 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And now?"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

and what in the world makes it geared towards graphic designers?

seriously, what does os x contain that doesn't aid the overall experience of all users, but only graphic designers?

Reply Score: 1

RE: And now?
by Znark on Wed 17th May 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "And now?"
Znark Member since:
2006-01-09

There is a good example of why an open source Mac OS X kernel would be useful. Xen requires patching an OS to work with the paravirtualization. This needs to be done for both the guest and host kernels. The copy protection in Mac OS X may prevent it for ever being a guest, but it would work as a host for virtualizaing other OSes. The XNU kernel isn't open source on Intel, which means only Apple can do the modifications.

Similarly, making Mac OS X work well with VMware or true virtualization requires writing drivers for the virtualized devices. This is much harder when the source is not available.

While Mac OS X has good support for the hardware included in the Intel Macs, its hardware support for other hardware is weak. This will be important when the desktop Intel Macs are released and people can put addon cards in them. If the source was available, it would be easier for people to write drivers or fix buggy ones.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: And now?
by grep on Wed 17th May 2006 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: And now?"
grep Member since:
2006-04-22

Yes which I understand. But this is Apple and that's not what they want to do. That's not where they see the future of Mac OS X going clearly. Being a proprietry company they don't care about projects like Xen, they have Boot Camp now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And now?
by Sphinx on Wed 17th May 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "And now?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

even if you had the source, what would you do with it?

Some of us got skills.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And now?
by grep on Wed 17th May 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: And now?"
grep Member since:
2006-04-22

"Some of us got skills."

/*
Lol
*/

Oh my... Which is why Apple would do this. Don't you realise that your supa-dupa kernel is just right for your Intel Mac? So unless you are a pirate and intend to make your own rip-off or write your own device drivers then clearly you are against Apple's way of business.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: And now?
by Sphinx on Thu 18th May 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And now?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

it all started when my mac didn't come with a hard disk formatting tool...

Reply Score: 1

...
by Mitarai on Wed 17th May 2006 15:48 UTC
Mitarai
Member since:
2005-07-28

I say, is their right, and they are free to aply it, don't like it? cry a river.

Reply Score: 1

pirates?
by PipoDeClown on Wed 17th May 2006 15:52 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

article without login
http://ww6.infoworld.com/products/print_friendly.jsp?link=/article/...

lol apple isnt that exclusive in hardware anymore and now they think its pirates that hijack "their" hardware with other software?

i first thought about TPA, DRM and more of that jazz...

Reply Score: 1

Scientists?
by snowflake on Wed 17th May 2006 15:52 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

>that performance freaks (i.e. scientists)

Scientists? I thought scientists were people who asked questions about how the universe worked, not performance freaks?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Scientists?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th May 2006 15:54 UTC in reply to "Scientists?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Scientists? I thought scientists were people who asked questions about how the universe worked, not performance freaks?

Yes, and how did you think they answered those questions? By using abacusses?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Scientists?
by rockwell on Wed 17th May 2006 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Scientists?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

actually, most answers to "questions about the universe" are absolute guesses ... "how did the universe begin" ... "how old is the earth" ... etc.

Scientists simply have theories about these questions. Not answers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Scientists?
by tristan on Wed 17th May 2006 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Scientists?"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

actually, most answers to "questions about the universe" are absolute guesses ... "how did the universe begin" ... "how old is the earth" ... etc.

Scientists simply have theories about these questions. Not answers.


True, but at least their theories are formed by looking at the evidence and trying to find a model that fits that evidence. That's how science works.

It makes a lot more sense than believing that the world was created in six days, just because that's what someone wrote down 3000 years ago.

But that's a whole other debate...

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Scientists?
by rockwell on Wed 17th May 2006 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scientists?"
RE[5]: Scientists?
by Cloudy on Thu 18th May 2006 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Scientists?"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

actually, it doesn't make any more sense at all ... science, also, has had 3,000 years to come up with answers ... and so far, nothing but theories.

Sigh. "Science" is a relatively recent invention, probably not much more than 400 years old.

And yes, scientists have more than theories.

Quantum Mechanics is a "theory", without which we wouldn't have modern electronics. It can give you some very precise answers, which is why we can stuff a billion transistors on a small piece of silicon and get a working computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Scientists?
by AnalystX on Thu 18th May 2006 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Scientists?"
AnalystX Member since:
2006-01-11

You must not be familiar with Alexandria (est. 332 B.C.) - the world capital of mathematics, science, and engineering. Also, Egyptian alchemy is considered to be as much as 6000 years old.

400 years is only representative of Early Modern science, not science as a whole.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Scientists?
by Cloudy on Thu 18th May 2006 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Scientists?"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm familiar with Alexandria. I'm not familiar with anyone aware of Chinese or Arabic history calling it the "world capital" of mathematics, science, or engineering.

Philosophers of science tend to agree that what is commonly called "science" did not begin with the Greeks, but had to wait for the decline of introspection and the rise of observation.

In the West, that would coincide with the renaiassance.

Mathematics, by the way, is, contrary to common belief, not a science.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Scientists?
by Cloudy on Thu 18th May 2006 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scientists?"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

True, but at least their theories are formed by looking at the evidence and trying to find a model that fits that evidence. That's how science works.

No, despite what we teach undergraduates, that's not how science works, although some parts of it, sometimes, work that way.

Reply Score: 1

eheh Sly Jobs... this is laughable...
by TBPrince on Wed 17th May 2006 15:54 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's easy as 1...2...3...

In other news (some weeks ago) we learned that one of main kernel developers left Apple. Then we know OS X kernel is its weakest point. (Someone is even reporting Apple already has an agreement to license Vista... but maybe this is just bs...).

So things are simple: Apple is willing to change OS X kernel and wishes not to release it. So let's blame those pirates... smart marketing move... ;-)

But let's not buy it...

Reply Score: 1

MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Someone is even reporting that they saw a flying pig yesterday.

Reply Score: 2

not suprised at all...
by buff on Wed 17th May 2006 15:59 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

If it is genuinely true that Apple is not contributing to Darwin then I am not suprised at all. Apple is not an open source company. It has always desired strict control over its intellectual property. That is why they didn't use Linux as a base but chose BSD instead so they weren't legally obligated to return source code to the community. Apple just wanted the BSD kernel and architecture since their previous OS had reached a point where it was unmaintainable. It is not about the community for Apple it is about the money.

Reply Score: 4

Should have ZERO effect
by deathshadow on Wed 17th May 2006 16:07 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

On 99.99% of Apple users, so I REALLY don't see the issue. Hell, I'd not be surprised if having Darwin OPEN was an expense for them with negligable gains.

I'm always amazed at the people who consider open source the be-all end-all; Frankly, the average joe on the street could really give a rats ass one way or the other.

Apple's Mac division is in the BUSINESS (uh oh, dirty oss hippie buzzkill alert) of selling Hardware running their OS. NOT selling the OS to run on other platforms - NOT selling their hardware to run other operating systems (despite some fanboy claims to the contrary). ANY variation from that is bad for their Ikea-style business plan of 'being different'.

I'm no fan of Apple, but I can UNDERSTAND their modus operandi. Control the hardware, control the software, to give a consistant experience. Giving away a version of the core to your primary OS for free to be run on any machine would NOT be high up on the list of priorities for a company making their money on 'the complete package'.

Hiruki: I saw this coming months ago...

Reply Score: 5

This is the same as
by SlackerJack on Wed 17th May 2006 16:18 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Opensource virus checkers and firewalls are less secure, give me a break because it's just a crap reason to close up there OS.

Reply Score: 2

Malarkey!
by Quoth_the_Raven on Wed 17th May 2006 16:58 UTC
Quoth_the_Raven
Member since:
2005-11-15

"Stripped of openness, it no longer possesses the quality that elevated Linux to its status as the second most popular commercial OS."

What a load!

Linux is "popular" because it's essentially free. Windows is "popular" because it's the default OS on the vast majority of purchased PCs.

Neither can hold a candle to OS X, open or not.

Reply Score: 2

wow
by historyb on Wed 17th May 2006 17:12 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow from the first page of comments which were mostly all OS Staff I thought we were being let in on an office meeting. ;) ;)

Reply Score: 1

Excuses Excuses
by mattst88 on Wed 17th May 2006 17:35 UTC
mattst88
Member since:
2005-08-27

Clever of them to use piracy as the reason to close the sources.

Excuses, Excuses...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Excuses Excuses
by JohnOne on Wed 17th May 2006 17:44 UTC in reply to "Excuses Excuses"
JohnOne Member since:
2006-03-25

Open source is the excuse of the piracy.
This is the real excuse. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Excuses Excuses
by ma_d on Wed 17th May 2006 22:29 UTC in reply to "Excuses Excuses"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That irritated me too. It's sort of like "I'm about to kill you because you stole my wife from me." No, you're about to kill him because you desire to kill him; you desire to kill him because you're angry with him over stealing your wife.

So here. What Apple means to say is:
"We're not letting you build your own kernel for OS X because if we did pirates could use that ability to run it on top of non-Apple hardware. And people would do it because we don't have a particularly good kernel anyway, it's everything on top they want!"

Pirates raid ships in the Caribbean; they don't do anything with violating intellectual property.

Edited 2006-05-17 22:29

Reply Score: 1

Well, this is stupid.
by kadymae on Wed 17th May 2006 18:04 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

It's a shim sham.

Closing the code with this excuse is stupid, as it does nothing to kill the pirated copies out there or prevent people folding code from the Darwin project into it.

Apple should just be honest and say, "Look, we're closing the source because we feel like it, and we have the legal right to do so. Have a nice day."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well, this is stupid.
by tomcat on Wed 17th May 2006 21:02 UTC in reply to "Well, this is stupid."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

It's a shim sham.

Um, no, it's not.

Closing the code with this excuse is stupid, as it does nothing to kill the pirated copies out there or prevent people folding code from the Darwin project into it.

Closing source code would never completely eliminate piracy. But Apple doesn't need to be absolutely effective in order to be practically effective.

Reply Score: 0

Apple the Open Source Company
by segedunum on Wed 17th May 2006 18:10 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I laugh at people who come along and say that Apple uses open source software, or they're somehow an open source company and that makes them more touchy-feely in the eyes of some people. This has actually been going on for some time with Darwin, where Apple were quite keen on pulling what they could from the open source community to get OS X up and running, but saw no value in giving in return and keeping that community going once they'd got what they wanted.

The only reason why software like Cups and Samba gets used in Mac OS is simply because Apple don't have the developers and resources, and can't be bothered, to come up with their own implementations.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple the Open Source Company
by Mitarai on Wed 17th May 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "Apple the Open Source Company"
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

Mac OS is simply because Apple don't have the developers and resources

I billionary company doesn't have the resources?

Now I laugh at your face,

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I billionary company doesn't have the resources?

Now I laugh at your face,


An 'I billionary company'? I don't know what one of those is. Mind you, I laugh at your face all the time.

Developing your own version of every bit of software you'll need in your own OS is an incredibly complex and time consuming business. Microsoft just about manage it, but they throw incredible amounts of resources at it no one has and they have a serious 'not invented here' syndrome. Even then, there have been bits of BSD code liberally sprinkled around.

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.

Reply Score: 0

Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

typo read "A billionary company".

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.

oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine, try harder please.

Reply Score: 1

nivenh Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.
...
oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine, try harder please.

its more about putting your money where it will be maximized. the money put into the ipod generates huge profits. why would it be a sound investment to spend x dollars to write a printing engine from the ground up when there's a free one to do exactly what you want? same with samba.

Reply Score: 1

Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

Then the reason is not te lack of resources.

Edited 2006-05-17 21:10

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine

Well, the iPod makes money - directly.

It's not just a printing engine though - it's integration into Windows Networks (Samba), networking, integration, testing and replicating an awful lot of stuff already done. A huge amount of work that's just not feasible, because given where their revenue comes from it's a wasted effort.

try harder please.

Don't need to. That's the way it is.

Reply Score: 1

Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

Could be true but your statement has another failure, you argu that Apple doesn't have the resources but neather CUPS nor SAMBA had the resources at the beginning to be build (and actually they still doesn't have the resources Apple have), so is not about the resources, but again, there is no worse blind man that the one who doesn't want to see, nice but try harder.

Reply Score: 1

yaaaaaaaaaaawn
by mini-me on Wed 17th May 2006 19:29 UTC
mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

...in other news, flame wars ravege on....

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by Mellin on Wed 17th May 2006 20:41 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

why not attack the idiots that pirate software ?

Reply Score: 1

Apple is a business, people...
by tomcat on Wed 17th May 2006 21:01 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

They're not about hugging trees or saving the universe. They succeed when they provide value to their customers and shareholders. Apple may have dabbled in open source in order to gain some cachet in the FOSS community but, in the end, it's a business. It's not about serving the freeware-driven community. Anybody who disagrees with what Apple is doing simply has no appreciation for their business model -- you know, the model that brings in the capital that keeps Apple cranking out new innovative products.

Personally, I don't blame Jobs. He doesn't make much money on OSX, itself. It's the hardware and secondary software that brings in $$$. However, when people use Apple's source code against the company -- to work around hardware/software DRM and thereby make OS X run on non-Apple hardware, then Apple loses. Anybody with even half a brain can see why Apple would not want to hand the keys to developers to make its platform run on alternate hardware.

Reply Score: 1

This is Journalism???
by atezun on Wed 17th May 2006 21:01 UTC
atezun
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, if it's not too much trouble can I get a source? This so called "journalist" writes a one page article that has no one quoted at all, he doesn't even claim where he got the informastion from; instead, he just goes right into the conclusion that OS X is now proprietary, which for the record it has always been. Darwin on the other hand is open source and I have heard the source hasn't been published in awhile, but as previous comments have already mentioned there have been delays in source code being published in the past. I've seen blogs do more research than this! Thom please don't post articles like this in the future, they're misleading and totally baseless.

Edited 2006-05-17 21:06

Reply Score: 3

check before posting.
by soapdog on Wed 17th May 2006 21:04 UTC
soapdog
Member since:
2005-07-25

For the love of God, Thom, please check your sources before posting. Since the first launch of the first Intel Based Mac, apple closed the xnu sources for the x86 platform. This is so last year...

Posting this now is just FUD and sensasionalism. Also the only part that is closed is the kernel (xnu) all the other parts of APSL initiative are working.

Reply Score: 1

apple love
by happycamper on Wed 17th May 2006 21:37 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is a capitalist like all the corporations. they only want to make the big bucks at any cost. they will try to cuddle up the consumer like a women who wants a nice meal and later dump you once they get it. they saw they were going to lose sales,money in the hands of pirates, instead of working out a solution so it would not affect the users in any way. instead they closed the kernel and did not give a hoot about their fan/user base.

Reply Score: 1

On the matter of Basic English
by kadymae on Wed 17th May 2006 22:00 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

Difficulties of communicating in a written language not one's mother tongue aside* ....

quoth "youknowwhoneuf": In order for something to not make sense the very basic is that you understand the language in which it is written , you seem to not be able to understand basic english.

Errors include:

1)Missing comma. Should be: "In order for something not to make sense,"

2)Missing noun. "The very basic" The very basic what? We have an adjective phrase (very basic) that modifies nothing.

3)Improperly constructed clause. "the very basic is that" This clause has NO SUBJECT.

4)Possible missing word ("not") leads to contradiction in terms. "In order for something to not make sense the very basic is that you understand the language in which it is written " As written, this means that in order to not understand something, one must understand the language in which it was written. A statement that makes NO sense.

5)Comma splice. "in which it is written , you seem to not be able to understand basic english." Should be: "in which it is written ; you seem to not be able to understand basic english." or "in which it is written . You seem to not be able to understand basic english.

---

The problem here is not a failure on the part of the reader to comprend basic english. The failure here lies in the writer's failure to provide some basic parts of English syntax and grammar.

---

* I have nothing but kind thoughts for the Quebequois and Germans who were patient with me as I struggled with their native tongues. (I shudder to think of how I must have mangled French; I studied German in High School and University.)

---

As an aside, for anybody looking to improve their English grammar, I highly reccomend Grammatically Correct by Anne Stilman. It explains the rule, the exceptions to the rule, the grey areas of the rule, and is loaded with examples to illustrate the rule in action.

Reply Score: 1

RE: On the matter of Basic English
by vitae on Wed 17th May 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "On the matter of Basic English"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Now Kady, what were you saying about feeding the troll... hmmm?

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Now Kady, what were you saying about feeding the troll... hmmm?

Did I reply directly to Mollinneuf? No. Had I wished to reply directly to his posts, I would have done so. ;)

I just took an example of his prose and showed how it missed some basic components of english grammar and syntax and illustrated for all of us how this makes things unclear and the importance of paying attention to such matters when we try to express our points on this forum.

I also reccomended for anybody interested in the matter a very easy to use and comprehensive guide to English grammar.

Reply Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Actually, as a non-native speaker, I appreciate the tips and the book recommendation. I do need to improve my English skills anyway. :-)

Reply Score: 1

does it matter?
by broken_symlink on Wed 17th May 2006 22:50 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

why does it matter if the source for the ppc version is still open. someone could just port it to x86. if they want it that bad they'll do it.

Reply Score: 1

Wow.
by miguel on Wed 17th May 2006 23:09 UTC
miguel
Member since:
2005-07-27

So many posts.

So many emotions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow.
by segedunum on Thu 18th May 2006 11:40 UTC in reply to "Wow."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So many posts.

So many emotions.


Well, it is Apple they're discussing! Throw the words 'proprietary' and 'open source' in there and - woooahhh.....

Reply Score: 1

Clarification needed
by kernelpanicked on Wed 17th May 2006 23:44 UTC
kernelpanicked
Member since:
2006-02-01

I could honestly care less about Mac OSX / Darwin but for all the trolls who keep blaming this on the BSD license, you really need to check your facts. XNU was never released under the BSD license. It was licensed under the APSL. Had it been licensed under the BSD license you would have been happy to know that Apple could have only closed any future versions of XNU; the already released code would have still been open source and freely available until the end of eternity. There seems to be a misconception that the BSD license allows you to take your code and run home with it, but this just isn't the case.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Clarification needed
by kadymae on Thu 18th May 2006 02:00 UTC in reply to "Clarification needed"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

The BSD license allows another license such as the ASPL to be layered over it.

That is, you can obtain BSD code, and so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD licence (which is little more than displaying the appropriate copyright notice) you can do whatever the hell you like with the code.

Seriously, boot your mac into single user mode and you will see the required copyright notice. Look at XNU and you will see the required copyright notice because XNU is a BSD derivative.

The reason Apple released XNU under the ASPL is because the BSD license allows for this.

The BSD license is like the super-sculpty of licenses.

There seems to be a misconception that the BSD license allows you to take your code and run home with it, but this just isn't the case.

Uh, no, that is the case ... so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD license. (Which is so easy to stay on the right side of that you'd have to be incredibly frelling stupid to violate it.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Clarification needed
by kernelpanicked on Thu 18th May 2006 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Clarification needed"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

"The BSD license allows another license such as the ASPL to be layered over it.

That is, you can obtain BSD code, and so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD licence (which is little more than displaying the appropriate copyright notice) you can do whatever the hell you like with the code."

All very true, except there is very little BSD code in XNU

"Seriously, boot your mac into single user mode and you will see the required copyright notice. Look at XNU and you will see the required copyright notice because XNU is a BSD derivative."

I don't have a mac and most likely never will, although I'm sure you would see the BSD copyrights. That is why they exist.

"The reason Apple released XNU under the ASPL is because the BSD license allows for this."

OK

"The BSD license is like the super-sculpty of licenses."

Yeah, whatever that means.

"There seems to be a misconception that the BSD license allows you to take your code and run home with it, but this just isn't the case."

"Uh, no, that is the case ... so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD license. (Which is so easy to stay on the right side of that you'd have to be incredibly frelling stupid to violate it.)"

And here is where you went terribly wrong. How does Apple not posting the source for the next version of XNU automatically make the previously released code dissapear? Why do some open source advocates these days assume that just because software is released under an open license, they have some god given right to every future patch for that software that might come along?

Edited 2006-05-18 02:45

Reply Score: 1

opendarwin and Gnu/Darwin will live!
by Wemgadge on Thu 18th May 2006 01:33 UTC
Wemgadge
Member since:
2005-07-02

@Moulinneuf - I agree that this article was written with a considerably "anti-opensource" bias. It is a shame really considering that speculation aside, the closing of the kernel also has to do with other factors like building proprietary drivers into future kernel builds etc.

@GENERAL RANT (MY 2 CENTS):

Well, as long as this page is available, with its respective links to the previous sources:

http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/

It will be possible to compile the "last" open version of the darwin kernel. The source is already out in the wild. It will probably cause for GNU/Darwin and OpenDarwin to fork away from OSX, but there will still be compatibilities. And ironically, those same hackers that this article refers to would probably be technically able to wrap the newest OSX around an older kernel. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Reply Score: 1

Who cares!
by sigzero on Thu 18th May 2006 01:48 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

I would guess that less than 1% of Mac owners would even care about this.

Reply Score: 0

RE: opendarwin and Gnu/Darwin will live!
by Wemgadge on Thu 18th May 2006 02:17 UTC
Wemgadge
Member since:
2005-07-02

I actually meant to say "anti-antiopensource" :-)

Reply Score: 1

Speculation is not fact
by Marcellus on Thu 18th May 2006 05:53 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

So many flames based on practically groundless speculation from an infoworld editor.
Apple has, as stated by a few others, often had delays in the release of the source. "In flux" does not mean the source has been closed.

It may simply be that they want to root out known (to apple) security holes and bugs before actually releasing it.

Too many here is taking the article for fact... or they don't really take it for fact, but take it as an excuse to flame about why GPL is so much better than the license that Apple have used.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: not suprised at all...
by kaiwai on Thu 18th May 2006 06:46 UTC
Surprised...
by Blackhouse on Thu 18th May 2006 07:50 UTC
Blackhouse
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm really surprised that this causes such an uproar. It's not like any of previous versions of MacOS (OS7,8,9) were opensource.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Surprised...
by stone on Thu 18th May 2006 08:40 UTC in reply to "Surprised..."
stone Member since:
2005-07-06

"I'm really surprised that this causes such an uproar. It's not like any of previous versions of MacOS (OS7,8,9) were opensource."

its not like macos 7/8/9 was based on an opensource kernel that made them a shitload of money without them returning anything to the opensource community - thats what is happening now.

apple is so much worse than ex microsoft when it comes to suing randomly, "protecting" their investments, "borrowing" from opensource ect.

at the very least they should have the decency and return contributions to darwin when they based their entire operatingsystem on it.

/stone

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Surprised...
by Ford Prefect on Thu 18th May 2006 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Surprised..."
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

First, they contributed back and this is true no matter if they plan to continue contribution or not.

Next, the writers of the originate software decided themselves to forgo return contributions, otherwise they would've used another license.

Reply Score: 1

RE [2]: not suprised at all...
by kaiwai on Thu 18th May 2006 09:23 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Typical of the osnews.com spammers - when you hate an opinion, no matter how valid or well thought out, points are removed; little wonder some of the best contributors to this site no longer frequent it.

Reply Score: 0

RE [2]: not suprised at all...
by segedunum on Thu 18th May 2006 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE [2]: not suprised at all..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Typical of the osnews.com spammers - when you hate an opinion, no matter how valid or well thought out, points are removed; little wonder some of the best contributors to this site no longer frequent it.

Yer, it's sad. People have opposing opinions (and cntroversial ones), yes, and providing they all try and come up with something itemised and explain why they think the way they do, and then other people come in and quote and say why they think that's wrong, you have a heated but healthy discussion because there's something in it

Unfortunately, when you get on to what seems to be a sensitive subject for some people (and Apple definitely seems to be right up there) everything becomes a mess. You even get comments modded down without anyone even replying to them simply because some people just don't like what's being written and don't know how to reply to it. Sad. Very sad.

On to your comment, I agree in many ways. Bad communication and trying to protect their products even further is what this is about. Unfortunately, Apple don't seem to realise that open source projects have helped them out in a lot of ways with Mach, Darwin, Cups, GCC, Samba and KHTML and Webcore. Apple don't seem to realise that they need to contribute back to keep that process going, and not just because a license obligates them to. They depend on that software. What happens when Apple needs to change direction again, there's an open source project that's perfect but people are just not inclined to help them in any way? You can't benefit on the one hand and not contribute on the other.

Reply Score: 4

RE [2]: not suprised at all...
by Mitarai on Thu 18th May 2006 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE [2]: not suprised at all..."
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

You can't benefit on the one hand and not contribute on the other.

Why not? if the license allow it.

Reply Score: 1

this really says it all :
by Dekkard on Sat 20th May 2006 05:08 UTC
Dekkard
Member since:
2006-01-07

Number of Comments: 556 (65 voted up, 228 voted down)
the people have spoken. ;)

Reply Score: 1

This "news" is straight troll bait.
by kefkathecruel on Mon 22nd May 2006 01:47 UTC
kefkathecruel
Member since:
2006-01-17

ooooo!
oooo!
ooo!
linux is the only open choice!!!
ooooo! ooooo! oooo!

speculation at best ... downright lies at worst

Reply Score: 1

bsd = no freedom guarentee.
by graigsmith on Mon 22nd May 2006 06:05 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

this is why the bsd license sucks. it's worthless as a guarentee of freedom.

gpl guarentee's freedom, which is why i like it.

Reply Score: 1