Linked by weildish on Sat 24th Jan 2009 22:44 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 345561
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I guess, at best
by wakeupneo on Mon 26th Jan 2009 16:04
in reply to "RE[3]: I guess, at best"
whats' so nice of them? Khtml was there and could cut down dev time and costs, there is no "niceness" behind their reasons for using it.
'Nice of them' with respect to them knowing that they'd be contributing their own code to the community from the get-go. They could have chosen a proprietary path (Opera's Presto for example) and contributed nothing.
Nice, like their contribution of the mach kernel. Apple provides sources of their underlying bsd system, but they don't seem to do so happily.
Only recently has webkit been easily accessible (due to complaints). Before people had to jump through hoops in order to contribute to webkit.
There is nothing wrong with using open source to reduce product development time or cost, but don't mistake it for niceness. Apple to me seems even more incompatible with open source than microsoft, with all their innate desire for secrecy despite the fact that they employ open source tech extensively.
Edited 2009-01-26 17:49 UTC




Member since:
2008-03-17
whats' so nice of them? Khtml was there and could cut down dev time and costs, there is no "niceness" behind their reasons for using it.