Home > Mac OS X > Tiger Server 10.4: Open source made easyTiger Server 10.4: Open source made easy Eugenia Loli 2005-05-02 Mac OS X 26 CommentsContinuing with its open-source theme, Apple on Friday released Mac OS X Tiger Server v10.4. The new server software relies on new open-source projects to implement many of its new features, including an iChat server and mail enhancements. About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 26 Comments 2005-05-02 9:02 pm Apple has one? Oh good, then they won’t mind porting over Quicktime and iTunes to Linux… 2005-05-02 9:03 pm I currently run Mac OS X 10.3 Server and my workstations utilize OS X 10.3 and one OS X 10.4. The workstations have a network home folder (assigned via the server). After receiving my copy of Tiger in the mail, I quickly installed it on a workstation to see how it cooperates with 10.3 Server. Although everything seems to run efficiently, only my local drives and my home network mount are Spotlight capable. Excluded are the handful of network shares that are automatically mounted based on the user logging in. If I upgrade my server to 10.4, will this be fixed, or are network shares (excluding home folders) exempt from Spotlight’s technology. 2005-05-02 9:10 pm Not if they have to use that sucky GPL they won’t… 2005-05-02 9:12 pm They don’t. They could use the BSDL or make up their license like Sun did if they want. 2005-05-02 10:39 pm What does Open Source have to do with porting your software to Linux? They are two seperate things. Apple porting software to linux has nothing to do with porting their closed-source application (QT, iTunes) to an open source Operating System. 2005-05-02 10:49 pm “They are two seperate things.”Because they claim to be Open Source friendly, but they port applications to Windows that they won’t port to Linux or BSD. Why? 2005-05-02 11:58 pm They ARE open source friendly because they DO create projects for the open source community.They don’t have to create a Linux version of their software to associate themselves with the “friedly” term.Holyofholies, its comments like yours that make this site harder and harder to visit. Stop trolling. 2005-05-03 12:01 am > Because they claim to be Open Source friendly, but they port applications to Windows that they won’t port to Linux or BSD. Why?Choose your favorite answer:* Because they developed the code all by themselves, and it’s theirs.* Because there are quite a few more Windows users than Linux/BSD.* Because they have something against you, personally. 2005-05-03 12:03 am because the man hours required to do that would not be worth it?apple is in the business of making money, the amount spent on porting itunes and quicktime wouldn’t be made up with sales to apple. most likely, im guessing.. but then im not a CEO. 2005-05-03 12:30 am Apple is not open source friendly, because they take and only give back the absolute minimum. Just look at the recent Konqueror vs. Safari discussions (They even wrote WebCore, a KHTML wrapper, so they don’t have to disclose the Safari sources). The Darwin sources are often published a lot later (sometimes even months) than the equivalent Mac OS X versions. Basically all Apple file formats are proprietary, non-Apple implementations are reverse engineered, not based on documentation from Apple. They sue everyone who gives away some any rumors about new Apple products, while having the ignorance to publish an application with a name that is already used by an open source product (Dashboard).So while Apple are surely playing fair according to the license, their general policy is very restrictive and aggressive (think licensing, think legal threats, think DRM) and definitely not “open source friendly”.If you want “open source made easy”, choose Ubuntu. 2005-05-03 12:47 am Just ask the khtml developers and all those linuxers with ipods. 2005-05-03 1:20 am Although Linux is open source, it is not the entire domain of open source. You could have absolutely nothing to do with Linux and stay as far away from the GPL as possible and still be recognized for your open source contributions (like Theo).I don’t understand why so many people resent Apple for incorporating open source into their business model successfully. Open source advocates should be happy that this is the case. Perhaps it all goes along the lines of the GPL mindset, that your own project is somehow weakened when somebody else uses your code. If people become accustomed to using open source technology on MacOSX, it would only make them more comfortable migrating to a fully open source platform later on. Also, with greater exposure, developer interest can be increased. All this “you’re using our code and not giving enough back to us” attitude is extremely short-sighted. 2005-05-03 2:00 am It’s good that apple uses open-source, but they are not open-source friendly. Apple is an open-source opportunist. they have a short-term technology vision, and a long-term lifestyle/brand vision.It’s apple who is short-sighted by not getting over themselves and opening up their code. They’re just hurting themselves. It’s too bad because they could be a powerhouse. (I think they missed that boat a few times in their history). It’s futile to complain about their open source policies. They’ve shown their colors. Let them be and support true open-source efforts instead.OS X was showing promise but Tiger seems to be 95% gizmos and fluff. 2005-05-03 3:10 am they just released the source for darwin 8.0 that is in 10.4… and that just came out friday… 2005-05-03 4:21 am Apple is not open source friendly, because they take and only give back the absolute minimum. Just look at the recent Konqueror vs. Safari discussions (They even wrote WebCore, a KHTML wrapper, so they don’t have to disclose the Safari sources). The Darwin sources are often published a lot later (sometimes even months) than the equivalent Mac OS X versions.First off, I ask you to name an example of the devs getting upset at Apple side from the KHTML devs? (Who it seems depending on which dev you talk to seem to largely be more upset at people expecting them to be able to just magically integrate changes.) Not to mention God forbid Apple keep their browser and rendering engines seperate, I mean who ever heard of doing that these days?Secondly, I’d like you point out a case where the Darwin version came out “months” after the OS X version. For the record Darwin 8.0 came out today to match Tiger. Last I checked 4 days (including a weekend) isn’t much of a month, let alone months. 2005-05-03 5:26 am complaining about apple and khtml has become the new “macs are too expensive”.. and whilst it is true that apples fixes and changes to khtml could be more friendly, they aren’t required to be.. but.. surprise surprise.. since the khtml developers brought up the issue, david hyatt (safari lead) has replied to see how they can make things work betterhttp://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/have a read 2005-05-03 6:31 am I heard Novel/Suse will port Evolution to Windows but not Mac OS. 2005-05-03 7:48 am It has already been ported to OS X: http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/evolution 2005-05-03 7:54 am “david hyatt (safari lead) has replied to see how they can make things work better ”Just checking in small fixes into KHTMLs cvs tree would be a good start. After that, they could stop sending 6MB diff files and explanations such as “RADAR 16656 fixed” for patches smaller then that.They have taken a lot of good code, they *should* but do not *have* to give good code back. It just shows that Apple really is concerned about one thing only…the bottomline. 2005-05-03 9:00 am Man, don’t even know where to start…Apple is not open source friendly, because they take and only give back the absolute minimum. Just look at the recent Konqueror vs. Safari discussions (They even wrote WebCore, a KHTML wrapper, so they don’t have to disclose the Safari sources). I say bull, because WebCore is the name of ObjectiveC interface to KHTML. What you are talking about is KWQ (if my memory serves me right), which is the “glue” between KHTML and ObjC. The problem is that KHTML was built on top of Qt and Apple simply implemented enough part of the Qt library so that KHTML works without it and instead, uses Cocoa classes for doing the drawing, etc. KHTML is “only” taking care of the parsing and generating a render tree of a web page.The code for KWQ is also available but if you haven’t got the time, how about you look at some of the patches recently published by Dave Hyatt’s concerning the Acid2 compliance?http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/acid11.txtSee how the class name is QPainter and it uses other Cocoa classes such as NSGraphicsContext.Clear now?The Darwin sources are often published a lot later (sometimes even months) than the equivalent Mac OS X versions. You mean, like the Darwin 8.0 code which is *already* available even though OS X 10.4 was only released last Friday?http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4/How is that for “a lot later”??????Basically all Apple file formats are proprietary, non-Apple implementations are reverse engineered, not based on documentation from Apple. They sue everyone who gives away some any rumors about new Apple products, while having the ignorance to publish an application with a name that is already used by an open source product (Dashboard).So while Apple are surely playing fair according to the license, their general policy is very restrictive and aggressive (think licensing, think legal threats, think DRM) and definitely not “open source friendly”.If you want “open source made easy”, choose Ubuntu.of course because if they don’t help linux, they cannot be called friendly. Since when is Linux the pinnacle of open-source projects?How about you look at what Apple has to offer?http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ 2005-05-03 10:17 am Well then stuffit; maybe Apple should dump the whole webcore on the net, and simply let the KHTML team work through the wreakage. If they never seem to he satisfied, then don’t help them at all. 2005-05-03 12:08 pm Lesson 1: You can never, NEVER EVER EVER, satisfy Linux zealots.WHY, why would you even *want* QT or iTunes on Linux, you’ve got thirty-b’zillion other more “advanced” players so shut the hell up and stop Trolling.Webcore != kHTML. They fixed the bugs in *their* code. There is no 1 to 1 transparency by which the fixes can be given back to kHTML. Read Hyatt’s blog for damn sake. 2005-05-03 1:02 pm WHY, why would you even *want* QT or iTunes on LinuxQuicktime Player: Because Apple won’t let anyone else create a Sorensen compatible player and lots of videos use that codec. So, can only play them either in an unlicensed player or using Wine.iTunes: You need it in order to buy music from ITMS.Webcore != kHTML.True, so why does Safari’s user-agent string claim that it is KHTML? Apple are confusing web developers to think that if a page works in Safari it will work in Konqueror (and vice-verse), which isn’t always true.They fixed the bugs in *their* code. There is no 1 to 1 transparency by which the fixes can be given back to kHTML.Well, they could try cooperating. It would be completely possible to work on a common code base and split out the stuff that is platform/browser specific. The various Gecko-based browsers can do it so why can’t Safari?Anyway, I’m not saying that Apple have done anything wrong. They have absolutely no obligation to play nice with OSS developers or Linux users or whatever. Just like Microsoft they use open-source code when it makes sence to them and they do what is required by the license. Sometimes they even release code they aren’t obliged to release. But it’s not like they’re any open-source saints. And that’s okay by me. 2005-05-03 1:28 pm I see that apple uses a lot of open source projects like samba, cups, and KHTML as the case with safari. This is great for getting these projects into the real world, however, I’m not sure how much they contribute to the projects. I have no information if there are developers working on samba at apple, and I mean, working on samba, not how to make samba work with apple. And the same for cups. If Apple was sending money to these projects, that would serve equally. I get a feeling though, apple will use Open Source to their advantage and leave out the part which open source is built upon. I could be wrong about this, and possibly Apple does give, but I haven’t seen it. 2005-05-03 2:35 pm iTunes: You need it in order to buy music from ITMS.And you can’t purchase DRM-Free OGG Vorbis files from allofmp3.com???? Or you could use LTunes on Linspire for iTunes like functionality. But really, most linux users bash iTunes for not being their beloved command line player and so on. Even if Apple did port it, it wouldn’t be appreciated one bit.True, so why does Safari’s user-agent string claim that it is KHTML?WebCore is a KHTML fork, note that the user agent string says “like KHTML” which covers their hiney asses all the way to Redmond and back Well, they could try cooperatingAnd waste money? Apple is a business, bottom line. David sat down and fixed all those bugs in a matter of weeks. I fail to see why it’s impossible for ten KHTML codies to sit down and fix all those issues in a couple of days. Apple owes KHTML nothing because the WebCore fork is too different from KHTML to be practical to match compatibility with. It’s down to a waste of time and money on a browser engine used by 1% of the world. 2005-05-03 6:40 pm Some of you are claiming that Apple is only giving back a bare minimum. Darwin is BSD and the code it is based on is BSD. Now, as you all know I’m sure, the BSD licens doesn’t require you make anything available. I fail to see how Apple are complete bastards. They created Darwin and the source is open.