Submitted by Noted PC Magazine columnist John C. Dvorak was one of the first to predict the release of Boot Camp. His prophesizing continues in his lastest column. “A cloud is rising over Mac OS X and its future unless Apple makes its boldest move ever: turning OS X into an open-source project. That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.”
Apple Needs to Make OSX Open Source
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Darwin being Open Source don’t they understand.
Agreed, most parts of OSX are open. They opened everything except the pieces that truly seperate OSX from Linux distros. Anything more than the core of Darwin would be equal to corporate suicide. It would be foolish to open the entire OS with the visual eyecandy included. How soon do you think we’d see Aqua on *nix? That’s their worst nightmare.
You wouldn’t see Aqua on Nix for the same reason you don’t see Looking Glass taking over: X11 incompatibility.
We like X11 for a reason: It’s flexible.
We (the Linux community, I presume) like X11???? Speak for yourself. Some of us would much rather see a nice clean modern backend for Qt or GTK to be using, rather than some antique system designed for an era before ubquitous workstation-quality machines became available for under $1000. Do we really need the speed sacrafices neccesaary to support all the Network crap in X11 anymore. I say not.
Can you quantify said speed sacrifices?
The system was designed for a networked era, the modern era. Implementation issues are what everyone is up in a storm about…
Modern 3d graphics can work, and are working, with X11. It’s more difficult, just like every other good thing, but it’s happening.
What most people are really mad about is that xfree was badly designed and progress just kept slowing down. And it took several years before it was finally forked and forgotten.
Xorg 7 is much more modular and I think you’ll see the development increase by an order of magnitude over the next year or so. I think you’ve already seen it happen simply by having different maintainers.
I wasn’t really speaking for the linux community, I was speaking for Unix users in general.
The problem with Darwin as open source is that it isn’t reallly a community project. Some people have tried to create community projects around it, but it has really just faltered in that regard. From a developer’s point of view, the incentive for contributing to Darwin is really minimal. Since there is no significant use of Darwin outside of OS X, and since OS X itself (all the nifty GUI bits that make it worth using over *BSD or Linux) is not open source, contributing to Darwin is basically tantamount to doing free R&D for Apple. Ergo, you have a state of affairs in which Darwin is technically open source, but in which there is no open source community around the project.
I agree. Apple and Linux are two animals.
Both need recognition, and debate
fosters this recognition.
“Apple Needs to Make OSX Open Source”
unwittingly underscores the importance of
“New Linux Look Fuels Old Debate”,
the OSNews article just above it.
So the multi-purpose of Dvorak’s article
includes fueling the debate
about the place and purpose of open source software.
The following are my take on the debate.
Open Source is an extreme purism, a heaven, an ideal.
As such it’s place is certainly in the kernel, but
also in any place where worldly advise is profitable.
Both kernels, Darwin (OS X) and Linux are open source,
and both allow for some proprietary programs running on
top of them.
In the case of Linux, we have Linus Torvald
controlling the kernel. In the case of Apple,
Tim Cook, COO controls it. Both seek the same goal:
to spread, albeit in different ways. (Next paragraph.)
The debate on what goes open source is the debate
on what is practical for a democracy. In Apple’s
stance, the world is not ready to run itself, because
it doesn’t have the hardware or know-how to do it well.
In Linux stance, it’s OK world, let’s see what you got.
The debate is moot. It just draws people to the
obvious conclusion that there are two approaches,
equally right. In one, you advertise your problems,
and the understanding part of the world responds
intelligibly, or with genral token of financial support. In the other, you solve your own problems, raise money with promises of financial returns, and make a “personal” financial profit in the process.
Quoting the “New Linux Look Fuels Old Debate” article:
For Nvidia, intellectual property
is a secondary issue.
“It’s so hard to write a graphics driver that
open-sourcing it would not help,” said Andrew Fear,
Nvidia’s software product manager. In addition,
customers aren’t asking for open-source drivers,
he said.
Some Nvidia components are open,
including some driver configuration tools and
a driver component that interfaces to the kernel.
“We believe in open source where it makes sense,”
Fear said.
The debate about where to draw the GPL line,
as it raises such issues as
+ the vulnerablity of Loadable Kernel Modules
to rootkit infection, and
+ the level of
abstraction, and
+ the kernel/user space lines
is really just the perview of software engineers.
But watching the drama of such a world event
really feeds the soul, doesn’t it?
Thanks Dvorak, but you know not what you do for me.
Mod me down, but I’m not even bothering to click that link.
Dvorak is communist!
Agreed.
Mod me down, but I’m not even bothering to click that link.
On other boards, I like to take a bite out of his click count by just posting the entire article.
Anyhow this one is a link to an ABC News reprint, so maybe that’s better.
As usual, the clueless windbag is just pulling things out of his ass.
He’s the Bill O’Reilly of tech journalism.
The moment I saw [John C.]Dvorak (as for the keyboard, well, I’m fond of that one) I closed the tab… and only returned to look at the comments to see if anyone else did the same… apparently I’m in good company.
The point he makes that is worth thinking about is, Bootcamp must be taken as being a market trial. You don’t do such trials without a definite idea of what you want to test. He then speculates about what that might be, and how it might be working out.
Usually his fatal flaw is not understanding the technology, but here he’s writing about something he knows much more about, how large businesses work, what sorts of things motivate them, how they arrive at decisions, and its a shrewd conjecture.
I’ve long wondered whether the conventional wisdom may be completely inverted – whether it could be that OSX is actually one of the main obstacles to selling more Apple computers, rather than one of the main assets. And effectively he is suggesting a degree of strategic openness on the part of Cupertino that would be welcome if its really there, as well as surprising.
Have to say it seems unlikely. They seem from here as rigid and fundamentalist as their admirers. But its a thought proking speculation.
If OSX was only an obstacle Apple would be bought by Dell long time ago.
poor Apple, it needs to go Open Source because its losing millions.
oh waith.
i don’t think apple should open-source mac os X. its a cool os, but some of its advantages comes from the tight control apple has, the clear direction, and the support. tough i would love it, os X is simply targeted at another audience, for whom open-source means nothing. i think both linux AND mac OS X are better off alone.
no reason for them to do that at all. What they SHOULD do though is sell the OS installable on any pc at less than $100. – That would increase sales greatly and I don’t believe one bit that it would decrease hardware sales because there will always be those who want the mac hardware too.
The whole arguement people make about driver and incompatibility issues are nonsense too because companies make add on hardware and drivers for mac just like they do windows already.
Yeah, companies make drivers for Windows already and look at what the Windows experience gives you. Most crashes are usually due to driver issues.
Apple will never release OS X for install on white boxes.
Apple is a hardware company.
OS X is there to sell apple hardware.
iPods & iTunes exist to sell apple hardware.
now, Bootcamp is there to sell apple hardware.
How many times do we need to debate this. Apple will not release OS X for white box PC’s. Sure, you may be able to install it using the hacks that are available out there….but it will never be supported by Apple.
Darwin is open source, that will probably be as far as it ever goes.
The same way GNU/Linux is Free/Open Software and it’s controlled by Linus and OSLD, Mac OS X could be too. Same applies to several Linux distributions like Redhat, SuSE, Ubuntu..
Here’s what would change: people could have access to the source code, improve and submit patches, make forks, etc..
I believe that releasing a Free/Open Source version of Mac OS X would be the deal if Apple is truly commited with being an hardware seller. On the other hand, if Apple’s ambitions differ, that would be another story — ie, if Apple wants to make real money out of Mac OS X in the future.
A key thing to remember about Apple is:
Everything Apple does with its software division is done for the purpose of selling more Apple computer hardware.
Open sourcing OS X would not enable Apple to sell more Apple hardware. The converse is true; people would run OS X on generic x86 boxes rather than buy Apple branded products.
Remember the Mac clones from the 90s? They nearly sunk the company. Apple would be cutting the legs out from under its business model by open-sourcing its crown-jewel software.
Edit: Yes, I know Darwin is open source, but the Mac GUI & seamless experience is the “value-add” that distinguishes OS X.
Edited 2006-04-18 18:12
I agree that free as in beer would not sell more computers.
But the question which the Apple people have a blind spot about (and which, maybe, Cupertino doesn’t have a blind spot about) is: would they sell more hardware if they shipped some of it without OSX? Dvorak is suggesting they are in the process of finding out the answer to this, and that the answer is yes.
The second question is, would they make more money releasing OSX to hardware of your choice? I used to think the answer was yes, but now doubt it, because it is seeming increasingly likely that the only people who really want OSX are the current devotees. And these people, despite what they say about the integrated experience, seem to have an alarming propensity to buy the cheapest hardware they can find for their chosen OS. So people are right to argue it would ruin Apple to do it. The loyal user base is loyal only to the OS.
Very disappointing, but if that’s the way it is, make them pay through the nose for their hardware to run their OS on. Meanwhile, let the rest of the world who does apparently want to pay the designer premium run whatever they want on it. Why not?
Again, Apple now is:
1. pretty generic PC HW
2. OS X
3. related, integrated softare suite
4. brand + lifestyle stuff
what you’re proposing is to throw away 2.
Dell has 1. and 3 is not very important in separation with 2.
4. will rot in effect. There is not much life(style) in an empty box.
OSX ties all Apple assets together and is the reason they make sense together.
Opensourcing OSX would be nice but:
1. the adequate framework is already OSS on LGPL (GnuStep). It desperately waits for someone to grab it and make successfull.
2. remaining parts revolve arround device drivers, OGL, which couldn’t be ossified anyway.
3. War between Apple and Desktop Linux would be pretty irrelevant to the industry.
Somehow everyone on tech forums assues that Apple is poised for world domination. What if +5% of share is their comfort zone and they just can’t get more than that?
There are many successfull and durable companies with such market share.
Edited 2006-04-19 11:53
IIRC, the thing that almost sunk Apple was the horrid reputation they got for suing people making clones, the cost of their computers, and their inability to make a profit off clones…
I think it’s a lot more complicated than saying their business model is the only way they can stay around.
However, they have a working business model, and they should probably stick to it. And yes, running OS X on an open kernel would mean OS X on any hardware very quickly.
I for one, although not a Mac user, cannot see any clouds rising over OS X. I mean have the skies ever looked clearer?!
Expensive hardware might be a problem if they want a larger market share but hardly the OS X development model. I should be clear to any analyst that they are on the right track and have incredible momentum.
Although a big supporter of the open source model, I can’t see how even considering such a drastic change could help Apple at the moment.
Edited 2006-04-18 18:15
Yeah and they can concentrate on selling their over expensive piece of art to art collectors. It is one of the most gullible article I have ever seen. Asking Apple to commit suicide.
Any way when you have a robust beautiful and most useful OS in Linux, who needs a mac, Right?
There are only a few people in the world capable of modifying anything. Let people who know the system the best keep the code and keep improving it. I trust they will do the right thing and I’m more than happy to pay them 100 bucks.
Apple is a HARDWARE company. ANY, and I mean ANY decisions they make will be based strictly on one important question. How will this sell more Apple computers.
In this case. None. So the idea is stupid.
Isn’t the reason (or one of them) for the creation of mac os x (or mac os at all) that you may not distribute a computer without operating system (in Belgium that is, i.e. you cannot buy a Dell without operating system because the selling company must deliver a product that works and for the law, a computer only works with an operating system installed).
And the only way to keep people binded to a company is taking care of all their needs. So I think that Apple developped an operating system so that Apple users dont had to go to something else.
Oh yeah, and while everyone is at it, why doesn’t Microsoft make Windows and Office open-source as well?
If OSX goes F/OSS, you’d pretty soon see some X11 patch to support running Office for the Mac on Linux.
So, I’m betting that there has been a promise of a Columbian necktie or two in California in the event that OSX is ever F/OSS.
Apple is going down the drain and “open-sores” is the only thing that can save it.
Puleeze
These computer gurus’ are just like movie execs- not an original thought in their heads, just re-hashing the same tired old B.S.
Here’s my words of wisdom.
Nobody KNOWS what the future holds and guesses are like “voids-surrounded-by-spincter-muscle”s…. everybody has one.
First of all… *abeyance hugs kroc *
Secondly, this is Dvorak. This is the most brilliant troll on the face of the planet. He spews this constant garbage to get readers (Windows, OS X and everyone else). And it works every time. I for one will not be giving him my click. My only reason for posting is this. Why has osnews sunk to his level? This is a great site with a wealth of information AND entertainment. There really isn’t any need to “shock” or troll is there?
Most people put Dvorak’s rantings in the ‘entertainment’ section, so as long as people remember it as such then it’s fine…
How does Dvorak have a job?
Such rubbish. Rolling OS X on to x86 PC’s would destroy os x. The reason why apple comps works so great is their tight control of hardware. They don’t need to support 2390482903823 video drivers, etc…
Thats what makes’em efficient.
Dvorak seems to be even more off his rocker lately than usual. If Apple open sourced it’s part of OS X (a good part of it is already open source) it would be the most idiotic thing to happen since Microsoft released Windows ME. The reason OS X is such a dang good OS is because it is maintained, managed, controlled, and designed, by Apple not a bunch of teenage hacks in Russia or who knows where. Just take a look at any Linux distro and it doesn’t take a genious to see the usability of the interface sucks. I am just so blown away by Dvorak’s stupidity lately I don’t even know where to start.
The reason OS X is such a dang good OS is because it is maintained, managed, controlled, and designed, by Apple not a bunch of teenage hacks in Russia or who knows where.
That’s bullshit. Take a look at the devs behind the Linux kernel, or KDE or Gnome, and you’ll see that those are highly skilled developers.
Just take a look at any Linux distro and it doesn’t take a genious to see the usability of the interface sucks.
You haven’t tried a GNU/Linux distribution since Redhat 5.2 or something like that, if you can claim usability sucks for most linux distros.
Most of the complaints against GNU/Linux haven’t been true for the last couple of years. And those who are still true can also be applied to the other mainstrem OS’es (WinXP and OS X).
I am just so blown away by Dvorak’s stupidity lately
Now that’s another issue. I can’t see Apple open sourcing the rest of OS X. I don’t believe it’ll happen. Whatever Dvorak smokes, it must be some heavy shit
Dvorak seems to be even more off his rocker lately than usual.
He seems just like usual to me
If Apple open sourced it’s part of OS X (a good part of it is already open source) it would be the most idiotic thing to happen since Microsoft released Windows ME. The reason OS X is such a dang good OS is because it is maintained, managed, controlled, and designed, by Apple not a bunch of teenage hacks in Russia or who knows where.
Nobody said anything about Apple giving up maintainership of OS X. Also, remember that Apple did not design or manage the initial development of most of its operating system. Its not based on a kernel they created, they developed almost none of the tools that ship with the operating system, and hell, even applications like Safari are entirely based on open source software designed by the random teenage hackers in Russia or who knows where. While I’m sure there are these random hackers everywhere who produce crappy code, in the world of Linux and most open source projects, there code will be rejected by the maintainer of the project.
Just take a look at any Linux distro and it doesn’t take a genious to see the usability of the interface sucks.
Seriously, never make that comment again while you are uninformed. Please take the time before trying to make a comment like that again by doing a fair comparison: Take the latest release of all the current operating systems and try to test them objectively. If you can find any serious, real usability flaws in Linux, please post about them so the open source community can fix them. There aren’t many left at this point, and there is less everyday. Its only fair to test the latest release of every operating system. Testing a Linux distribution from 3 or 4 years ago isn’t fair as its not the latest release. And try a distribution focused on usability, like Ubuntu or Fedora.
“Also, remember that Apple did not design or manage the initial development of most of its operating system.”
The kernel was taken from open source not the other 90% of the OS you dumb a**. Have you even used OS X? So open source hacks wrote the Finder, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iCal, OS X Mail, and I could list at least 100 more applications in the operating system? OS X is great because Apple has maintained tight control over it’s development.
“Seriously, never make that comment again while you are uninformed. Please take the time before trying to make a comment like that again by doing a fair comparison:”
– Seriously don’t tell me what I can and can’t say. Secondly, I have been using Linux since RedHat’s first distro and have continued to evaluate it off and on ever since. I just recently went out and downloaded Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, and Gentoo to get an idea of how things had progressed because I had not used Linux heavily in over a year and what I found was it had improved but damn if many of the same issues where not still there. The interface for both Gnome and KDE while much improved still felt cluttered and non-intuitive. I still had problems getting it to pick up my video card correctly and my wireless network. The video card problem has been around since day one and shows no signs of getting better which is rediculous. Bottom line Linux has many things going for it but a tightly integrated, well designed, stable, and smooth experience is just not one of them yet. OS X has that experience now so why in the bleep would Apple want to sacrafice that! I have been writing software for 15 years now and you can not tell me that open source software, written by a bunch of kids in many cases, is going to be superior to a well managed, well documented, standards adhering, corporate code base.
“I have been writing software for 15 years now and you can not tell me that open source software, written by a bunch of kids in many cases, is going to be superior to a well managed, well documented, standards adhering, corporate code base.”
Huh? I haven’t been writing software for 15 years, but damn, that made absolutely no sense. And are you really trying to tell me Ubuntu or SUSE did not automatically detect your video card?
The kernel was taken from open source not the other 90% of the OS you dumb a**. Have you even used OS X?
Yes, I have used many macs as a couple of employees insist on using them in the business I work at. They are the machines that require the most time for maintaince, more then the Windows machine as when there is a problem, it tends to be very difficult to diagnose and fix it. Windows has more problems but they usually are easy fixes.
So open source hacks wrote the Finder, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iCal, OS X Mail, and I could list at least 100 more applications in the operating system? OS X is great because Apple has maintained tight control over it’s development.
No, I never once said that open source hackers wrote those applications. I said they wrote most of the BASE of the operating system. They wrote the kernel as you admited (to put it in your words: Apple’s kernel was written by a bunch of 12 year old russians who are incompetent) and they wrote the base of the system (open terminal and nearly everything you use in there is written by these same 12 year olds, which is how they built up the system)
The compiler that was used for all of those applications was written by these same 12 year olds.
The interface for both Gnome and KDE while much improved still felt cluttered and non-intuitive.
What part exactly is cluttered and non-intuitive? Or at least worse then OS X and Windows? I can’t find this part.
I still had problems getting it to pick up my video card correctly and my wireless network.
My guess is you are using some obscure video card. Try placing that video card in a Mac and see if it works. Same for the wireless card. I can guarantee it won’t work.
The video card problem has been around since day one and shows no signs of getting better which is rediculous.
Nearly all Intel integrated graphics (what Mac has on a couple of computers now), nvidia cards, ati cards, and matrox cards (which are all the major companies making graphics included on computers today) are supported.
Bottom line Linux has many things going for it but a tightly integrated, well designed, stable, and smooth experience is just not one of them yet.
Bottom line is that it has been proven that Linux is more stable and well designed then Mac OS X and is still an awesome experience with tight integration. Apple’s operating system has had stability problems which is why its not used as a server at all.
OS X has that experience now so why in the bleep would Apple want to sacrafice that!
You STILL have been unable to explain why Apple would be sacrificing that by open sourcing the operating system?
I have been writing software for 15 years now and you can not tell me that open source software, written by a bunch of kids in many cases, is going to be superior to a well managed, well documented, standards adhering, corporate code base.
It depends solely on the person writing the code, nothing to do with corporations. Realize that many of the developers in Linux work for corporations, and are not 15 year olds. Also realized taht when 15 year olds or even the people working for corporations like Intel and Google, the code is subject to strict code review and must be approved before it enters the rest of the code base. Thanks to the dual review of the code, open source code tends to be of a higher quality then code written by employees and not reviewed by anyone else. Think different.
You are obviously an idiot who is a Linux fanatic. Not all open source is bad, but if you actually believe that the current distros of Linux are anywhere near the level of integration and usability as OS X you are smokin crack. You obviously have not used OS X for more than a few minutes in the store. As I stated before Linux has it’s place and is not all bad, but it is not as good of a user experience as OS X period end of story.
Who at Ziff Davis does Dvorak have compromising pictures of? To me, this is the only reason I can think of as to why he has a job.
People need to treat him like the proverbial crazy old uncle. Just nod your head in agreement, pat him on hte head and move on; immeadieatly forgetting what he said/
A lot of people like things that annoy them. It gives them something to consume, become irritated by, and to then flame with total confidence in the stupidity of the sources and the righteousness of their own positions. This process leaves them feeling pretty good it seems, because they become addicted to Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, or whoever happens to get their goat. I apologize if my examples are hackneyed, but I have not kept abreast of the whose who in intellectual masochism. I hope that doesn’t detract any from my conjecture.
“who’s who” I apologize both for my inability to proofread and my inability to edit my post. How embarrassing.
I agree with your points. A royal waste of time and type. The folks you mention are like train-wreaks. We somehow feel compelled to give them our attention. When will we all grow up and support people that are actually trying to make the world better, rather than waste our time listening and reacting to these self-centered bozos?
Who takes Dvorak’s opinion seriously?…
Gore
… how so much people know what is the best for Apple.
I am no Mac OS X user and I will probably never be, because I don’t like Mac OS X (this is my personal view point). However… why do we have all over the internet so much people knowing exactly what is the best for a company (in this case “Apple”)?
If they are so smart, then why do they not open a company by them self and do the stuff they purpose to Apple (or often to Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc…)?
I would love to see Mac OS X as F/OSS, but this will probably not happen. If I would run (wich would sure be very bad for Apple, because I don’t think that I could do that so good as the current CEO) Apple, then I would probably as well not open Mac OS X. It would not make sense to me to do so.
I am sure that open sourcing Mac OS X would be a good competition for Linux and BSD and Windows. But this competition would not bring money into the pockets of Apple and Apple needs money in order to pay the employees and other stuff.
Apple could (maybe) get money if they would open source Mac OS X, but then they probably need to change their way of generating money with Mac OS X. And I don’t think that Apple needs or wants to do that now. Apple is (mostly) a HW/SW company and not service company.
And yes! I did not klick the link.
Thank you for the humor 🙂
1. A known contrarian whose paycheck is dependent on emulating Howard Stern’s and Rush Limbaugh’s worst qualities (generating more heat than light)
2. Media outlets willing to wager their own credibility on giving him free publicity
Edited 2006-04-18 19:43
Everybody keeps saying how Apple is a HARDWARE company and that it’s main focus is on HARDWARE. If Apple was truly just a hardware vendor they would follow the Dell model and ship the hardware for ‘reasonable’ prices and wouldn’t invest so much money and effort in their own propriety OS. Look at SUN, shipping your own OS on a specific platform only works for so long and only attracts a small group of people (compared to lets say Microsoft).
According to some here, Apple hardware will only sell as long as OSX can be exclusively run on the Apple hardware. In this scenario the customer isn’t interested at all in the hardware, just in the operating system, no matter on what hardware it comes (pretty much how Windows works). In this case Apple would have a flawed business model, because it puts it’s emphasis on the wrong product. It should market OSX and sell it to whoever is interested to make the big buck.
My idea is that the regular Apple user will still go for the whole package: the hardware AND the software (and service probably). If the hardware is really so good/interesting it will attract customers nonetheless (look at the iPod for example).
The group of people which is interested in just OSX is fairly small at this point. It’s mainly computer enthousiasts. Then of course the rest of the home users would have a look after a whilke, but I doubt they would all switch to OSX just because it’s available for their computer (I know lots of people who don’t like OSX at all or find it to big a switch from Windows).
I think that Apple is no longer just a simple hardware vendor, they are moving in to the software market as well (look at OSX related products like iLife, iWorks and even .MAC). They want to gain momentum, make the people long for the product (OSX) and meanwhile complete the OS with all possible features and then let it loose on the public. (A bit like the South Park episode with Cartman Land. It’s the greatest themepark in the world and YOU CAN’T COME! And when it finally opens the people go nuts just trying to get in).
and like they do for linux? i really think you underestimate some of the driver problems…
but it would increase apple’s marketshare and support. on the other hand, i really think they would not sell more hardware, and their image might suffer. not sure if they would earn a lot of money on it, either…
Sony should Open Source its Malware
Microsoft should Open Source OneNote
Blah blah Open Source Closed Source Patent Patent Apple Vista AJAX Outsource Hack Crack Smack Infringement RIAA Click here to read an Informit article on learning text
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh dear my stomach.
It won’t be interesting at all. Arrogant noobs will use Mac OS X calling themselves a true “open-source-hard-core” geek, and the Linux users just laughing their ass off.
Comment the first: I’m not sure if I like the new threaded view. Not that my favorite view is taken away, just thought I’d express the fact that I think the number of comments generated by the article combined with the layout, letting me check for updates easily, was one of the things OSNews did really right. I’m sure others will say they like the new view, but I’m sticking with the old style.
Comment the second: I think the quality of articles posted on OSNews is going down. There are a lot of articles that are not well researched or flamebait or deficient in some other way. I’m not complaining because I disagree with Dvorak’s opinion, (which I do,) but because the article is flamebait. Look at the number of immature comments popping through, ruining the discussion. Please try to post articles that engender an enlightening discussion.
Anyway, thanks for the work you’ve done on OSNews so far, just please be mindful of these concerns.
I’ve been reading this site for a while, and I’m pretty sure that the real problem is that we all forget about the stupid articles, so when we come back later all we can remember are good articles from days past.
The Signal to Garbage ratio on OSNews seems to be fairly constant. This is probably just another ebb in the news cycle.
There have been some spectacularly stupid weeks in the past, after all… I remember weeks of Windows Vista hype (“This site has a Microsoft bias”) and of KDE (“This site is nothing but Slashdot Lite for Linux fanboys”) and Gnome news (“You’re deleting all the anti-Gnome posts!”) which sparked some hilarious flamefests.
I didn’t read the article. But I don’t think it needs to go oss. Well… it really depends on how they license it, but I think all Apple really needs to do is put some inexpensive harware out there. No, I dont mean minis. Frankly when you config a mini the way you want it, its no longer cheap. But, I have heard a rumor of a sub $700 usd lappie. Bundle that with osx..and I think Dvorak would shuddup. After all, Apple isn’t about its hardware(although it is sexy…:))its about osx.. that is the crack that sells the pipe.
1.) Why should Apple open-source what’s been described as the best thing about Macintosh computers? (hardware being frequently described as “average parts in a cream white case”, and the perennial “I-can-build-a-better-XP-system-myself-for-$15-and-a-piece-of-bubble-g um” arguments)
2.) Can’t people admit that Apple might be a BOTH company? As in, they sell software AND hardware? They’re fairly well-liked for both (iPod/OS X, Quicktime/PowerBook)
3.) How on earth would “the battle between OS X and Linux” hurt Microsoft? By most accounts, both of them COMBINED don’t have a substantial portion of the market Microsoft corrals people into every year. How are Linux and OS X fighting going to help either of their prospects? (on a related note, maybe people should start realizing that Gnome and KDE developers are actually working together on things?)
4.) Or did he mean “Microsoft reversing its fortunes” as in “picking up the few percent of its market share that have eroded in the last few years”?
Anyway, I’m sure Apple open-sourcing Aqua would put a lot of great finished code at the disposal of the open-source world, but how easy would it be to actually take bits of that code and do stuff with it? I mean, they contributed their modified Safari code to the KHTML people, who as I recall had to do some serious massaging to get it into a useful form.
Maybe Dvorak just wants an OS X-quality desktop experience for free, which Gnome’s ToPaZ project, KDE’s various KDE 4 components, XFCE and Rasterman’s Enlightenment 17 all intend to satisfy in some way if they don’t already.
Anyway, I doubt Apple would turn into an open-source code factory. It doesn’t seem to be their business model, and I wasn’t under the impression that their business model is failing. It seems to me like Dvorak is convinced anything not Open-Source is doomed to die (which is possible, but that’s pretty long-term); thus he feels confident in predicting imminent death of software based solely on that.
…would be Apple aiming at taking over x86 at the end. Competing both with Dell and others for the hardware and Microsoft for the software.
If cheap PCs were to be a damage to Apple in this sense, Dell would not exist by now. Grey boxes and Frankenstein PC’s will ever exist and they are the realm whre Linux feels more at home, de facto.
Of course, Apple fans would say Dell is crap close to Apple. They also predicted Apple would go to X86 right after hell was frozen… They also said that the combination of hardware and style Apple sells is ever superior to any PC vendor, so, by their arguments Apple could, in principle, compete in the open x86 arena. It can’t compete with the windowscentric drivers we have today, as Linux users can say, unless MacOSX didn’t have the need to work all the time, i.e., unless it is free. In this combination, MS can’t compete with Apple for long.
Now that the Devil is using heavy clothes I think direct competition between Microsoft and Apple would make things really interesting and look that this wouldn’t be for a tiny prize.. The prize is the majority of the PC’s in the world. Nobody sane (in business world) would avoid putting the hands on it, provided he has a chance to win.
Open sourcing MacOS X is crazy, and I don’t need to add further comments to that. However, it will make sense for Apple to make some of its software Linux friendly. E.g. iTunes/Quicktime on Linux, BootCamp able to boot Linux. Perhaps they can adopt an approach similar to their Safari development team, in which they share codes with the open source community, but retain their rights to develop proprietory components to the open sourced codes.
“I have been writing software for 15 years now and you can not tell me that open source software, written by a bunch of kids in many cases, is going to be superior to a well managed, well documented, standards adhering, corporate code base.”
You mean the kind of managed, well documented, standards adhering, corporate code that ends up on “The Daily WTF” every day?
Yes but thats not Apple developers thats Oracle and managed languages with all those TIME SAVING features! You cant hang yourself with a managed language oh no
“That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.”
you know it things like this that remind me how out of touch some people are.
if OSX was completely open source… No One Would Care.
certainly not the unwashed masses keeping microsoft top dog.
“all the attention” amounts to nothing more than a bunch of websites and magazines that are only read by people who already have nigh on religious opinions on the subject.
it’s like the whole sony rootkit, nerds were crying for sony’s head on a pike and 99% percent of the rest of the world didn’t know or care at all.
We would have 10000+E23878473843927 OS X rip offs for Linux. We all know the code quality of open source and where that would lead to. What else would happen. People who class themselves as “guardians” of the OS X code would be so arrogant and selfish and getting changes in would be a bitch, just look at what happened with Xfree
If the community would like Open Source OS X, then why is there so little interest in GNUstep?
GNUstep could become a bridge between OS X and GNU/Linux, creating an open source community joining the two platforms, for the benefit of both. GNUstep needs to be supported by more users and developers for that to happen.
“We all know the code quality of open source and where that would lead to.”
Good thing the quality of closed source code is generally much better. No, wait….
I thought this belongs in the humor section.
That’s bullshit. Take a look at the devs behind the Linux kernel, or KDE or Gnome, and you’ll see that those are highly skilled developers.
True; the one thing which Apple does have is this; they hire and fire the developer; the product managers set down the path, and the programmers follow – they have no choice.
With the opensource model, users, engineers and so forth are (in theory) mean to have a say in the direction of a project, the net result, there are compromises.
Even in the Apple model, the thing people like the individual you replied to forgets is this; even with this careful control of development, there are people not happy with things, so either way – no matter which model is adopted, there will always be three camps, the fanboys, the naysayers, with the ‘go with the flow’ crowd sitting in the middle.
You haven’t tried a GNU/Linux distribution since Redhat 5.2 or something like that, if you can claim usability sucks for most linux distros.
Most of the complaints against GNU/Linux haven’t been true for the last couple of years. And those who are still true can also be applied to the other mainstrem OS’es (WinXP and OS X).
Meh, I woudldn’t worry; for me, I’m using FreeBSD 6.0p6, and everything is supported quite nicely, the only thing I’d like to see is wine developers realising the world doesn’t revolve around Linux – actually make parts operating system independent rather than making it hell on earth to getting it running nicely on FreeBSD or Solaris.
The other thing I’d like to see is more commercial software on alternative operating systems; barring that, the next best thing, commercial software companies atleast attempting to work with wine to sort out incompatibility issues between wine and their applications – get wine to a stage that all you have to do is go wine setup.exe and everything just works as expected, without needing to use special scripts, configurations etc.
True; the one thing which Apple does have is this; they hire and fire the developer; the product managers set down the path, and the programmers follow – they have no choice.
Again, why would Apple be unable to continue to employ developers when making it open source? And why can’t they only pay their developers to only work on select work?
With the opensource model, users, engineers and so forth are (in theory) mean to have a say in the direction of a project, the net result, there are compromises.
Its actually is still just like it is today, except that when people are unhappy with the program, they can fork it and make a new program based on the old one, which invokes more competition and allows a better end product. The maintainer gets to say what goes in and out of the program, except people also get to make proposals while providing the full source code, so the maintainer can just say yes or no without spending much development time on the said proposed feature.
John is usually pretty good at this prediction stuff but I reckon he is way off on this. Personally I will wait until OS X comes out as a VMWare Player so I can run OS X on my laptop legally. There is already a Bittorrent file out there for doing this but that would be illegal so I am not going to do it.
I personally love OS X but don’t like to be wed to the form factors and hardware that Apple produce so would much rather be able to run OS X on my choice of hardware. Dual boot doesn’t interest me but virtualisation does, especially if I can run OS X’s GUI full screen.
John says he think that Boot Camp is a market research exercise (for their hardware?). If Apple really wanted to know how popular their OS is then a fully supported VMWare player would be the way to go and see who bites. I reckon that OS X would eventually totally replace MS Windows.
The OS is as some people have correctly pointed out what differentiates Apple.
I have (righteously) introduced Macs to members of my family (who don’t care a jot about the hardware they are using) and it is the use-ability of the GUI that really appeals. As an occasional DB developer I like having Unix underneath for coding but can’t be assed to set up any of the Linux distros on my PC because frankly I want something that works out of the box without having to constantly tweek stuff to get my DVD player to show me movies or synchronise with my different smart phones and PDAs (gonna get flamed for that I know it!)
just my tuppennyworth.
Consistently noted F for years…
Non-Windows OSes shouldn’t fight each other over Microsoft’s leftovers – they should gang up on MS and steal market share from the monopoly.
if apple wants to earn on hardware, they wouldn’t release OS X as free software – it’ll be ported to whatever is out there, and they won’t have an advantage over other platforms or hardware vendors.
apple could do that – but they would have to seriously commit themselves to it – drivers won’t come as easy as you think, many companies don’t make em for linux either, and linux has at least the marketshare apple has.
if apple would sell OS X for white-boxes, they would have to make sure it works well, and give support – both would be very expensive. and if they make mistakes, their good image will suffer, and that’s their greatest asset.
i think the risks are too great…
Apple its hardware not OS, but only with hardware yo dont do nothing thats why they make the OS…
Microsoft isn’t afraid on going at the hardware arena also. Just look at the X-box, and 3 years ago Microsoft tried to compete with the networking colossus Cisco by coming out with it’s own line of hardware routers; Microsoft came out of that battle badly beaten and eventually pulled there routers out of the market, but at least they gave it a try. So I say to Steve Jobs; make the Mac OS installable on a PC and grab Microsoft by the horn and let’s tango!
don’t think so becorse os x would start to look like a copy of windows 98 and behave like windows 95
!!!
I am not sure if Apple Needs to Make OSX Open Source.
I would like to, but unfortunately I do not see why they should do it. They are doing well in economic terms, and that is what they are ONLY interested in…
They are in fact taking a good advantage of the open source themselves, while being accused of not giving back enough…
Smart business policy, in self-interest-greedy busniness capitalist market economic terms.
Why they should change that for a more idealistic and ethical business model, if they do not need to…???
No let’s be realistic! As much as the Open source software and Operating Systems are improving, and as much as Linux is getting better (becomming really Desktop ready), and I love it, probably we could say that:
More than “Apple Needs to Make OSX Open Source”, “Open Source Needs to Make something like Apple’s OSX”
!!!
Edited 2006-04-19 18:53
the main parts of mac os x are already open sourced obviously, it is designed EXTREMELY well but it needs some major kernel work but I still believe it will be far superior to linux kernel after they fix it.
why would mac os x be special if everyone in the world has it? It’s apple’s crown jewel.. it makes them different… why on earth would they want to just throw it away when they can seem really special. they already have a huge percentage of market to themselves on their own platform.
you see its pretty stupid to tell them what to do when they are obviously doing what makes them cash.
Again, why would Apple be unable to continue to employ developers when making it open source? And why can’t they only pay their developers to only work on select work?
Because Appl,e is, primarily, a hardware company which uses their software portfolio to push their hardware; Itunes to push iPod, iWork, iLife, MacOS X to push their hardware; opensource the whole thing, and in a matter of months, no one is buying their hardware, its ported to non-Apple machines, and Apple is royally screwed.
We’ve been down this garden path before, so lets stop trying to make out that the second time around ‘things will be different, because it won’t – the difference is, Apple will be screwed over alot quicker, and Steve will be lynched by shareholders in a much more ferocious way.
Its actually is still just like it is today, except that when people are unhappy with the program, they can fork it and make a new program based on the old one, which invokes more competition and allows a better end product. The maintainer gets to say what goes in and out of the program, except people also get to make proposals while providing the full source code, so the maintainer can just say yes or no without spending much development time on the said proposed feature.
But that doesn’t occur in EVERY opensource project; some developers are more willing to listen than others; GIMP and their developers are a prime example of how NOT to run an opensource project, little wonder the number of active developers are twindling to obscurity.
KDE on the other hand IS how you should run it, actively encouraging all those who can contribute, be it in documentation, UI advice, artistic input, to do so!
OSX is not coming to the generic white box x86
OSX is not going to become Open-Source
Apple basically has stated that they sell a computer experience meaning you get the hardware and the OS from apple. They are not interested in making OSX for everyone. Just for people who buy Apple branded Machines. Bootcamp is a simple project that basically convinced the people who were always on the fence about OSX and a Apple PC to get one because gee look now not only can you run Mac OSX on your nifty expensive Apple PC but you can run windows too so there you go gamers and people with no-mac-support software. Now you really have no excuse and it is working people who were hesitant becuase of those reasons are finidng themselves buying these new expensives apple laptops. And you gotta admit the laptops are sexy machines.
“Apple basically has stated that they sell a computer experience meaning you get the hardware and the OS from apple.”
Marketing cult crap. The Dell experience is just as integrated. You get the hardware and the OS from Dell. You take either a Dell or an Apple out of the box and put it on your desk, or under it, and they both work and are just as integrated. Apple outsources manufacture, Dell outsources OS development. What difference does either make to my experience? Why is one more integrated than the other?
Although the poster is unintentionally right – the only content of this so called integrated experience is that both are being bought from Apple, something which is not unique to Apple, and has nothing to do with your experience.
so we can all stop talking about the topic!
“OSX is not coming to the generic white box x86
OSX is not going to become Open-Source
Apple basically has stated that they sell a computer experience meaning you get the hardware and the OS from apple. They are not interested in making OSX for everyone. Just for people who buy Apple branded Machines. Bootcamp is a simple project that basically convinced the people who were always on the fence about OSX and a Apple PC to get one because gee look now not only can you run Mac OSX on your nifty expensive Apple PC but you can run windows too so there you go gamers and people with no-mac-support software. Now you really have no excuse and it is working people who were hesitant becuase of those reasons are finidng themselves buying these new expensives apple laptops. And you gotta admit the laptops are sexy machines.”
enough said….