“Apple extended the courtesy of meeting with me one day after my column on the closing of the OS X x86 kernel source code was published online. To sum up Apple’s objections, they felt I had given a year-old story a fresh coat of paint and sensationalized it for an audience that wasn’t affected by it. Yet no story is more timely, or more broadly relevant, than this one.” Tom Yager, who raised concerns over the closed-source Intel half of the MacOS, details why he was so concerned. “The kernel will open up again, this tempest will fade away, and I’ll be glad for it. What will continue to concern me so deeply is that Apple thought it would be OK, that nobody would notice or care.” Note: The 2nd link was incorrect, it is fixed now. Excusez-moi.
Which part of “Only a tiny part of OS/X is available as open source” is so hard for Apple fans to understand?
Is there any chance you’ll stop dredging up this tempest in your teapot?
Nothing, and I mean absolutely _nothing_ is good enough for those who speak the loudest.
If I were a company in this day and age, I would not bother opening the source of any product I owned because the people who speak the loudest would be so ingrateful. The last thing any company wants is a whole bunch of people who think they know it all, deriding your company because you’re not doing ‘enough’, and a million other people listening to it.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely _nothing_ is good enough for those who speak the loudest.
If that’s true then closed source is no refuge either. But a company that never used open source is still better than a company that takes open source and then closes it. It’s really the BSDL that’s at fault here. I doubt they at Berkeley would have imagined their code would be used like this.
Especially not the guys at BSDi and Sun Microsystems. They would be utterly shocked! Dismayed even.
Especially not the guys at BSDi and Sun Microsystems. They would be utterly shocked! Dismayed even.
Solaris is not based on BSD anymore, and BSDi is not a good example anyway. So what’s your point?
That the people you’re speaking for have acted for themselves. What is your point?
How, exactly, is it better that a company never releases any of the source code that is used to make it’s software, than a company that releases code, for everyone to see, and anyone to use, and then decides not to release any further source code? Isn’t some code better than no code at all (at least from an open source point of view, which I can clearly see that you’re taking)? Or are you of the theory that anyone tinkering in open source in the slightest, should forever be locked in to releasing every bit of code that they ever write, as open source software? The code that they released can never be unreleased. If apple were to never release any source code ever again, they would still have benefited the open source community more than a company whose total software line is behind locked doors.
Because at least a company that writes it’s own OS from scratch has a right to keep it’s source closed, but taking advantage of the an overly friendly BSDL is nothing to be proud of. And as I pointed out, on their own webpage, Apple make proud mention of the open source heritage of OS X.
It might be better if Apple had released anything of consequence, but what they’ve returned to the open source community is trivial. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the open source developers how much useful code Apple has returned.
Which open source developers, in particular, should I ask? I can think of a few instances of considerable contributions that open source software has gained from open darwin. Improved msdosfs, rendeveus, and a very promising replacement to rc (and perhaps cron), and that’s just off the top of my head. That might not seem like much compared to an entire operating system, but darwin is still rather young.
As for the BSD license, it seems rather silly to criticize it in this instance. Yes, the BSD license would have allowed apple to maintain a completly closed source derivative of an open source operating system, but they didn’t. You seem to be blaming the BSD license for something that never occured. Darwin is still open source, and the only thing that seems to be really going on is the same thing that’s been going on for a couple years now. The source release is considerably behind in comparison to the OSX release. It may not be perfect, but IMHO, it’s still better than a completly closed product.
Pardon? Lets say a company uses BSDL code, close sources it, but donates $10million to BSD – is there anything wrong with that? if I were BSD, I’d be more than happy with a $10million donation, than the possibility of losing that in favour of only 15 extra lines of code.
The problem is that an open part of Mac OS X was closed. This became a problem for those who rely on Darwin and the open parts of Mac OS X.
Some reacted on this new closedness, and Apple has responded.
I don’t see anybody demanding Apple to open parts, which are been closed. There is however some misgivings about Apple closing parts that used to be open.
The problem is that an open part of Mac OS X was closed.
No. The problem is that fanbois thought that because Darwin for ppc was open that Darwin for intel would be opened.
There’s nothing new about Apple’s closedness, other than that they’re applying it to a new product that they never said they’d open.
All of the above, of course assumes that they aren’t going to get around to opening up Darwin for intel, which they’ve carefully not commented on one way or the other.
Darwin for “intel” has been open for a few years now in the form of an x86 port of darwin, which from what I remember was largely due to a community effort. It probably wasn’t binary compatible with what is currently being used in OSX, but I do believe it was enough for people to assume that the code would remain open. I do believe that they will open up the x86 port again complete with kernel, but just as they do with their ppc version, it will be released a considerable time after their OSX version.
Darwin for “intel” has been open for a few years now in the form of an x86 port of darwin, which from what I remember was largely due to a community effort.
Perhaps this will finally make it clear to the fans that “Darwin” isn’t OS/X.
I blogged about it here:
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2006/06/14/why-apple-snubs-its-open-sou…
Care to elaborate or add to the discussion, instead of just link spamming?
I know you’re staff, but anybody else who just says “read my blog” and adds nothing to _this_ page, gets modded into the ground.
Why would I want to copy myself? I started blogging on this a bit before the story got published here.
Not everybody reads your blog, not everybody wants to.
Copy & pasting what’s relevant here is much more useful for the people who care about _this_ page and the discussion here.
You don’t have to read her blog. You act like there’s something unusual about there being a number of links in a story submission, or that it’s abnormal for a blog related to the subject to be included. The truth is you’re just looking for something to whine about with respect to the lack of egalitarianism.
The question here is, why wasn’t the original article linked to in the submission in the first place? Many of us would have liked to read that, and the only place that it could be found in this discussion, was linked to from that blog. I don’t know if it was aranged this way on purpose, but many of us would have prefered not to go through a middle-man in order to read it. It sure seemed to me like an advertising plug for her blog. If that was honestly not the intention, then I appologize, but I would have also characterized it as link spam.
Thom did the story, not myself. If I was doing the story, I would have linked my blog directly from the story, as I have done in the past.
The question here is, why wasn’t the original article linked to in the submission in the first place?
Oh crap, that’s an error. I used the same link twice. Mea culpa. Consider it fixed.
Thank you for fixing that. It did seem rather strange that the first article was linked to twice. I thought that you might have just really liked that story and wanted to make sure it wasn’t passed over =)
Well, I have to agree and disagree on this one
First, I’m a Linux die-hard, but I have to use all platforms (wheter I like them or not)
I for one can respect MS for making closed source as their bussines model. I for one even support them. If they preffer model like that, their products and their choice. (well, MS lies on different ocasions, but on this one? Never)
Can I respect Apple for going closed source? No, but them going closed source is not the reason why they can’t have my respect. Why? Because they still present them selves as one of major OSS contributors which they aren’t and never were. I could respect if they would say this as MS said it: “Screw OSS”. The way Apple is proclaiming? Plain and simple hypocracy, nothing else, PR bull to get gulible OSS hackers on their side. But as soon as they say the truth, they will gain my respect again. Until then? Not.
Now, if you can respect a liar that lies to your face, this is your decision, but most of the people can’t.
I agree with you about Apple being a liar for many things during the past years: OSS, Motorola CPU speeds etc etc
But each to its own. In the current situation Apple has every right and obligation to close that source code. Someone might do a really bad deed towards me, but I will step up and be on his/her side if on an unrelated matter is on the right side. Same with Apple, they had their share of marketing lies, but on this case it’s on their best financial interest to close the code.
But each to its own. In the current situation Apple has every right and obligation to close that source code. Someone might do a really bad deed towards me, but I will step up and be on his/her side if on an unrelated matter is on the right side. Same with Apple, they had their share of marketing lies, but on this case it’s on their best financial interest to close the code.
Yes, just as I said. Let them close the source and if they won’t pretend they are OSS company anymore I will respect them. Hell, it is their right to do that. But, at least they could be honest about their direction.
The way Apple is proclaiming? Plain and simple hypocracy, nothing else, PR bull to get gulible OSS hackers on their side.
Agreed. I am certainly not happy with this action by Apple, EVEN though the license allows it. It is not the closing ITSELF I have problems with– it’s the talk and blah-blah around it by Apple that simply doesn’t rhyme with this.
Apple advertises with the open-source-ness of the OSX, and that is simply a big lie at this moment, for the past 6 months. I hope the US has some sort of an authority that checks for false advertising like us Dutch do, but I’m afraid even if the US has, it will be too nancy to actually do something about it– seeing how big Apple is.
“What will continue to concern me so deeply is that Apple thought it would be OK, that nobody would notice or care.”
It was OK and nobody did care.
Those who do care about an open source kernel usually use fully open source operating systems to begin with.
I have been watching Apple from afar for years and they never seemed like a company that was big on openness.
Apple is being pretty hypocritical to accuse someone of sensationalizing news. From the way Apple acts, it would be easy to think that every Apple product launch is the cure for cancer.
It’s funny that you said that… the last item I purchased from Apple cured my grandmothers “Microsoft Cancer” once and for all.
JRM7
That’s a load of crap. Cancer kills people, using MS products does not.
…Using MS products just makes you wish you were dead.
That’s a load of crap. Cancer kills people, using MS products does not.
Let this be a warning: comparing things or companies or products to cancer is not tolerated on OSNews. There are things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them– we’re talking computers, not people’s lives. Get a f–king life, or leave.
Did I make myself crystal clear?
Let this be a warning: comparing things or companies or products to cancer is not tolerated on OSNews. There are things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them– we’re talking computers, not people’s lives. Get a f–king life, or leave.
Did I make myself crystal clear?
Thom, this is why so many people dislike you. What started as a light-hearted exchange of sarcastic jabs at the expense of OS vendors has all of a sudden turned into a personal attack against me by you implying that I have no life and dangling threats at the end of your message.
Chill out, you’ll have more fun.
Chill out, you’ll have more fun.
I agree, relax a little. I wasn’t in anyway concerned about the cancer comment until you exploded. Now I just plain feel uncomfortable, not because of the original comments but because of the debate that has ensued.
I’ve been visiting OSNews for a couple of years now (though I only recently began making comments) and I like it when the topic does remain on computers (and maybe even OSes) and doesn’t go off on unrelated tangents such as this. But hey, it happens.
I’m a cancer survivor myself and I have also lost several family members and friends to cancer. I honestly cringe when people make off color cancer jokes. You wouldn’t beleive how many times I’ve heard “It’s not a tumor” in some twits best Arnold voice (Kindergarten Cop, 1990, which I’ve never seen). Though that happens less frequently as I get older.
But if somebody wants to compare computers to cancer fine. Cancer is certaily a touchy subject. People should be mindful of others when discusing cancer and careful as to what context they use cancer.
Well I think the manner in wich it was done here quite simply wasn’t insulting.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
I can’t believe a staff member of this website would reply to a user in this way. Granted the user’s original message was lame at best but your over the top reply was breathtaking.
It’s a shame there is nobody who can moderate the moderators.
I’m with Thom on this one. Using the word “Nazi” to mean whore is intolerable. And joking with cancer is also pathetic.
If you can have a laugh about cancer and it doesn’t even pass your mind that it’s inconsiderate, you have serious social issues you need looking at.
Imagine making a joke like that in a pub with friends, one of whom had a relative that had died from Cancer.
This is a private website, and thom can control it exactly how he pleases. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else, the Internet is not a small place.
Thanks Kroc, you got the idea. I have had a very close encounter with cancer last year, and as such, I take it very personally, and I’m not afraid to admit that.
Got it, everyone? Yes? Great.
Edited 2006-06-14 19:17
Does this include all other ailments that result in harm or death? I suggest adding such to the stated rules if that is to be forum policy.
If morals need to be spelt out [to you], then people will treat you like a fool and you shall forever wonder why.
Morality is inherently subjective. This for example isn’t a moral issue to me, it’s more a matter of taste. It’s of keen interest as to whether this is to be an official policy regarding all such matters or simply those that tangentially touch upon Thom’s life.
And your comment does nothing to answer my question (nor could it really, since you aren’t a member of the staff), though it’s interesting that you imply some unpleasant treatment for fools–people that through no fault of their own lack the mental acuity of more fortunate individuals, which often results in a most unfortunate quality of life for them and those dependent on them. I dare say that’s lacking in taste. And applying such treatment to those whose ethics differ from your own, which would likely consist of everyone else on the planet. Well done, sir.
Sorry to hear about your close brush… I’ve personally lost family to that disease plus two favorite teachers and have two close friends (one in recovery and one who passed away last year). So I can relate. I had a feeling your response was due to some recent trama.
But still… I have found personally that it is best to not let things like this affect the way I speak to or act around others. It only makes matters worse for me and everyone else. Also having something bad happen to yourself or someone else is bound to happen sooner or later. In this life we have the choice to either laugh or cry… I prefer to laugh. So did my father, who died four years ago, laughing at his IV tubes.
Imagine making a joke like that in a pub with friends, one of whom had a relative that had died from Cancer.
My mother died recently after a protracted battle with a very bad cancer. If she hadn’t been able to make jokes about it, it would have been harder for everyone.
There’s no such thing as a topic that’s unfit for humor; there’s only individual jokes that are in poor taste.
Imagine making a joke like that in a pub with friends, one of whom had a relative that had died from Cancer.
I agree one hundred percent. What if you asked someone why the chicken crossed the road, and it turned out that they have a sister who once watched a television show in which her favourite character’s brother’s wife died from avian flu? I know I would certainly feel like a jerk.
In fact, humour should be avoided altogether – if we don’t protect the oversensitive humourless gits with malfunctioning irony detectors, then who will?
Relax dude.
You’re out of line here.
Besides that, making fun of cancer isn’t making fun of people.
And if you want to find people making fun about cancer, you should talk with persons with cancer. I believe their sense of humour is a survival technique. “Gallows humour” is quite efficient as such.
EDIT: Reply is to Thom, but threading seems a bit broken.
Edited 2006-06-14 19:21
And if you want to find people making fun about cancer, you should talk with persons with cancer. I believe their sense of humour is a survival technique. “Gallows humour” is quite efficient as such.
I know everything about that, my friend. More than I care to know. Now, get on with the discussion. Wasn’t I clear enough?
“Get a f–king life, or leave. Did I make myself crystal clear?”
– Wow. You know, I’ve lost four family members to cancer (and will probably face it myself later in life) – but I’m also mature enough to understand the context of the post, and that it’s used as an exaggerated metaphore with no inteded offense to anyone. From my personal experience with this subject I have learned that cancer patients generally don’t like being treated as ‘victims’ – they are survivors (and keep positive, constructive attitudes). Maybe this subject was touchy, but I was in a vehicular accident so should I demand not to hear the word ‘crash’? I know the original poster must feel some remorse for coincidentally hitting a word so close to home, so extending the debacle doesn’t help – at this point, I’ll terminate my involvement in this subject.
Live your f–king life to the fullest!
“I know everything about that, my friend.”
– I’m sorry this may offend you Thom, but in my grandmother’s last days, she told me: “Nobody knows everything about anything.”
Take care of yourself (physically and mentally, as they are related).
Edited 2006-06-14 20:05
…is a cancer consuming the body of popular discourse.
You’re actually threatening people for using an extremely common figure of speech?
Now perhaps you’ve got very good personal reasons for being sensitive about this subject. That’s understandable, and were we friends having a beer together, good taste and common decency would dictate that I pay heed to that fact and curb my speech so as to not offend. But we’re not friends and this isn’t a chat at the pub. This is a public forum (although privately owned) and expecting people to curb their public speech so as to minimize all possible offense is absurd and utterly unreasonable. All most everything is potentially offensive to someone.
“expecting people to curb their public speech so as to minimize all possible offense is absurd and utterly unreasonable.”
In some countries, people curb their public speech themselves because they are considerate of others.
In another country, people are told every day by their schools and media that they can say anything they want what-so-ever, no matter how inconsiderate or inaccurate because they have the “freedom” to do so.
Edited 2006-06-14 19:56
Certainly not Thom’s country, where a public figure has been killed and an elected politician is currently under constant police protection for being “insensitive” to a sensibilities of certain ethnic minority.
And please do tell, in what country is the metaphorical use of “cancer” as a figure of speech considered taboo?
In some countries, people curb their public speech themselves because they are considerate of others.
In plain English: Americans weaten themselves on every occasion on political correctness issues. In other countries, people do have humour. ;-P
Let this be a warning: comparing things or companies or products to cancer is not tolerated on OSNews. There are things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them– we’re talking computers, not people’s lives.
So, I guess calling a self-replicating malicious programs a virus is out too? What about DOA, MIA, stillborn, abort or “trowing out the baby with the bathwater”?
Did I make myself crystal clear?
Good thing you asked. No, you didn’t make yourself crystal clear. Could you please list the other things that are unacceptable to use as similes on OS News? Just to make things crystal clear?
can·cer Audio pronunciation of “cancer” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knsr)
n.
1.
1. Any of various malignant neoplasms characterized by the proliferation of anaplastic cells that tend to invade surrounding tissue and metastasize to new body sites.
2. The pathological condition characterized by such growths.
2. A pernicious, spreading evil: A cancer of bigotry spread through the community.
If the comment was meant to call Microsoft a pernicious, spreading evil, the word cancer was effective and appropriate (not that I am saying Microsoft is or isn’t, that is the posters personal opinion). The word can have more than one meaning and the context implies the meaning. When not talking about a human being, I would assume the second meaning to hold true.
WOW…
I think we ALL need to get a life, its just software, gee-whiz….^_^, the context of the comment was software, not people with cancer man….
I know a woman with breast cancer, she laughs more than people with nothing going on in their lives, and she would laugh at this….
Chill out Thom, you’ll live longer….unless you have cancer ^_^
man, I hope I dont offend any one with my comment…
^_^
Edited 2006-06-16 01:36
I would mod you up if I could… this is my first comment. I see that you were making a good and humorous remark… where as whomever modded you down… apparently did not.
You didn’t sound at all like a troll at least as far as I am concerned…. And looking at your track record, I don’t think you meant for it to be.
Does it really matter in the big picture?
The sun will still rise and set, Windows will still crash and my Macs will continue to run the software I need.
End of story.
We’re talking about an OS here people.. the OPERATING SYSTEM of a PERSONAL COMPUTER… not the ratio of Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air!
It just doesn’t matter one way or the other.
If you’re basing your entire life and self worth on an operating system and whether or not something is open or closed source… you need to get a life.
We’re talking about an OS here people.. the OPERATING SYSTEM of a PERSONAL COMPUTER… not the ratio of Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air!
It just doesn’t matter one way or the other.
This comment would seem more reasonable if it wasn’t posted to a site called OS News.
Seriously. Every time someone posts something like this, which is basically saying that this entire site is worthless to any sane individual, it gets modded up. A call for apathy (and a pretentious, hypocritical one at that) gets fervent support. It makes absolutely no sense.
As for the original post, that’s crap. If you have an account on this site, you either a) care about computers or b) love to troll. It’s looking more like B, because if you do care about computers, you care about the conduct and success of software companies and projects, because that will directly affect your computing options in the future. Tell the people at the Haiku project that it’s just an operating system and they need to get a life. See if you get the same warm reception there.
And since when does the N2/O2 ratio make for good conversation?
I love it when people take the time to comment on something by saying that the person that brought the topic up in the first place needs to “get a life”. Hilarious. At least he got in a pointless windows knock apropos of nothing.
Agreed; opensource, closed source, the conclusion I see so far, and operating system can suck either way, regardless of its licence or visibility (in terms of code).
And yes, to those two who replied to this fella; yes, get a life; if you’re going to, honsestly, focus your whole life on the philosophical discussions of operating systems and actually result in no material gain – aka, you debate and discuss to create a new and better OS, then really, you need to get a life.
People who have problems with their computers have one of two problems – their hardware is a POS because they insist on purchasing a $299 computer with a $400 AOL rebate, and expect it to run as reliably as a $1299 one; the other problem are people who don’t maintain their computers by installing updates, keeping well away from dodgy websites with dodgy ActiveX controls, and not keeping their anti-virus up to date.
Whether those individuals are running Linux, Windows, Solaris, MacOS X or what have you, they’ll still find a way to cock it up.
More hilarity – someone posts something three times as long as my single post on the topic telling me I’m wasting too much time talking about this. You might be even smarter than Jon.
Cant you ever admit that apple had done something wrong, instead of falling over each other saying “its only the kernel, not a big deal (seriously,this was said)” “nobody ever cared about it being opensource anyway”, “who want to recompile their kernel anyway, its about the experience”. Its about freedom, in case you didnt notice yet.
Funny that you don’t mention Apple’s freedom to close their own kernel too. You only mention the freedom of the hacker, but not the freedom of the company which chosen BSD’s code and license for a reason in the first place.
Yes, they the right to do so. But there’s word for this situation and it’s called ingratitude. Naturally ingratitude doesn’t apply to corporations only to individuals for some reason. In any event, if Apple didn’t want to hear the complaining, they could have written their own kernel from scratch or bought a closed source one.
From the OS X page at apple.com:
“Since Mac OS X already features a secure, reliable, Open Source foundation, Apple engineers can focus on delivering cutting-edge Internet applications that let you experience science fiction as reality today.”
So another words creeps up. Misrepresentation.
>Naturally ingratitude doesn’t apply to corporations only to individuals for some reason
What do you mean? That Apple should feel gratitude to the hackers who use the open code to hack OSX and make it run on non-Mac hardware?!?
Apple did the right BUSINESS decision to close their Intel kernel. If that’s immoral or unethical, well, it doesn’t bother SEC. And SEC and shareholders is the only thing Apple has to answer to.
What do you mean? That Apple should feel gratitude to the hackers who use the open code to hack OSX and make it run on non-Mac hardware?!?
No, what they could be grateful for is that somebody pretty much wrote their kernel for them. Afterall, it could have been hacked previously to run on PPC boxes not made by Apple. So what’s the difference now? Windows get’s hacked, and it’s completely closed source. OS X is going to get hacked anyway.
And the point wasn’t what’s legal, it was in relation to something that we’re always hearing exists but seldom see: business ethics. We already know what they’re legally bound to do, but that’s not really the issue of this thread, is it?
>No, what they could be grateful for is that somebody pretty much wrote their kernel for them.
You are very wrong. You should feel as much grateful as its license is allowing you to. And the BSD license is very liberal to allow open/closing/reopen/whatever of its code.
Apple has already said “thank you” by actually USING that code! They need to do NOTHING more to express gratitude.
Edited 2006-06-14 19:20
I don’t think using the work of others constitutes an expression of gratitude. No such expression is necessary, but pragmatism and gratitude are quite different matters, I would think.
>I don’t think using the work of others
> constitutes an expression of gratitude.
IT IS, when the license allows that. The BSD license is a liberal license that asks nothing back. By using that code it means that you found it useful. And that’s enough gratitude for the original authors. That’s why these authors licensed it under the BSD in the first place. If they wanted gratitude and openess they would have gone with GPL.
You must not confuse the GPL philosophy and ethical behavior surrounding it with the BSD one and its required behavior. Apple is behaving morally and ethically concerning the license the software was originally licensed at. That would not be the case if that was GPL. But it’s not GPL.
For example, in Greece women can handshake with everyone. In France, women can only handshake within a business environment and not with family. Different countries, different codes of honor!
Edited 2006-06-14 20:24
Using work is not gratitude, it’s pragmatism. It might even be a sign of respect for the work (not necessarily, though), but it is not a display of gratitude itself. I say this as someone that only uses BSD/MIT-compatible licenses for work that I have done that is not properly the property of others, so it’s fairly unlikely that I am going to confuse my own thoughts with the philosophy of the GPL. If you throw a picnic and I come and you invite me to eat your potato salad, when I eat the potato salad it isn’t an expression of my gratitude, it’s just me eating your potato salad because I’m hungry and it’s free. If I thank you for the potato salad, then that is gratitude. It might make you feel good in either case that I’m eating your potato salad, but my tacit acceptance of your terms is not a sign that I appreciate what you have done.
People use such licenses because it resonates with their worldview, rather than because it provides a silent form of gratitude. Hiring Avie Tevanian or Jordan Hubbard for their respective contributions to the development of code that would then become parts of XNU is more like pragmatism and gratitude. Releasing the source code for XNU at all is more like gratitude. Simply using the code is pragmatism.
I don’t see anything in the license about “gratitude”. If that was a required behavior it should have being mentioned in the BSD license.
And if YOU want gratitude for your own BSD-licensed code, I highly recommend you change the license. You aren’t gonna get any from me for example. I am going to use it, I am going to modify it, and then I will only release a binary.
Look, you are talking about “pragmatism”, but you yourself fall under sensations that are far from that. You want recognition, you want to feel valuable to the people who use your code.
That’s a complex syndrome, not software engineering. Sorry.
This right here is propaganda, or at least a very misleading interpretation of everything that has been written by me. Neither vitae nor myself have stated that “gratitude” is a requirement of the license.
1. If vitae posits a moral imperative that Apple should be grateful to others for the work that they made available to them, it does not follow that this imperative need be part of the license. This interpretation of reality treats life as a game with a system of rules by which participants play by and simply accept the results of. When deciding matters of law this has some weight, but when individuals discuss matters of philosophy this only really matters to those who accept as a premise that life operates in such a manner. If you want some manner of legal argument to force others to abide by your rules then it may follow that you should incorporate such requirements into the rulebook, but if are instead interested in people playing fairly irrespective of their legal powers then you have another matter entirely.
2. I have no stated in any matter that such a requirement exists either ethically nor legally. In fact I have clearly stated to the contrary: “No such expression is necessary.” You can read it clearly for yourself in my previous post.
3. I have not stated that I desire any gratitude for my own such work licensed under BSD-compatible terms. I have implied that I do so because it aligns with my own personal philosophy for what constitutes a better world. I often don’t even seek credit for such work, because I honestly don’t care whether people are gracious.
4. I contested your conflation of gratitude and pragmatism, and provided a simple anecdote that explained generally how they are different.
5. I sort of think could certainly apologize for misconstruing my commentary and framing me as someone with a “complex syndrome.” I don’t expect you to, but for the life of me I cannot understand where this response of yours originated.
> but for the life of me I cannot understand where this response of yours originated.
Are you kidding me? You are going on and on about “gratitude” while you should be happy that software engineering has evolved by re-using code!
>I have implied that I do so because it aligns with
>my own personal philosophy for what constitutes a better world.
I didn’t know that the BSD license was written so we can all live in peace without wars and without poverty.
Look, you are trying to make Apple feel obligated for something they are not. It’s a BUSINESS. It’s a company with obligations only to their shareholders. It’s not fellow students at school.
These are my last words: Apple did the RIGHT THING by closing that code. I don’t like it (no, as an external person, I don’t), but it is a valid business decision. I would have done the exact same thing if I was getting heat from my shareholders that there is piracy originating from that code.
Are you kidding me? You are going on and on about “gratitude” while you should be happy that software engineering has evolved by re-using code!
Find one sentence written by me that states that Apple should show gratitude. And secondly releasing code under an open source license isn’t strictly-speaking a topic of software engineering, but rather licensing.
I didn’t know that the BSD license was written so we can all live in peace without wars and without poverty.
Yeah, people being able to take code without having to worry about those pesky licensing issues has absolutely no economic benefit whatsoever.
Look, you are trying to make Apple feel obligated for something they are not. It’s a BUSINESS. It’s a company with obligations only to their shareholders. It’s not fellow students at school.
I am not trying to make Apple feel obligated to do anything. I worked on proprietary software for a number years, and we certainly made use of BSD-licensed code without making any meaningful contributions.
These are my last words: Apple did the RIGHT THING by closing that code.
The “right thing” is subjective. Apple did what Apple did. It will have a marginal benefit for making MacOS X work on non-Apple PCs and cost little because practically no one was making any use of XNU’s source code. I’ve had numerous discussions here where people talk at great length about XNU while having clearly never even looked at the source code in the first place, so I personally don’t really care that Apple has decided to cease its release. However you conflated gratitude with pragmatism. Having demonstrated that to you, you have since continuously lied about what I have said.
That should read “It will have a marginal benefit for slowing work making MacOS X work on non-Apple PC…” For whatever reason I’ve never been able to edit my posts.
>Find one sentence written by me that states that Apple should show gratitude.
I apologize. I thought I was replying to Vitae, who was going on and on and on and on about gratitude. You stumbled on the discussion between us, and so I thought I was still replying to him.
That would explain it. For the life of me I couldn’t understand your responses, and I apparently mistakenly attributed it to malice. I apologize as well for assuming bad faith. No harm done.
Apple has already said “thank you” by actually USING that code! They need to do NOTHING more to express gratitude.
How the hell does that constitutei gratitude? We use your code and then say screw you (because the license allows it), and you call that “thankfulness.” See, real gratitude would be giving back in the spirit of open source something since you’ve not only taken something that somebody else wrote, but made a fair bit of money off it. I don’t think you understand what gratitude is, though you sure have a fine grasp of corporate politics.
The spirit of open source is subjective, depending on the license used. The BSD license’s thought of openess means freedom to choose. And Apple has chosen an action that it’s legal and they had a good reason for it: piracy.
>How the hell does that constitutei gratitude?
Here we go again about gratitude. Read my previous messages, I do explain why for a BSD PROJECT, gratitude means reusing its code, and not necessarily giving back. BSD is not GPL. Get a clue.
That’s bullshit. There’s going to piracy anyway. I can download a 5-1 Windows installer for Windows Home, Pro, MCE, Tablet, CE and that’s without any open source. I can also get a hack to turn Home into MCE or Pro. OS X is going to get hacked regardless. This won’t stop it, and you know it. Apple’s being paranoid.
And didn’t I already point out that this thread is not about the legality of Apple’s decision, but the ethics of it?
Edited 2006-06-14 21:58
>I can download a 5-1 Windows installer
Pirating Windows is easy. Pirating an OS that by default requires specific hardware to run is more difficult. Removing this requirement is made easier when having the kernel source that checks at boot time what hardware is running on. And by closing the kernel Apple hopes to make it even more difficult for hackers to remove this check. It’s their right AND their obligation to do so. Without OSX being locked to specific hardware there is no business for Apple to be made. And if OSX’s business fail, so does the Mac platform.
Then they should have thought of that before they switched to x86 because EVERYBODY knew there would be piracy if it ever happened. Everybody except Apple apparently.
They did not have ANY choice but to come to x86. The market demanded it.
And not move to a platform and save their product so they just don’t have to close a piece of code that no one really uses (and that have every right to close) is ABSURD.
Apple DID take steps to make sure OSX only works on Intel Macs. But hackers — with the help of the kernel source– found a way to disable this check. THEY left NO other option to Apple but to close their kernel.
If you want to be mad at someone, BE MAD AT THESE HACKERS and NOT at Apple. Their gift to the world, the code of the kernel, was MISUSED and used against the company.
Edited 2006-06-14 22:04
I’m not mad. Frankly, I don’t care. I’m really only pointing out the irony here. That they took open source, gave almost nothing back and then it came back to bite them. Now see, if only they’d have written their own closed source kernel, if only they’d not been so lazy….
Vitae, I don’t know what your engineering background is, but in these 3 lines I found 4 errors.
>That they took open source, gave almost nothing back
Apple still has their Darwin source code out in the open. How is that not “give back”? You can always download a previous version, fork it, and go from there!
> and then it came back to bite them.
And it would do the same to Red Hat if they were giving the source code away and at the same time they required locks to specific hardware or to specific software.
>Now see, if only they’d have written their own closed source kernel
They have. It’s called Mach and it’s a long evolution from NeXTSTEP. The BSD code was only used at places around the Mach kernel. Mac OS X is not a “clean” FreeBSD. It is a mix-up between NeXT and BSD.
> if only they’d not been so lazy….
Vitae, you have no clue what you are talking about. It usually takes 10 years to create a STABLE kernel with enough features. That’s the time of true maturity and feature-set a modern OS requires (and yes, Linux took that long, BeOS did too, XP’s kernel too). And Apple didn’t have 10 years to spend in experiementing. They had shareholders and Mac customers to satisfy. They went with the best solution at the time, and that was some code from FreeBSD to contemplate their existing Mach code.
In the process they thought they actually give the source code away as a gift to the community. At some point their PowerPC line was failing and they had to move to x86. In order to keep their market they HAD to lock OSX to specific Mac Intel hardware. But by also giving the source away, some hackers used that gift against the company.
Now, what is this company to do? Go back to PowerPC and doom the Mac platform? Open their OSX to other x86 PCs and see their hardware line die and along with that lots of revenue? Try to play cat and mouse with hackers all over the world which are more than one can deal with? Or simply, close that kernel source code? (and remember, Apple only closed the kernel, not the whole Intel Darwin code)
Vitae, Apple did the right thing. I would do the exact same thing if I was in their shoes. Yes, it SUCKS for people who used that source code, but these people are few and between. And besides, you can still get older versions of the kernel if you want and fork it, and if you have the right amount of money and assurances you can still drive to Apple’s offices and license the new kernel. Just like Sun did for Solaris before they open sourced it. And Microsoft does the same for XP for specific high-end customers.
This is my last comment on the subject. You obviously don’t have all the facts on the plate but you reply simply based on emotion.
Mach is the precursor of NEXTSTEP and it was the result of research at CMU (and other places, but I degress…) based upon BSD sources. The work of NeXT and Apple is clearly their own and it’s nontrivial but the heritage of a lot of the code in XNU is somewhat baroque. It is certainly not sensible to suggest that they did not write their own kernel, since they did, they just also licensed big parts of it as well.
You know what, Eugenia. You’ve always made it a habit to come in here and lecture as if you were the voice of authority on any subject that comes up. You’re not capable of having a discussion, you simply think you’re educating people. And when that’s not enough, then you want to start questioning and criticizing the people themselves. So my question is, with you being the expert in so many areas of the tech industry, I’m wondering why you’re not high up in the business, an executive running her own company instead of yet another internet blogger.
I think Apple should go open-source, or at least allow people to install Mac OS X on x86 architecture…..
but, I dont think Microsoft will merge with Apple before they do that…..
Thats coming from a so-called Mac-Fanboy…
everything mankind has come up with has had a flaw or two….but when you have 96-98% of the market, you dont have any excuse when you make seriuosly flawed software….
and you know what, people will still buy it….
Maybe nobody cared because nobody took Apple’s threat of permanently closing the source code down seriously.
I wonder why Apple’s doing this. There must be some reason. I don’t see how it’s going to help them increase market share though (speaking of which I wrote a little bit on that here: http://weblands.blogspot.com/). At the very least it means more work for themselves. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Regular people don’t refuse to buy a computer because some politics regarding the source code to a part of the OS considering that A: they don’t know what the hell a kernal is, B: what an OS is.
On the other hand people still don’t refuse to buy Sony stuff because of the Root Kit fiasco. A shame really.
When a company grows sufficiently large it can become difficult to opt out of purchasing its products without sacrificing semi-unrelated things that you value. In many cases, consumers don’t even realize some of the goods that they purchase even come from a company that they have some disdain for. And in other cases they’re never aware of the activities that might instigate sufficient resentment to cease purchasing its products. Even despite the online press coverage of the root kit fiasco, I bet you could pick ten random people from the street and they would be completely unaware of it or its implications. After that you would still have to contend with the phenomena you mention where many won’t care anyway because it doesn’t appear to touch on something that matters to them.
Well, I know what a kernel is, and an OS, and I still refuse to buy Sony stuff, and not just for the rootkit “fiasco” they took on the movie industry in the 80s to fight for the legality of VCRs, and now as part of the RIAA they sue their own customers in the same breath as they sell the very technology that allows people to copy and share music. Sony is one messed up company
Why did Apple close up?
Simple,
Mac OS X is what sells Apple hardware.
Apple is a hardware company.
When they had PPC processors it was realitivy easy to keep their OS open because it couldn’t run on the numerous x86 based Intel processors.
When IBM FAILED with their G5 processor plans and left Apple hanging, Apple was forced to find a cooler processor for their laptops and other machines.
They had to go to Intel for those processors, which if you read the Apple forums, these Intel dual cores are not really cool, just cooler than G5 processors. (I don’t expect much performance increases in the future for laptops.)
So with the swtich to x86, Mac OS X is all of a sudden able to run on generic x86 hardware from any computer maker.
So for every copy of Mac OS X on a crappy Dell means one less potential switcher to Apple hardware which they need to sell to survive as a company.
So like Apple was forced to use Intel processors and now they are forced to close up their OS.
I’m sure your a nice person and give blood occassionally, but sure not going to give away the entire farm in the process.
I have never liked the phrase that Apple is a hardware company, because while they do make the bulk of their revenue from selling hardware their business revolves around creating or securing content for use with that hardware so as to encourage the sale of that hardware. Which is to say that Apple sells many products that have a certain synergy. It’s sort of like thinking of a printer manufacturer as an ink company, because that is where most of the revenue from their printers comes from. It’s an oversimplification.
Mac OS X Kernel was on a APPL… Apple kept the right to do whatever they wanted with the Kernel (Including close it from our eyes). They did it… End of story.
– Sure it’s sad for people who were actually compiling the kernel for various reasons
– Sure it’s sad for people who like me liked to see how it was actually done
– Sure I’d like it to remain open-source under the APPL
That doesn’t mean that you will not be able to continue to use/write killer app for OS X. Life go on!
Who knows, perhaps Apple will reverse their decision in 6 months or in 5 years… There is always hope!
“…perhaps Apple will reverse their decision…”
– Sadly, I don’t see this happening. But, they’ve surprised me before, so I guess I should never say never.
“…continue to use/write killer app for OS X…”
– Unfortunately, this will somewhat dampen interest in ‘killer apps’ on Macs. Not 100%, or even 10% – but many of today’s ‘killer apps’ involve digging deeper into the system than standard frameworks allow. That’s not to say kernel access is mandatory, but for the few percent who care (or know that they should care) it doesn’t help attract new development when faced with open-source alternatives on hardware that is more widely available.
True, this isn’t a showstopper – but it doesn’t look as attractive as it used to.
I don’t see the problem. Apple is well within their rights to do this. Heck, there are sponsored contests to promote hacking their product. Helloooo.. they ARE a business. Don’t like it, buy windows. Now theres something that should be exposed about… The illegal use of WGA, spyware, mandatory download and install of ‘updates’ for the good of the user. WGA phone home!
Not so long ago, Microsoft had a special ‘licence’ agreement that allowed a company (That paid the price) to have access to the source code of Windows 2000 (I am sure that this kind of ‘licence’ is available for Win XP or Vista ) to that they could customize it for their own specific needs.
Apple could offer something similar for corporation. For others that aren’t employed by corporation, I can easily imagine a situation where the same license could be sold at a discounted price because you are a scientist hired by reputed university.
It’s not the same thing as a Open-Source Kernel, but, it’s better than nothing!
That’s actually not open source at all. You could even call it closed source, because you choose whom to show the code.
What I don’t get here is why do people think it is unethical for them not to open source the code? That’s exactly what the license allows them. Using that same logic one could say it was unethical for the person who wrote the code to choose that license.
seems to be the fact that although Darwin might very well be open source it has always been insanely difficult to actually BUILD it on a machine that already runs OS X…
It is not exactly eccessible in that sense so how much of a difference does this thing do anyhow?
If one could actually easily build it himself and thereby benefit from it being available as source code, it would be a greatly different matter…
The only semi official response I’ve been able to find so far, collected in one post:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188462&cid=15534143
As already said many times – wait and see, it’s early to get upset. They’ve not made a final decision – yet.
I’ll only say I trust this Slashdot user more than both of the rants on Infoworld.
http://digg.com/apple/USERS_Strike_BACK_against_Apple_s_product_qua…
Fight the power.
(the one included in my Mac)
One definition of cancer is
figurative a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate
To tell people they can’t use language in the commonly accepted form is a fairly dictatorial stance.
I will seek my news elsewhere…
To tell people they can’t use language in the commonly accepted form is a fairly dictatorial stance.
Yes, and one definiton of ‘to f–k’ is ‘to procreate’. Does that make ‘to f–k’ a generally acceptable verb, fitting in every setting of speech?
Some things are simply offensive in other countries than your own. In Dutch, for instance, the word ‘cancer’ (‘kanker’), even when used for something destructive unrelated to the actual disease (which rarely happens) is considered highly offensive, impolite, and generally not posh. In English, this is different, but guess what, this is an international website, which happens to have a Dutch managing editor (hey, that’s me) who lives not only in a country where the word ‘cancer’ is considered highly offensive, but also in a continent which considers the word ‘cancer’ highly offensive.
Other than that, OSNews really is not a democracy. I’m sorry.
“OSNews really is not a democracy. I’m sorry.”
You don’t sound sorry…
It must be sad to live in a world where you let such small things as words have such a large influence over your life.
Pity, that.
I refuse to let the little bastards have any control over me, though. They’re just words. They don’t have any magic.
So we are supposed to write posts in the English language keeping inferences that our words may have in any other languages in mind? Doesn’t sound very logical. Now English is not my native language but when I write in English I tend to use words that would make contextual sense in English.
So if the OSNews team wishes to ban certain words and censor their use, fair enough. It is your perogative and right to do so, you manage the site. But I don’t think you need to provide illogical justifications for those actions. You said it wasn’t a democracy, so just say “Do not use such and such word because I said so”
You said it wasn’t a democracy, so just say “Do not use such and such word because I said so”
That’s what I did.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14891&comment_id=133449
My astrological sign is Cancer. Oh no, I am blacklisted! 😉
Words mean nothing unless in a certain context. Might want to add that to your proper language use policy too.
Tolerance and democracy are different matters. By taking offense to the casual usage of a word that isn’t inherently offensive to the broader English-speaking community you’ve made a “free speech” issue in an otherwise recycled discussion regarding the appropriateness of Apple’s plans for the source code of the Intel build of XNU. This will naturally turn the knobs of people that value the free exchange of non-intentionally-offensive ideas, which otherwise are permissable. That you act the part of autocrat doesn’t really matter, it’s the particular decision that you’ve made. Even if the site policies were determined democratically, such people would be displeased.
How can Apple even consider this?
Neal Saferstein
Neal Saferstein
I’m not a developer, so I’m not claiming to know something I shouldn’t, but how many people need access to the actual kernel that runs the system anyway?
Sure there’s a few people that yelled and screamed about loosing access, but what did they code from having open access?
I think it was a move that needed to be made, it’s Apple’s OS, they can do what they want, you can blame the people doing the wrong thing, Apple did what they had to do.
Hmm.. ever heard of OpenDarwin or GNU/Darwin?
Why the complaint? The BSD license gives them the right to make their
“derived” code proprietary. If the authors of the BSDs wanted to protect
your freedom, they’d have used a more effective open source license.
Stop complaining. Let it be. If you are a free software developer,
think hard about the license you use to distribute your software in the
future.
That explains why my mod didn’t bring it down…
And yes. For shame.
Can I respect Apple for going closed source? No, but them going closed source is not the reason why they can’t have my respect. Why? Because they still present them selves as one of major OSS contributors which they aren’t and never were. I could respect if they would say this as MS said it: “Screw OSS”. The way Apple is proclaiming? Plain and simple hypocracy, nothing else, PR bull to get gulible OSS hackers on their side. But as soon as they say the truth, they will gain my respect again. Until then? Not.
Hmm, your respect doesnt matter because you are misinformed.
1) Apple still contributes to Open Source projects, including significant contributions to GCC, the open sourcing of the Safari WebKit API and various userland fixes, such as in Samba, etc. Most of Darwin is also still open source. So, Apple really is an open source contributor, and even, concerning GCC, a major one.
2) Where exactly does Apple proclaim that they are “major OSS contributors”? Since you call them hypocrites based on that proclamation, where exactly have you seen them stating so? Nowhere. I call BS.
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
Apple believes that using Open Source methodology makes Mac OS X a more robust, secure operating system, as its core components have been subjected to the crucible of peer review for decades. Any problems found with this software can be immediately identified and fixed by Apple and the Open Source community.
Apple plasters the Open Source mantra all over their web site so they can jump around waving their hands saying, “Hey! look! We’re Open Source too.” But, it really is just a farse, and this kind of behavior drives the point home; however, I must say that I’m not really surprised either.
I have to say that citing law and software licences in an ethical debate is, at worst, an oxymoron. At best, it is an appeal to authority. In either case, it doesn’t justify anything. Being ethical has nothing to do with being practical or pragmatic. In fact, being ethical often requires one to being impractical (at least from other’s perspectives).
Apple is and always has been an appalling little company. Look at the way they methodically shafted their dedicated vendors who had been selling their products for years, when they decided they wanted to get into the retail business. Look at the way they’ve shafted 3rd party vendors. Without even having to look at that, I mean, come on, its a closed system running closed software, that makes them worse than Microsoft even. And the fact that users have the audacity to cop some smug attitude thinking they are superior just shows ultimately what moronic, pitiable twits they really are.
I went into a mac irc channel not long ago sincerely inquiring about where to find source and how to compile stuff because I thought it might be neat to try to put OS X on a Thinkpad. Within 10 seconds flat I had a bunch of mindless minions insulting me claiming I was stealing, saying that they have taken down my IP address. Wow, it reminded me exactly of all the drones in that commercial with the guy who throws the hammer. Those drones are EXACTLY what Mac users are.