“The open source revolution has shaken the slowly crumbling foundations of closed source software, and while it hasn’t taken over completely just yet, the tide is beginning to turn in its favor. Your normal everyday user may not really understand or appreciate what open source means, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not experiencing the effects of it.”
Of all companies active in our industry, surely Apple is the most opposed to the whole spirit of open source?
You have the iTunes phenomenon, where you have a store locked to proprietary software running on only two OSs. Then music which, without hacking and working around and/or loss of quality, can only be played on a proprietary player.
Then you have an OS which is tied to own brand hardware, though this hardware is built of exactly the same components everyone else’s hardware is built of, so there is no technical reason for the restriction.
No Apple software packages are available for open source platforms are they? Filemaker will only run on Linux in server version. There seem to be no moves to release anything else even in binaries for Unix/Linux.
The article says that people laugh when MS and Open Source are mentioned in the same breath. They don’t laugh when Apple and Open Source are? They must be suffering from a failure of the sense of humour and irony both, if they don’t.
I would have to agree with you for a change on this one lol…Apple & Opensource is just as funny as Windows & Opensource. If anything it may be FUNNIER.
So, WMA-DRM? One platform, even more restrictive. DRM is a reality we have to face, legal digital music would not exist without it.
Apple ships OS X with a large number of open source components. Darwin, Apache, PHP, SMB Networking, WebKit and more. Windows doesn’t ship with any open source anything.
Apple are a company, like any other. They have things they have to protect in the name of their shareholders. Apple rely on open source software for their OS, they include it with the OS that ships to everybody, they have two open source projects of their own.
How then are they ‘the most opposed‘ to open source? You are clearly spouting bias like venom from a snake. Apple do not oppose open source, they just use it where needed and as appropriate; it’s not the answer to everything.
No, I am not ‘spouting bias like venom from a snake’. I am expressing an opinion.
I didn’t say they were opposed to Open Source, but to ‘the spirit of Open Source’. I’m not an Open Source zealot, though I am (which is different) an open formats zealot.
The argument is not that Open Source is good or bad. It is that the spirit of Open Source is incompatible with things like locking your OS to your own brand hardware for purely commercial reasons – to create lockin and linked sales. Like making it only possible to buy music from your store using your own proprietary software. Like, tying the bought music to your own particular player.
Reasonable people may argue that those are perfectly fine things to do, and have valid commercial reasons behind them. Maybe so, that is not what the present argument is about: the argument is, fine or not, they are definitely incompatible with the spirit of Open Source. And, I would argue, of all the major players business models, they show probably the greatest incompatibility.
Apple are a company, like any other. They have things they have to protect in the name of their shareholders. Apple rely on open source software for their OS, they include it with the OS that ships to everybody, they have two open source projects of their own.
In other words they don’t mind using other people’s OSS software, but God forbid they release any of their own.
webkit, launchd, darwin…
What great open source products have MS given to the world? (that doesn’t have encumbered licensing)
Darwin is basically OSX with all the proprietary Apple-type stuff removed, i.e. whichever flavour of BSD claims OSX is based on it this week.
Did I say MS have given any FOSS products (never mind “great FOSS products”) to the world?
[Accidental double-post deleted]
Edited 2006-08-18 15:46
webkit = khtml, launchd I don’t know, darwin = bsd with mach kernel all existing open source. But well it means that Apple thinks that Open source gives good quality, otherwise they wouldn’t base their products on it. But apple doesn’t create open source projects, it takes some of them and then follows the rules, if it’s gpl or lgpl, they follow it if it’s bsd they close it.
webkit = khtml
That’s somewhat true, but at this point both projects have diverged in different directions quite a bit. Honestly I’ve found WebKit to have quite a few advantages over KHTML at this point, especially in the realm of compatibility. (Hence why there are projects on quite a few OSes now implementing their own browser based on WebKit.)
The downside being that while they ditched reliance on QT they still didn’t make it THAT gentle to port. (Though I could be wrong after all of the ports done, I suspect some simplification may have made it’s why into the source tree.) And it’s coding style has changed dramatically from KHTML. Enough so that by and large the team there isn’t interested in taking back from the source because they’d have to literally back port to account for Apple’s structure and style changes. (Apparently Apple’s devs don’t meet their style guide lines in the least.)
From what I know launchd is indeed their own attempt at a process manager based in XML so that’s an example of their own open project. As would be Rendezvous and the Quicktime streaming server last I checked. It’s true, they haven’t released that much of their own stuff to the masses but they’ve respected every open source license they’ve used and continue to try to encourage open projects relating to OS X. (Hell, OpenDarwin goes to shut down and they scramble to give the hosted projects a new home with MacForge!)
That’s somewhat true, but at this point both projects have diverged in different directions quite a bit. Honestly I’ve found WebKit to have quite a few advantages over KHTML at this point, especially in the realm of compatibility. (Hence why there are projects on quite a few OSes now implementing their own browser based on WebKit.)
Actually, this is one area where Apple does seem to be backtracking and once again embracing a collaborative model.
Although WebKit diverged from KHTML, the unity project is bringing it back into the fold. WebKit has been ported to qt4 and will have KDE desktop integration applied, including a kpart. At least, that’s my understanding of it all.
This is an experiment right now to determine the viability of re-merging fixes from KHTML into WebKit and possibly bringing the projects in synch. There’s no plan as far as I know at this point to drop KHTML in KDE 4.0, but if all goes well the projects could be synched.
More importantly Apple is supporting this effort, so while the initial fork of WebKit from KHTML may not have been KDE’s cup of tea, the end result could be an even more powerful engine supported with committed resources from Apple, KDE and Nokia.
If Apple plays nice and the kde devs can put aside their differences from the past, neither of which is an absolute given, there’s a lot of benefit here for many people. This is one example, I think, of Apple realizing there is more to gain from working together openly rather than simply building upon.
“So, WMA-DRM? One platform, even more restrictive. DRM is a reality we have to face, legal digital music would not exist without it.”
You’re drinking Apple kool-aid here, and I can smell it on your breath.
http://www.audiolunchbox.com/ Mp3s and Oggs, no DRM, legal
http://www.emusic.com/ Mp3s, no DRM, legal
http://www.livedownloads.com/ Mp3, FLAC, No DRM, Legal
I would argue that launchd is a notable exception. Apple has open sourced that when it had no requirement to do so (unlike WebKit).
Also consider that whilst very, very little of Apple’s code is open source, they have released the full technical specifications for a lot of their systems, thereby allowing people to implement them on other OS’s (e.g. HFS+ .mov)
However, yes as a whole Apple isn’t particularly open source friendly, but they are by no means the “the most opposed.”
i agree with you, apple can’ t boring saying that they are for opensource and do not open their os completly
In the same way IBM is against open source, since they refuse to open source AIX and OS/2?
In the same way IBM is against open source, since they refuse to open source AIX and OS/2?
….?????? Wow, what a stupid remark. Comparing apples and oranges won’t help you change truth.
And when did IBM said one of those is open source? Never (they always say that proprietary and OSS can coexist and helping to (and having) one OSS OS is enough, that would mean linux for IBM). While on the other hand Apple pretends like it is the greatest OSS company. You just go trough Apple site and watch how many times open source pops up with their products (especially OSX)
Edited 2006-08-18 15:21
Apple claims OS X is open sourced? I must have missed the announcement. They’ve claimed to be UNIX, but they’ve never claimed to be open source.
What school of logic did you come from?
On the other hand, releasing the iCal server, lauchd … was/is a very good move toward open-source and those are promising first steps IMO. I agreed with the author on this point.
This clashes with your previous statement. All those released packages are depending on CoreServices and other things Apple is keeping as closed source.
when I read of the iCal server open source, I was like, WOW, sounds like Apple is really down to trying to see an open-source challenge to the whole MS-Exchange ecosystem… It seems like a great OS project, in that, it’s totally compatible/extending the functionality of other projects (Mozilla, etc).
as for their OS, yeah, I mean, even before their ‘gap’ with the x86 code, i don’t think anybody really took Darwin seriously… it’s just not that useful for anyone besides Apple… although anybody CAN take any PART of it that seems useful/innovative… it’s just that it’s so focused on Apple’s own needs, that nobody even WANTS to use it…
as for iTunes, I’m definetley not recommending anybody buy any stuff from iTunes store, but, that’s really not about the SOFTWARE they’re making, but a separate MUSIC CONTENT RETAIL business of theirs. Looking at the rest of their actual software media architecture, particularly formats, I think AAC/Mp4, and Quicktime both being standard, open formats is great!
btw, I believe their Motion video FX/Comp software is still available for Linux & OSX (they bought the project that way, but at least they haven’t killed the Linux version as, for example they did with the Windows Logic)
all in all, it seems Apple IS contributing to an improved opensource scene… maybe you can say they are not an all-out “CHAMPION”, or they are not an “Open Source Company”, but definetely thru things like OS-services components and open formats they are contributing to a greater viability and even professional “smoothness” of the art (see Bonjour, launchd, their work with LLVM and OpenGL now)
I’d mod you up even more if it were possible. I’ve been interested in trying out OSX for awhile, but because of the severe vendor lock down you have with Apple, that’s not something that I am willing to do. I am probably gonna try out a MacOSx86 just to see what the OS it like, but there’s no sense in Apple refusing to open up their software to other hardware vendors. I realize that Apple is a “hardware company”, but there is absolutely no reason why they insist on locking down their OS. If they released it and just didn’t offer support for non-Apple hardware, then that would be okay in my book. Apple, while they have a great marketing department, has garnered and earned the image of the worst vendor lock-in company out there.
I don’t mean to sound pejorative, but you clearly haven’t had that much exposure to the Mac platform. What makes Macs “easy” is because you don’t have to worry about hardware. Apple has always had very specific hardware for a good reason. If you control the user’s hardware, then you can greatly simplify the software. How many man-hours have people spent in front of their Windows boxes downloading and configuring drivers? You almost NEVER need to download drivers for Mac OS X. Apple is preserving the Mac’s reputation as being easy for the sake of hardware invariability. It’s a tradeoff they’ve accepted for, what, the past 20-30 years?
Apple isn’t an authoritarian government, they’re a corporation. Apple doesn’t force you to buy their products. If you don’t want to be locked in, then just get a good x86 box and choose the software you want to use.
Edited 2006-08-18 16:29
@samad
I haven’t had any exposure to the Mac platform to be honest with you. Would I like to have that exposure? Certainly. However, I’m just not willing to go out and replace my computer with an Apple computer to have that exposure. I may find that I don’t like OSX as much as I like Linux or Windows. If so, then I would have lost that investment on the money I had to spend to purchase a Mac. My current desktop is a very good one that I had custom built by a company called CyberPower Systems.
My only grip against Apple is the “lock-in” that they have. I do understand that by Apple controlling both the OS and the hardware, that it will make their OS run that much better and smoother for those very reasons that you pointed out. However, I do not understand their strategy of not allowing people to have the choice to install it on the hardware of their own choice, rather than Apple’s choice. I just think it’s a bad business strategy. If they allowed people like myself to install OSX on my x86 computer, but didn’t offer support, then I wouldn’t complain about it. It would bring exposure of the Mac platform to me, and could very well convince me to go ahead and purchase a Mac. This would in turn generate more revenue and money to Apple, while at the same time, improving their image from not being such a “lock-in” corporation. That’s just my opinion on it anyways.
I haven’t had any exposure to the Mac platform to be honest with you. Would I like to have that exposure? Certainly. However, I’m just not willing to go out and replace my computer with an Apple computer to have that exposure. I may find that I don’t like OSX as much as I like Linux or Windows. If so, then I would have lost that investment on the money I had to spend to purchase a Mac. My current desktop is a very good one that I had custom built by a company called CyberPower Systems.
People always come up with this excuse, as a reason for saying Mac OS X should be open sourced, Mac OS X should run on any PCs, etc.
Yet, a) you can buy a Mac for cheap off ebay, b) you can buy a Mac and sell it later on ebay if you dislike it, c) you can wipe of OS X and install Linux if you should desire, and d) now with the switch to Intel, you can even run Windows should you feel OS X is a let down.
If so, then I would have lost that investment on the money I had to spend to purchase a Mac.
Yes, with bootcamp and Apple providing all drivers for windows, you will lost your money …
The fact is:
– Mac OS X is locked on Apple hardware
– The Apple’s hardware is not locked with anything, you can install what you want on it.
Microsoft side is wma with drm that only works if you have windows and wmp
Of all companies active in our industry, surely Apple is the most opposed to the whole spirit of open source?
Short answer: No.
And what idustry do you refer to?
If you start taking about the “spirit of open source”, you walk on thin ice, because there is no such thing as the different licences in de OSS world shows..
You have the iTunes phenomenon, [..]
Not worth to discuss because this discussion is not about OSS at all.
Then you have an OS which is tied to own brand hardware, though this hardware is built of exactly the same components everyone else’s hardware is built of, so there is no technical reason for the restriction.
You obviously heavily underestimate hardware engineering. A system is not just the sum of it’s parts. And there is also a layer of functionality below the OS (e. g. firmware).
Although my notebook is “built of exactly the same components everyone else’s hardware is built of”, I enjoy such features as target disk mode, instant awak from spleep and the like. I haven’t seen comparable features on “everyone else’s hardware”
In my eys your post boils down to two things:
1. I hate Apple therefore everything Apple does is bad (e. g. seen when reading riduculous exaggerations such as the most opposed to – Why not Microsoft? Sony “open source” music store everyone? Adobe Photoshop on Linux?, etc…)
2. Give! Give! Give! If somebody open sources a piece of software, he has to give everything else, too! Is that your idea of the “spirit of open source”?
All in all, Alcibiades as we know it.
I think that the the point of view of the author is not enough objective about Darwin.
For example, it’s clear that the open-source community is not that much interested in contributing to Darwin enhancements since it could mean free R & D for Apple. Darwin is clearly designed to be the “OS X” core (hopefully) and that poses numerous issue when you want to built a free desktop environment on top of it (didn’t say ‘impossible’ but harder than using GNU/Linux or *BSD).
On the other hand, releasing the iCal server, lauchd … was/is a very good move toward open-source and those are promising first steps IMO. I agreed with the author on this point.
Many big companies are embracing open-source develpment model more and more everyday (IBM, Apple, SUN …) and to me that means something !
I think Apple should go further and release their sources on a “real-time” model and not keeping sources for a moment and then release them (For instance : WebKit (in the old days), GCC & Objective-C++ and more recently Darwin for x86).
Wrong.
For example, it’s clear that the open-source community is not that much interested in contributing to Darwin enhancements since it could mean free R & D for Apple. Darwin is clearly designed to be the “OS X” core (hopefully) and that poses numerous issue when you want to built a free desktop environment on top of it (didn’t say ‘impossible’ but harder than using GNU/Linux or *BSD).
Yep, exactly. Free R&D for Apple, nothing else
On the other hand, releasing the iCal server, lauchd … was/is a very good move toward open-source and those are promising first steps IMO. I agreed with the author on this point.
This clashes with your previous statement. All those released packages are depending on CoreServices and other things Apple is keeping as closed source. A lot of community was running to look at those, and probably everybody runned away for that exact reason you named in the first statement. I for one did exactly that. Apple can develop its own solutions.
Edited 2006-08-18 15:19
Apple is a hardware producer first and an operating system provider next. The BSD license allows a public or private entity to take code and can either choose to return that code back into the public or not. At any point, with MicroDump suffering the effects of `?` lately I see a vibrant future for Apple who cares if it returns the code back. It’s their choice.
Edited 2006-08-18 13:18
+1 for you sir.
Not to get too far off track but I’m typing this from Konqueror because Firefox and Mozilla are locking up when I go to osnews.com.
It makes sense to use khtml and BSD userland because they are heavily tested and already work well. They do contribute back, yes even for BSD style licenses (see LLVM) so the only real gripe is they keep some things closed.
This makes sense. There are no OSS projects that provide an innovative desktop experience with little work. Apple has developed their own, so why give it away for nothing?
Even if they did give away the desktop, they would still most likely have to do all the work themselves because if the OSS desktop community couldn’t pull off their own incarnation, how are they going to be much help with Apple’s code?
Apple is participating in areas where OSS is strong. That should be good enough. But then again, Apple doesn’t need to satisfy FLOSS zealots. They are a very vocal minority that won’t be satisfied until Apple’s business model is in shambles at which point they will turn around and complain about someone else.
Edited 2006-08-18 19:43
Apple makes good stuff and praises UNIX and Open Source (what better praise is there than including you as a bullet point on your marketing campaign).
Microsoft does not praise open source and in fact takes many opportunities to take pot-shots at it. And Microsoft is the evil gorilla while Apple is the valiant underdog.
Actual facts only play a tangential role to this whole dispute. Microsoft is the most anti-open-source corporation right now, but the movement would not be possible without them for several reasons. Bill Gates did the initial deals that made the PC market with generic hardware possible. It was Microsoft that pioneered the “good-enough” software and hardware market that allowed machines to be used by average people for business purposes across the US. Maybe someone else would have done it, but in the early years Microsoft undercut everyone in price to make widespread computing possible.
If you read Apple’s history from the same time period, they had a more snobbish focus and did not want to lower their prices and give up some profit margins for greater volume. Microsoft’s culture was never to be the best and the most reliable… it was to be the cheapest and most practical… to the the “computer on every desktop.”
Because then all the people that told you how cool it was will then cry like little girly-men when you actually use it and don’t give every other software product you make away for free.
This zealotry spewing forth in this thread really shows a great ignorance as to how one runs a business.
A few random points:
-you can buy itunes tracks and strip drm from them with dvdjon’s tools. No Apple hardware or software required. Research these things before spouting nonsense.
-Don’t like something Apple makes? Don’t buy it, but please STFU with the FUD and GNU preaching. Apple’s target market really doesn’t give a crap what you think, you are wasting your breath.
-Apple is a business. Grow up and deal with that. They suck a lot less than Microsoft and don’t actively market against open source like MS does.
-No one made them just turn around and release a bunch of stuff for free (webkit patches that made Konquerer viable, the intel darwin kernel, launchd, ical server, QTSS…). Again, if this free software somehow offends, don’t use it.
-The whole GNU business will be viable when all these keyboard jockeys stop wasting time on message boards like this and build something that the masses can use that trumps OS-X.