Lately, there has been a lot of anti-Apple talk around the open source community. To a point, I can see why. Apple took a lot of software packages that those of us in the BSD and Linux communities have loved for quite some time, and they've bundled that software with their own graphics server, desktop environment, and accompanying software; none of which, is open source. What I think bothers people most is that Apple was very successful with their implementation, and none of us were. Heck, we even had a head start. We started off with our software in 1991, while Apple didn't really start using the same software until the 2000s were well under way.
People have also stated that Apple hasn't given back, which is false. WebKit was a modification of KHTML, and was re-released to the community after being made. This has enabled Epiphany, Chrome, Chromium, Midori, and Arora an alternative to Gecko. Almost all of their other open source software packages are available at Apple's Open Source page. So where is the problem? If I went ahead and made a closed-source operating system that leveraged open source tools, and I kept those tools open source... would I be yelled at were I successful? Apple is the single largest vendor of *nix, and the single largest vendor of open source software. Shouldn't we be cheering this as a success for our two main loves? More people are using *nix and open source software now than ever before, thanks to Apple.
I am not really an Apple fan, as I hate Apple's UI and I hate the proprietary nature of their development model. But, I have to give credit where credit is due.
:: EDIT ::
"So your pissed at Apple for not being open enough when it comes to opensource software. And your pissed with BSD for being to open with opensource software. I find it mildly funny how people always say that the GPL is god gift to open source software and everything should be open, free, happy, butterflies, yeh, but oh, if you plan on modifying anything and selling you better make damn sure your making your work free to everyone as well. Seems rather bossy." - KenP
Insanely well stated, even if the language is a bit more offensive than I would normally allow.
My point about Apple being successful (which apparently made quite a few people rather angry), was that Apple's stock prices have skyrocketed, they're making a ton of money, and they are using a software stack with which most of us are quite familiar. The implication is that Apple got something right, and we should try to figure what that is and emulate that. I would imagine that they got four things right: stability, simplicity, marketing, availability of well-known commercial software packages.
I love Linux/BSD/Solaris, and I want to see our OSs succeed. I am merely pointing out the obvious facts. Oh, and Apple only had to keep KHTML parts of WebKit opensource. The actual changes that made WebKit different could have been kept closed, and it would have been perfectly legal. So, Apple is still the good guy on that.
13 comments:
apl r sux lolololololol
lihnuks r winz
lawl
At the very least the reason why I am very unhappy with Apple isn't because of their success or their proprietary additions on top of an open source core. And while I certainly think their UI is ugly and non-functional that too is not why I dislike them. The reason is their condescending attitude towards users, developers, and their own employees. The fact that for all intents and purposes Apple sells neither software nor hardware, they rent it out.
I also dislike their stance on video for html5, but that ultimately goes back to my first problem. In this case they are merely doing their best to insure lock in, make money, and treat everyone like a criminal.
I should also remind you that since khtml is gpl software, Apple had no choice but to release Webkit as open source. While I haven't had time to look through Apple's open source collection, I would be willing to bet that most of it is open source for the same reason.
Yeah, I hate apple for similar reasons to satsujinka -- essentially, as the parent post points out, Apple is where it is because it got the rock solid base of open-source software. Today, it is out to make a criminal out of all open-source users; as I am sure you must be aware of its next move to launch a patent-laden battle on open-source codecs etc (Ogg Theora).
Trust me, in a few years, eleven is louder will be singing a different tune about Apple -- especially with regards to their attitude towards open-source.
This is my rant against BSD as well. That licence is essentially responsible for draconian companies like Apple to thrive. GPL3 is the right anti-dote for Apple, M$ etc.
Apple is not right at all regarding their view on open source software. I just avoid their product.
Yeah, they're one bad Apple.
Apple were forced to contibute code back to the KHTML project when the KDE community made a fuss about it.
Apple did not release the code until 3 years later. Talk about being monopolistic. They were distributing binaries without the source code when demanded. This was a major violation of the terms of the license
Apple is harping about how good H.264 is, well did they tell you that they are members of MPEG LA?
In 5 years time, Apple and Microsoft will be making money for every time H.264 is used.
Sure they're within the BSD license to take the code and rerelease it as their own OS. That doesn't change the fact that they're actively trying to supress innovation, supress cross-platform interoperability, and increase vendor lockin of their hardware AND software.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/columns/12191-Apple-Worse-for-open-source-than-Microsoft.html
The premise of your position on Apple doing thing "better" with Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) than the communities that developed these technologies is severely flawed. With the FOSS developer community there was no "commercial" mandate that required the software work perfectly with "proprietary hardware, or with "patented" peripherals, multimedia codecs, etc.
Therefore the author's statements are in many respects comparing Apples to Palm trees - so to speak.
Today, I used PCBSD, a FreeBSD 8.0 derived software with KDE 4.3X desktop,and a very polished and well integrated software (package) management system that rivals and surpasses Apple Snow leopard 10.6X in many regards. For example, my wife's Apple Mac Pro tower has dual CPU/Dual core 3.0 ghz Xeon CPUs, 8 GB Fast RAM, and 500GB SATA2 storage. My PCBSD unit runs on Dual Xeon 2.2ghz CPUs, 4GB RAM and 143GB SCSI Storage, yet the performance advantage I experience is palpably noticeable. Furthermore, my OS file system is ZFS and runs FreeBSD Jails, KDE multiple desktops/Anakondi server, etc, amoung other features/functions not available i Mac OS X.
It is obvious that the author has poor understanding of FOSS development processes and culture, outside of large commercial technology corporations, and therefore makes uninformed and ignorant statements about FOSS in general.
W. Anderson
wanderson@kimalcorp.org
@KenP
"This is my rant against BSD as well. That licence is essentially responsible for draconian companies like Apple to thrive. GPL3 is the right anti-dote for Apple, M$ etc."
So your pissed at Apple for not being open enough when it comes to opensource software. And your pissed with BSD for being to open with opensource software. I find it mildly funny how people always say that the GPL is god gift to open source software and everything should be open, free, happy, butterflies, yeh, but oh, if you plan on modifying anything and selling you better make damn sure your making your work free to everyone as well. Seems rather bossy
@riptatm
The GPL doesn't mean you can't sell your software, nor do you have to make the source available to everyone. You only have to provide it with the binary. Most people just give the source code away because they don't charge for their software and there is thusly no point in reducing the number of people who can see it.
That said I personally prefer BSD like licenses. I see no reason why you should disable someone from closing the source code, it merely reflects badly on them for not sharing. So if someone (such as Apple) takes code and closes it, that's fine, but it does sort of paint them as a bunch of self absorbed jerks.
Dude - you're getting it right. Apple can make progress because they make a profit - it means they can afford it. Linux progress is throttled by lack of profits. On the other hand, progress is also enhanced by FOSS variant philosophies. After all, the WHOLE gui desktop thing came out of Xerox! Definitely a for-profit company, but in that case, doing something and giving it away for free. It is a balancing act. I'm glad Apple is still in the market. For that matter, I should be glad MS is still in the market.
What ticks me off about MS is the bully-boy attitude, the illegal and immoral attempts to monopolize the market, and the marketing co-opting of good, quality software functionality, replacing it with minimally functional schlock.
Ultimately, the market will benefit by keeping competition alive. It's just that, in current events, we who choose the Linux world have chosen to live on the borders of the conflict.
I dislike Apple based on the fact that Steve Jobs feels he has a "moral obligation" to filter content to his users, currently he is only exercising this obligation in the iPhone/iPad/iTouch market - but I doubt it will stay there forever.
~Jeff Hoogland
Post a Comment