Apple is failing in Open Source and Free Software. It fails to understand the movement, its principles, and how to leverage it to make money. This would not be such an issue if Apple had not based their operating system OS X on Free Software in the form of NeXT/FreeBSD. Since OS X has taken its place amongst the other flavors of UNIX it is expected to behave as a responsible citizen in this community. Apple has failed to do so and its behavior is getting worse resulting in loss of goodwill from the community. If you think loss of goodwill is negligible, as apparently Apple does, you should consider its implications, many of which are already being realized in the ecosystem that Apple lives in. Not least of these is security and that is no trivial issue. Apple’s reputation has already been damaged by the Month of Apple Bugs and in its attempt to whitewash security issues that were published last summer. Fixing these problems was what the last, huge, processor-eating “security update” was all about. Now security researchers are wary of Apple and zero-day exploits may be published before fixes are ready, potentially exposing Apple’s customers to remote exploits and loss of data.
Apple needs to see Open Source as a way to strengthen their business. Many technology companies have figured out how to incorporate tools and licenses to strengthen their connection to their customers. Look at SUN and Adobe for example, both are moving in the opposite direction from Apple. SUN has released Java as GPL licensed, something that might have been unthinkable back in the days when Microsoft was trying to undermine Java’s widespread use. Adobe has opened up a good deal of their tools which chiefly appeal to so-called creatives who often use the Apple platform. Now they have incentive to switch to linux with all of the new development tools and support Adobe has thrown their way. Adobe is even developing new tools out in the open with developer interaction, look at http://labs.adobe.com/ for example. Note the presence of Wikis and creative commons licensed documents. Mac doesn’t even use Creative Commons licenses for its support forums.
Apple talks the talk, here is a quote from their Open Source web page: “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.” This is exactly what the community says Apple is not doing.
Furthermore, a cursory investigation of various projects leads to lots of unmaintained web pages and software that could have benefited from Apple’s deeper involvement. I am thinking of two separate implementations of Gtk and Open Darwin. Merely the fact that Open Darwin was allowed to wither on the vine is direct evidence that Apple says one thing about Open Source but does completely another.
There is a cost for not being a good Open Source citizen and that cost is loss of goodwill in the community. That loss is more expensive in the long run than Apple realizes.


Yeah, I really don't think you have anything to backup your claim that Apple's rep was hurt by the "month" of Apple "bugs".
Yeah, I guess you are right. Remote exploits, kernel buffer overflows, and DoS attacks really enhance your reputation.
Don't forget there was a time when the Open Source community was desperate for validation by businesses like Apple (I'm thinking roughly the period 1996-2000). Adoption of Open Source licenses or code does not turn a business into a charity. Apple, or any rational business, would need to see a good business case for getting involved in a project.
In the case of OpenDarwin, I can't imagine that it would be a #1 priority to spend money on a fork of something you're already spending money on (i.e. Darwin itself).
@ Fraser
The point is to make money.
If you understand Open Source you can see how it can help you leverage your community for better, more secure, more usable products. If you think of it as a fork you are missing the point of Apple's own declaration regarding Open Source: "Apple believes that using Open Source methodology makes Mac OS X a more robust, secure operating system".
Plus you SAVE money on development, you add users with new tools, you create new business, etc. This is "getting" Open Source and improving shareholder value. After all, I hold Apple shares and I want them to go up.
http://www.macosforge.org/
I agree with Jeremiah and I think Apple's problems can be summed up with, "When you're riding high you think you know it all, you don't need anybody else, and no one can tell you anything."
On another note, instead of developing its' own browser, e-mail client, word processor, etc., why doesn't Apple just work with the open source community to make sure that Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc., are the best choices for the Mac?
I'm a Mac user and right now don't have any plans to switch away, but if it weren't for the iApps (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie), I'd be buying AMD (another note to Apple - AMD blows Intel out of the water - give us a choice) based machines and putting Linux on them in a heartbeat...
Kevin
What exactly could be Apple's interest in having an implementation of GTK+ besides Aqua?
Why should they invest their developement ressources in something decidedly cross-platformish like Firefox, Thunderbird or the bloated OpenOffice?
The Mac is all about it's platform experience. Therefore they focus on improving their own frameworks (all this Core Thingies).
The Unix-underpinnings are of course a different story. But one should not forget to mention that Apple made some contributions like Bonjour, launchd and the rest of the possee on macosforge.
And yes, Adobe can be open (but still keep PDF and Flash closed!), cause there's not a single serious challenger left ...
@A1lias
What exactly could be Apple's interest in having an implementation of GTK+ besides Aqua?
Apple states them here: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/index.html
I'll quote,
"Cross-platform development environment
Integrates easily with C/C++ code
Robust feature set"
Helping Gtk+2 will allow a huge collection of already written applications to run natively on the Mac expanding the usefulness of OS X. Think tools like the GIMP for example, Evolution, or nearly any Gnome tool. There are lots of compelling reasons to help Gtk.
Jeremiah,
yes, Apple invites developers to port whatever they have (Java-Gui, X11, Qt, Tcl, GTK+) to Mac OS X - but they adress the drawbacks in the same document too:
However, that cross-platform nature comes with a price in flexibility. In essence, to be cross-platform, they can only support capabilities that are generic to all of the potential operating environments, and as such, they tend to provide only the lowest common denominator in terms of functionality.
The Mac way is to separate itself through innovative and/or unique features and deep integration. Really, I'm not looking forward to work with Evolution on a Mac lacking Spotlight capabilities and bringing its own adress book and calendar. Otherwise I'd use a linux box as it's free.
Gah. I pray to the gods GTK is never fully ported to OSX. Frankly, I'm happy with a decent UI and decent usability - if I wanted pain, I'd just use a hammer on my hand. (Which still beats the experience of most GTK apps)
Just because Apple doesn't support every crummy project out there doesn't mean they are anti-open-source. Witness Webkit - they sorted out their issues with the KHTML guys and have become very open. Because KHTML/Webkit is actually a decent piece of sw, as opposed to many other open source projects.
Are you kidding? George Ou as a reliable source on Apple?
"Month of Apple Bugs and in its attempt to whitewash security issues that were published last summer."
Whitewash? You mean that phony Ou article? TUAW and other blogs that were supposedly conspiring with Apple have already called his claims as bs. Why is everyone regurgitating this non-story?
Before Apple bought them, NeXT already fought and lost the GNU battle; they were put in a position to rip out their GNU foundations or to return their modifications to the community. They chose to rip out the GNU foundations. The NeXT alumni have been the most aware of what commercial obligations they have: zlich.
In terms of community, you can look to the Safari and webkit operations to see how Apple continues to try working with the free communities. They contribute back code improvements. They participate in standards development. And they namespace prefix their non-standard innovations rather than just forcing them on the community. Apple has been severely criticized for all of these things ("dumping code", "nagging", "forcing their way") And this is in an area that isn't critical or differentiating Apple in the marketplace.
My guess is that there is discomfort between a closed source, commerical software company and the free / open communities. What else is new?
@ Matthew - TUAW seems to take the bugs seriously look here. and they link to Landon Fuller who patches those bugs hehttp://landonf.bikemonkey.org/code/macosx/re. I have no idea about the truthfulness of Ou.
@ William Moss - I find it remarkable that no one sees Apple's choice of BSD/NEXTSTEP platform as a differentiator or competitive advantage, despite Apple's claims to the contrary. It seems Apple customers just want Free Software people to go away so Apple can make new, shiny toys. Problem is, underneath those shiny toys runs a sophisticated OS that needs work. Many companies have figured out how to get that work done for free. Not Apple.
Apple needs to contribute more than just updates to their fork of KHTML.
I wonder if it's not you that misunderstands OpenSource. As long as you are not violating the license agreements under which the software is released, you can whatever the hell you want with it, and are under NO obligation to contribute back to the community.
I have worked with OS software for over 10 years, and let me tell you that it's a very, VERY rare thing to find a company that uses it and contributes in any way back to the community. If you're pissed that people are taking freely available software and making money off of it, then I'm afraid you've been labouring under some kind of misapprehension all this time. They are, so long as they don't violate the Ts&Cs, perfectly entitled to do so.
As it is, Apple DOES contribute significantly back to the OS community. I really can't see any case for complaint.
I don't think Apple is failing at anything. Rather it is other companies who are failing to realize that Open Source is communism. "Free" is not a business model.
Sun is going GPL because Sun is at death's door and trying to figure out how to stay in business. Pretty sad when your products are so bad that you have to give them away free to get people to accept them.
The goal of Open Source, like all communist movements is to cheapen and degrade the value of products. By degrading the value of software, Open Source attempts to turn software from a creative endeavor into a cheap commodity - like a factory stamping out a bunch of uniform pencils. That is not where business profits lie.
Apple is doing so well precisely *because* it is not embracing open source. The big profits lie in high-value creative work and in creating beauty, not in creating cheap commodities.
As for MOAB, the communists who were apparently running it got angry because no one cared and stormed off in a huff. The relentless media attacks on Apple (including MOAB) can't seem to bring this down this company which the communists hate so much.
Please, before posting again, learn how to write properly. Just repeating your claims again and again will not provide any proof.
How can you point to Adobe as a good citizen and not realize that e.g. Apollo is build upon common efforts by Apple and the Konquerer team? Is it too hard to find macosforge? Or don't you realize that OSS is not about hyped bullshit like creative commons licensed support forums but about contributing code?
Thank god you can blame all criticism above on zealotry and don't have to stop and think.
Can I become a writer for DevCenter just by repeating my claims over and over again without even minimal proof?
First, I can't believe you're still repeating the non-story driven by Ou's ephemeral allegations. That issue has been thoroughly debunked, again and again.
Second, your main evidence that Apple doesnt "understand" OSS is that they don't throw all their resources at every project trying to compile against OS X. You've got to be kidding me. Apple, more than any other major commercial OS maker, has encouraged OSS development and made available information regarding the system to encourage it. It's not their obligation, nor, IMO, in their best interest, to spend significant resources on these projects. They make what they can available, but the point of OSS community-driven development is that others develop the applications, not the corporation.
I would say that the MOAB enhanced OS X's reputation. Look at the severity and frequency of bugs found in a whole month of concentration compared to what is found monthly in Windows just in the normal course of business.
@A1ias:
I know most pro-opensource guys will go balls to the walls defending anything that is open source, and claiming it is better than all alternatives, but just because a program is open source doeesn't make it better. Firefox is a nifty program, I like it and if you are on Windows you are an idiot to not use it, but the WebKit rendering engine underneath Safari (which is open source isn't it?) loads pages faster than Firefox. Firefox's engine is extremely bloated by comparrison. The nice thing about Firefox is its extensibility through plug-ins, but Safari is a perfectly valid choice. The same could be said about Mail (to a lesser extent) and all the other iApps for one reason or another. I agree with Jeremiah on a lot of points, and Apple could leverage open source a bit more, and be a better open source community member, but utilizing open source for every app would be wasting a whole lot of really good software engineers they have hired over there at Apple.
@Kevin:
Seriously, I don't mean to start up a totally different debate, but you have to drop your blind loyalties here people. They don't serve you. I like AMD, I really do. They are the scrappy underdog. And a couple of years ago when Intel was still trying to push their decrepit NetBurst architecture, AMD had the faster chips, easily. Then Intel pushed its new Core architecture and dropped NetBurst like the junk it was. Look at any benchmark, Intel's current chips are faster across the board. When Apple first switched and went 100% intel I had no idea why they would do such a thing. NetBurst was slower than AMD and slower than PowerPC. But Intel switched to Core and we all saw why Apple made the choices it did.
@Mike
Pick up one of these, it might help...
"Apple needs to contribute more than just updates to their fork of KHTML." Wow. What a disingenious thing to say.
"TUAW seems to take the bugs seriously look here. and they link to Landon Fuller who patches those bugs hehttp://landonf.bikemonkey.org/code/macosx/re. I have no idea about the truthfulness of Ou."
I didn't say anything about TUAW not reporting on MOAB. What I said was that they and many other bloggers have come forward to say that Ou's claim of Apple somehow conspiring with bloggers to spread a misinformation campaign is completely false. It would have taken all three seconds of a Google search to learn about this sinister "whitewash."
Then you say that fixing these bugs is what the security updates were about. While that may be true for MOAB, it's not necessarily true for the "Macbook wireless hack" referenced in the Ou article you pointed to.
John Gruber gets it right:
"Why, for example, was the demo Maynor showed last week against Mac OS X 10.4.6 rather than 10.4.7? After he caused a kernel panic on 10.4.6, Maynor rebooted the machine into 10.4.8 and showed that the exploit no longer worked.
But Mac OS X 10.4.7 was released on June 27, 2006, more than a month before Maynor and Ellch announced their exploit. Maynor rebooted into 10.4.8 last week to show that the patches Apple released on September 21 -- after Maynor and Ellch's announcement in August -- fix the problems exploited by his demo, indicating that despite Apple's protestations, he and Ellch deserved credit for those fixes.
But if his exploit doesn't work against 10.4.7, it might indicate just the opposite: that Apple's September AirPort security patches were not directly related to this particular exploit against 10.4.6."
The GTK part is funny. It sounds like Apple should have used something open instead of Cocoa. But if you go to Wikipedia you'll see that's what they did. It's OpenStep and did exist long before GTK and the GIMP developers could have used that with GNUStep instead of creating a new GUI lib. With a simple recompile the same source could run with GNUStep, Cocoa or any other OpenStep implementation.
Someone mentioned Apple could have used Firefox/Phoenix/Chimera or Gecko instead of creating Safari and Webkit. Now that's also funny, because Dave Hyatt worked on Phoenix, Chimera and Mozilla at Netscape. I guess with someone like him in their team the Webkit team had a reason why they created something based on KHTML.
Open Source isn't something you do just because it's cool - that's what many don't understand. It's like saying the MOAB had a real impact ... oops.
What a masterpiece of journalism. Do O'Reilly let just anybody post? Here's a paraphrasing of your article:
Paragraph 1: Apple are failing at OSS. They don't get it, like I do. They are losing goodwill, I'm sure of that. Goodwill is important. Apple don't realize how much they need people like me. A controversial article I read claimed to discover a security exploit. (This has nothing to do with OSS, but I wanted to mention it anyway.) I think Apple covered it up. Security experts are wary of Apple. At least that's what I've heard.
Paragraph 2: Apple needs to realize that I think OSS can strengthen their business. Look at SUN! They OS'd Java. And look how good they're doing now! I'm sure every day Steve Jobs wakes up wondering, "What can I do today to get Apple closer to SUN." Look at Adobe! They added a Creative Commons tag to their forums. Apple didn't DO THAT. Don't you see, they don't GET IT, like I do.
Paragraph 3: Apple talks the talk, but don't walk the walk. That's exactly what I'm pretty sure the community is saying.
Paragraph 4: I've found many OSS projects that Apple have't contributed to. Look at Gtk! Why is Jobs focusing on crap like Apple TV, iPhones and the lot, when GIMP still doesn't run well on OS X!!!
Paragraph 5: I'll conclude my well-evidenced article by restating that there is a cost for not being a good Open Source citizen, and that is loss of goodwill. I personally happen to know what this cost is, but as I have clearly argued and demonstrated above, Apple don't. (Now, where's my Pullizer?)
Lots of assertions in this rant but very little substance. Using MoAB and the Krebs debacle as support for your argument effectively reduced your credibility to zero. You'll need to do a lot better than that. For instance, you say that Apple's reputation was "badly damaged" by MoAB. Show me an objective measurement of that assertion. If anything, MoAB _strengthened_ the reputation of OS X since after the month was over I think only one was serious enough to worry about (RTSP). The rest were for services that no one uses (AppleTalk) or for third-party products (Rumpus FTP). And for Krebs? He and Ou have almost no credibility left.
@Anonymous - I think you meant Pulitzer.
Just to clarify, NeXT was never open-source. GNUstep, OK, OpenSTEP, maybe. But NeXTStep, nope.
Check your facts before writing an article...
Jeremiah-
Please explain why you think that WebKit, Darwin, Darwin Streaming Server, Bonjour, and Calendar Server, all projects for which Apple provides the source code at no obligation, are not enough to generate good will.
The list on macosforge of projects Apple has contributed back is a lot more than KHTML - a calendar server seems pretty handy to me, as does an open source Quicktime streaming server - then there is Chris Lattner's work with the LLVM - http://llvm.org/ - an open source project in which he is one of the lead developers - on Apple time.
Might be a bit techie but it's suspected the LLVM work was quite integral in making OS X portable enough to run on the iPhone. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but it's obviously important to Apple at some level.
They also employ people who contribute changes back into BSD as part of their work through Apple - the kind of low-level work that advances BSD along. I presume there are contributions back to gcc too. It's not the kind of stuff that gets 'goodwill' and publicity like opening up Java, but it's the kind of low-key work, also engaged in by staff at IBM, Oracle and Novell, that makes open source as significant as it is. It just that it suits IBMs business model a lot more to court 'the community' a lot more than Apple (who sell hardware and software, not development services and consultancy).
It does strike me that as closed as Apple are, the Open Source community is equally prone to hissy fits in the way it expects to be treated - all those posts about Apple not releasing the Intel kernel source - then it went up, and you didn't see a 100 blogs about it.
The Open Source community is also often guilty of Not Invented Here syndrome too, and in fact here's a great example of how Apple does understand open source.
Sun produced dTrace as part of Solaris and released it as open source. Apple assisted in porting it to BSD - then developed a proprietary OS X based diagnostic tool - X-Ray - to add value on top of a core FreeBSD operating system.
The Linux community decided they wanted something similar - and developed SystemTap rather than porting dTrace from the off. It doesn't seem to have embraced Bonjour or launchd either despite those being useful services - there's a suspicion about launchd that seems almost wholly based on the fact it came from Apple. We have init and cron already, and they are the Unix way.
You get a lot of talk about how Apple should open up Cocoa, while GnuStep barely gets any attention, so there can't really be that many open source developers who actually want to develop in Obj-C.
The other 'problem' with community/standards based development (whether open source, or simply between vendors) is that it is often paralysed against innovation. For instance, OS X delivered a GPU accelerated desktop and graphically rich environment by breaking the Unix windowing architecture, while everyone else pursued getting acceleration working under X. And it was largely achieved by one guy working on a 'closed' project then donating it at the end. When people promptly bitched about it.
Browser technology is in an even worse state - look at the timescales for HTML 5.0 - http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ and compare them with progress in the proprietary Flash plug-in. Apple were criticised for pushing the canvas tag (now standard on non-IE browsers) rather than the correct SVG approach.
Another example - Tapestry has recently been getting a lot of attention as a simpler alternative to Struts - yet the basic concepts of Tapestry are based on WebObjects. Now I can see why people didn't use WebObjects (it was incredibly expensive when it was x-platform, and Mac only after that) BUT the basic ideas could have been copied a lot earlier. Not invented here strikes again.
>On another note, instead of developing its' own browser, e-mail client, word processor, etc.,
> why doesn't Apple just work with the open source community to make sure that Firefox, >Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc., are the best choices for the Mac?
Because Apple's software vision is very different from the community - it's Pages rather than Word. Mail rather than Outlook. It's about doing 80% of what 90% of people need in the simplest way - and forgetting the other 10% (that's what AppleScript is for). It's why Macs are popular with the over 50s.
It would be very difficult to impose that vision onto community developed software, short of parachuting staff into the Mozilla Foundation (who do a great job of keeping Firefox a focused project, and pushing feature requests out into extensions). Look at the problems with GNOME and KDE - GNOME started pushing guidelines at developers, and the reaction has been to go over to KDE (try searching on HCI guidelines for both projects). Herding cats springs to mind.
That's without even considering the fact that the strength of Apple's own apps lies in building on top of Cocoa, which they don't want to open up. I largely use Safari simply because the ability to use the system level dictionary while typing in web forms is a godsend. Ditto Mail.
I'd say their open source strategy is quite sound - they're open at the points where there is no competitive advantage in being closed. What sucks is their community relations, but I guess that's a reflection of the whole company (no staff blogs except WebKit, 'no comment' on security issues), NDA on Leopard vs public beta at Microsoft and Adobe.
As for MOAB - only one issue raised could have actually affected me. MOAB actually gave me a lot of confidence in the base level security of the Mac, just as I don't get alarmed about software quality every time Firefox or Apache issue security updates. Although it is notable that Quicktime seems the single worst component on the Mac.
I'll refrain from commenting much about the only security researcher I personally know, but how do you think these guys make a living? (Clue : notoriety is a good form of publicity).
Oops - that shouldn't have read FreeBSD. Darwin isn't FreeBSD. Brain error.
It's not clear to me what you're asking for. The kernel and core OS is open source, along with WebKit (which Adobe and Nokia are using), most of CoreFoundation, and all of their changes to gcc and such. I don't think Apple intends to position Mac OS X as a flavor of a Unix in the traditional sense. It's an operating system which uses Unix as a foundation.
More on LLVM - check the front page to see Apple credited as a significant industrial funder - and check the documents on what it does - essentially you can use gcc to compile C,C++,Obj-C, and Obj-C++ down into byte-code on a virtual machine, that already runs on a wide variety of CPUs.
http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/html/llvmgcc.html
Now that's what I call an interesting project!
Yeah, I guess you are right. Remote exploits, kernel buffer overflows, and DoS attacks really enhance your reputation
I see nothing anywhere that would lead me to believe that Apple's rep was hurt. It came and went and people aren't even really talking about it.
There are so many philosophies on what open source is and does and should be it is rediculous. Apple is doing just fine. Could it do better? Sure it could. So could every other company that is using open source software.
@ JulesLt - Great comment, thanks. I agree with your criticisms of Open Source as well.
@ worm eater - I think they are not enough. I agree with you that they do engender goodwill and that webkit in particular is an excellent project, but compare that to OpenDarwin. Sad. "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this (the closure of OpenDarwin)." Furthermore, what about the threats of legal action from European governments? There is a tangible consequence of loss of goodwill.
Another further tangible loss is the Symantec report which lists Microsoft as the most secure OS over the last six months, Apple came in third. While this does not paint an accurate picture of overall security, Apple now has to spend treasure in defending their image to the press. It also has to take security more seriously as it gains market share.
This lack of openness to the community in the form of excessive secrecy, lack of Open Source licensed products, and unwillingness to be involved in significant projects will continue to cost Apple not only goodwill but real money.
What more do you expect from a business? Any source code goverened by the BSD liscence doesn't require Apple to give back to the community. If you are unhappy with the liscence... change it.
Jeremiah, are you even reading the stuff you’re claiming as evidence? That Symantec report has already been outed as FUD.
Your article consists of gross generalizations about what various unidentified “communities” are thinking and feeling about Apple, you are setting up straw men left and right, you are forced to use the passive voice thanks to the lack of evidence, you are using things like MOAB that don’t have anything to do with Open Source as evidence of something or other, and you are making claims about Apple’s entire corporate well-being using such nebulous concepts as “goodwill” — can you tell me what this sentence you wrote even means in the real world?
“If you think loss of goodwill is negligible, as apparently Apple does, you should consider its implications, many of which are already being realized in the ecosystem that Apple lives in.”
Okey dokey.
Nobody invested in creative Adobe products has any incentive to switch to a platform that can’t even run Photoshop. You bring up the presence of Creative Commons licensed documents on that Adobe page — did you happen to read the footer on the front page there?
“Copyright © 2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved. Your use of the Adobe Labs including the download of software, submission of comments, ideas, feature requests and techniques, and Adobe's rights to use such submitted materials, is governed by the Adobe Labs Terms of Use and the Adobe Privacy Policy.”
Funny, that doesn’t look like a Creative Commons license. Try checking out their Terms of Use while you’re at it.
Others here have done a good job of poking holes in what arguments you have, so I won’t repeat them. However, I will pull out one more example:
“Merely the fact that Open Darwin was allowed to wither on the vine is direct evidence that Apple says one thing about Open Source but does completely another.”
Again the passive voice: “was allowed to.” The stock answer from Open Source forum, mailing list, and IRC channel denizens seems particularly apropos here: Don’t like it? Fix it yourself.
I said it before and I'll say it again - you don't use open source just to be cool. OpenDarwin was a nice idea, but without users it's useless. The only users of Darwin use it as part of Mac OS X. Everyone else is using Linux or BSD. For users of Mac OS X OpenDarwin isn't important. You don't build the system from scratch, you replace, improve, .. parts of it. And that's still possible because XNU is open source, launchd is open source and the other unix parts too.
"So-called creatives...have incentive to switch to Linux," just because Adobe has opened up a few chunks of its code?
Excuse me?
Why on earth would a creative who has gotten used to using Mac OS want to throw everything (s)he knows UI-wise down the crapper just to use the same software the same way on what is probably an unfamiliar OS, and the apps aren't even the ones (s)he uses for work (read: Creative Suite CS* & Adobe Studio)?
Folks, I like FOSS as much as everyone else, but let's get real here: every FOSS victory is not going to result in people flocking to Linux. I don't know where this logic originated, but it really needs to pack its bags and go away. Seriously, FOSS is available to ALL OSes, not just Linux. That means when Adobe opens up its source code, it's going to be compiled for Macs, too. Again, no reason to switch.
P.S.: I'm one of your "so-called creatives." I used Linux for 14 years -- including GIMP, which is not a Photoshop killer by any stretch of the definition -- before switching to Macs for desktop action and Adobe's graphic design apps. I don't care if Adobe DOES port CS* and Studio to Linux, I'll STILL have no reason to switch back. Sorry, but I'm comfortable right where I am.
Sorry, hastily edited post.
I meant to say "Adobe CS*," not "Creative Suite CS*."
I realize that people are talking about different forms of Free / Open licensing. The story I was making reference to happened long ago and not much can be found on the internet about it these days. But it was significant since it was one of the first times the GPL forced a commercial software company (in this case NeXT) to change its ways. Some people even like to claim that Steve Jobs was the Free Software Foundation's first GPL violator. Richard Stallman writes about the incident in a pdf essay at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf (Look at the end of page 91). The lawyers and technologists at NeXT learned quickly under threat of legal action decades ago that the Free / Open communities aren't just development farms. There are some big companies today that don't quite get this, but Apple appears to have understood it for some time.
If you are give acknowledgment to the developers of the code, link and use LGPL software libraries if you want.
If you want to use GPL code, be prepared to open up the source of your program, too.
If you want to make something private, use a license like FreeBSD or the MIT license that permits anything but taking over the copyright.
If you want to offer a standard to the public, offer a liberal open-source license to the public.
If you just want free development for a closed-source product, the free / open community isn't going to help much.
This is still a battle that gets hashed out in different ways inside Apple. You can bet Apple would love to include GNU readline actually compiled into some of their command-line tools, but they understand what they'd be obligated to if they did that (disclosure of some of their source code). Apple meets the obligations of the open source licenses and they do return code that they can't maintain or want other people to adopt as standard to the community to use.
Microsoft doesn't understand community standards. Why invent a whole new dialect of C and keep it closed source? Microsoft isn't in the business of making (much) money off of software developers. When Apple looked at the limiting features of Objective-C, they could have decided to build a new language like C# that didn't have those limitations. Instead, they've decided to give back the changes they want to make to the standards to the Objective-C community. They want to push the standards to evolve, true, but they don't appear to be taking them over.
At least one Apple open source project are world class; see Squeak - http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
Mmmhhh...how about giving us some concrete examples of how, exactly, Apple is failing to be a good open source citizen instead of just making blanket statements?
Frankly, whether Apple uses Creative Commons licenses for its support forums is irrelevant. Yes, there are a lot of abandoned open-source project. So what? That's very common.
And please, citing Adobe as a model for open source collaboration is plain ridiculous.
This lack of openness to the community in the form of excessive secrecy, lack of Open Source licensed products, and unwillingness to be involved in significant projects will continue to cost Apple not only goodwill but real money.
Apple hasn't exactly made using it's source code easy, nor has it nourished a community who could really leverage the code (see comments by willbb over at Ars.
However, I find the argument that, because Apple isn't creating Open Source Licensed products, that it will lose significant sales. This is absolutely the last thing on the users' minds in Apple's core markets. Apple's design philosophy is all about tyrannical vision and focus to achieve greatness - and influence every aspect of the user experience. I'm amazed that they've done any open source work at all, actually (perhaps a legacy of the Tevanian era, I don't know).
This reminds me of the argument that because Macs don't use open formats for everything, switching to Linux (on that merit alone) is better. Didn't that guy move back over, or something?
You say that Mac OS X was based "on Free Software in the form of NeXT/FreeBSD" - in what what was NeXT's software, acquired by Apple in 1997, Free?
Also, why do you write Sun all in capitals, as in SUN?
The claims about os x insecurity are academically and theoretically interesting, but I'm still waiting for reports from actual humans who have become infected. As for open source, Apple does a nice job of integrating open source and proprietary code to make a smooth product, and product is what they are in business to create.
What about this? http://www.macosforge.org/
@jeremiah
"Another further tangible loss is the Symantec report which lists Microsoft as the most secure OS over the last six months, Apple came in third."
Question for Jeremiah - where in Symantec's report does it state Microsoft (or "Windows") as the most secure OS? Because it sure wasn't Symantec that declared "Microsoft" as the most secure OS.
Secondly, since when is "average time to patch vulnerabilities" considered the primary criteria for determining whether an OS is secure? Because that seems to be the gist of the Symantec's report. There's no recognition of how many vulnerabilities were critical (12 by Microsoft, 1 for Apple) as opposed to "it's a little drafty around the windows" type of vulnerability?
You really do yourself a disservice when you repeat someone else's argument's that "concludes" something a report doesn't even state. Makes it seem like you're being disingenuous just to advance your own agenda.
Boo-hoo...
GPL != BSD Lic
Apple is under NO obligation to give anything back. If you use the BSD Lic for your code you can't really complain.
And for what possible reason would apple want to contribute to any gtk port or even open darwin for that matter? AFAICT Open Darwin was a fun project that never got any significant community built around it. Why would it? Linux scratches any itch that OD would have.
There's a cost for being a good GPL OSS citizen. Kind of the whole point of using the BSD Lic.
Great, another "Free" Source Fascist bitching becuase Apple opens the source on dozens of its own internally created projects, while also giving back to the community thousands of bug fixes for open source products that they distribute with their operating system.
Ok, Linux weenies and Free Software Fascists can be expected on oreillynet... but please keep these clueless dolts out to fht MacDevCenter blog.
Bottom line is, Apple makes great products, while Linux and especially "GNU" haven't managed to ship something generally usable by the public--- and thus, the Free Software Fascists are quite jealous and annoyed. But the inadequacy is their own, not Apples.
Apple has done more for open source than the free software foundation... Real Artists Ship!
"Apple's reputation has already been damaged by the Month of Apple Bugs and in its attempt to whitewash security issues that were published last summer. "
This phrase proves the author is just an attack dog, who will use any excuse to bash Apple-- no matter what the facts are. (The facts being that the "month of apple bugs" was a month of exploits in software NOT published by Apple, and the "security breach" was in another companies product, not the Macs that they were being used in.)
The level that people will stoop-- and for what did you sell out your integrity? So cheap!
"Open Darwin was allowed to wither on the vine"
Yeah, its apple's fault that some people didn't get a successful distribution together.... but that doesn't mean its withered on the vine... darwin source is still made available, people are using it in a variety of ways, and Apple -- who you claim offers no spport-- is hosting the macports successor to the open darwin site.
Lie much?
This article is really... rubbish. You don't even make sense or explain what the hell you are talking about...
Move on ppl this guy is clearly paid to spread BS.
You state that open source is good, the only reason you give, to help x company generate good code for free. You say other stuff as well, but i'll ignore that.
Okay, so, here is apple, all open source and Gnu loving with a 5% or whatever a 50% market share. Apple's technology is updated by the 'community' not by themselves. Any claims that apple makes about there system will have to mention the 'community' otherwise lawsuit. Apple has to develop an OS around the 'communities' wishes, features are thus released prior to Gold, and sucky Microsoft absorbs them and pushes them into Microsoft Windows, good plan. Apple does little innovation, cannot easily develop their OS, without having to consider stakeholder (not SHAREHOLDER) wishes. Any 'negative' change can be overruled by the 'community'. The aspect that the software is free, is a good incentive. But quality is never achieved by 'free', stingy poor linux c**ts may like their system because it is free, but apple will not be able to pull all the profit otherwise, no free developers, apple does not want to share these profits either, to a large unquantative group of people doing unquantative amounts of unquantativly useful work on the OS, giving people salaries (or facing lawsuits) is an impossible amount of work, instantly making, not free. Then quality issues arise, how can we be sure that sneaky developer x is not in fact a hacker making 'beneficial' changes on behalf of the 'community' but is in fact also producing back-doors and exploits? Quality on the non-malicious level can also not be achieved, all these people with too much time, and little incentive to code may not be producing good, code. As seen by the general lack of adoption of these generally lacking and frankly useless OS's (except for in some enviroments)
You spew all this c**p about the 'people' and the 'community' and 'gnu' and how amazing and usefull it all is. But your thinking from YOUR perspective, not from a business perspective!!!! There is no business model for linux, and because of this, linux is going NOWHERE. There is no way that Open Source will ever work unless the idiots who run the thing think like business men, it doesn't work, yet, and only when there is a proper business model, which there isn't, yet, nothing is going to help it's
Totally agree with you. Both Safari and Apple's Aperture could definitely use some Open Source plug-ins, etc.
Hi,
I don't think Apple of Microsoft will ever switch to OpenSource like Sun did after being established as a proprietary company.
But if they switch to OpenSource model, definitely they save lots of money and they get better testing and bug fixing than now.
let's hope.
Adios.
@ Q - Who states: "There is no business model for linux, and because of this, linux is going NOWHERE"
Um, maybe look at RHAT. It is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and has a total revenue of 105 million dollars. They sell nothing but linux. I own stock in them and I own stock in Apple. I want both those stocks to go up. I see how RHAT uses the GPL to gain market share and make money. I want AAPL to do the same thing.
There is one thing I do understand about Open Source. If you want to download, install and use a particular software application or development tool, in most cases, it doesn't work for one reason or another. Either a library is missing or it is a newer version. After you try to fix it by downloading the correct version of the library, you'll find another library that has issues. Then the operating system hangs up once in a while (yes it does happen to linux operating systems as well)
Apple somehow managed to make their software work without any issues. Will you please leave them alone and let users have the comfort of a working Linux Desktop? This is something all Open Source enthusiasts and Linux enthusiasts wanted for a long time. When it comes to making money, Apple is quite good at it. Please check their stock price and their annual reports.
Perhaps this will help stop a ground swell of lies being spread that on one hand "Linux is MS code" and on the other that "Mac runs Linux" Comments like this are spread by foolish people who mostly have never ran a GNU+Linux box. People who I would just soon ignore than listen to or explain the facts too.
@ Jeremiah @ Q
You say revenue, wow, thats a completely false statistic of a business. Oh look, their profit is $11 million, jeez, amazing, oh and it feel last year 34 %.
Red hat may be an established business, with a business model, but that doesn't mean open source, which is Q's point, will succeed, because Open source, doesn't have a model. There are very companies that run as open source development opportunities solely, and red hat is the only notable one, with an even less notable product portfolio.
I state the point again, open source has no business model, is going NOWHERE.
Red Hat has a business model, runs open source, is going NOWHERE.
Analyze properly, you have given no real reasons for profitability of open source.
I think the comments about Adobe are pretty interesting, because Adobe really are courting goodwill in the FOSS community, with thinks like Tamarin, the Flex SDK, the Flash player on Linux, and increasingly releasing free versions of their server software for single-CPU systems. Of course, a lot of this stuff is just Free - as in beer - not actually Open, but that probably counts for a lot more for people who want to use these tools, without actually being concerned with the politics of free software.
It also means Adobe don't get the benefits of open source - i.e. contribution back. It's more like Sun's courting of a development community for Java.
I bet if you actually looked into it, Apple probably do contribute more back into FOSS development than Adobe, but 'goodwill' does count for a lot in some places. Apple's above weight presence in education and design can be largely attributed to goodwill, for instance, rather than teachers and creatives appreciating the technical superiority of OS X to Windows.
Microsoft have discovered the same with security - they don't buy out security researchers, but they have discovered that it pays to listen to them, and make them feel worthwhile, rather than treat them as enemies to be silenced.
In fact Microsoft have been very good at cultivating the appearance of openness over the last few years, with developer blogs, etc.
What I take from Jeremiah's post is more a plea for Apple to improve their community relationship than to actually open up more software.
I also agree with many posters who suggested OpenDarwin died through lack of interest more than anything else. It didn't add any significant value over OpenBSD or FreeBSD. The issue with the Intel kernel was probably the last straw for a dying project.
>how can we be sure that sneaky developer x is not in fact a
>hacker making 'beneficial' changes on behalf of the 'community' but is
> in fact also producing back-doors and exploits
Well, you look at their code. And any serious major Open Source project has a lot of people involved, a lot of reviewers, and usually an identifiable project lead employed by someone like Novell, IBM, Mozilla or Apache foundation, University teams, etc.
Sure, if you download some DVD-ripping software from some guy called aPuckerLypz then you might be downloading a trojan horse, but I'd have no worry about mySQL or Apache. Otherwise I'd be worrying about the security of OS X, which as you may have forgotten, has an open source foundation.
You need to get away from the idea that GNU/Linux was something knocked up by hackers in their bedrooms.
>There is no business model for linux, and because of this, linux is going NOWHERE
That's why IBM, Oracle, Novell and Red Hat all support it? And why Linux servers are pushing out ALL flavours of proprietary Unix? Or why Shake was available on Linux before Apple bought it and canned future Linux development? Or Linux is used inside a huge number of CE devices?
There's a definite business model to open source - basically it's about sharing costs on something that has a near-zero business value IN ITSELF in order to make money by adding value to that commodity. Even rival car manufacturers do that these days (develop shared chassis / platforms, that they then customise into specific brands and models) - because the cost of doing it from scratch is too high to produce budget models.
If you wanted to produce an Apple-TV like device, would you (a) write an operating system from scratch (b) buy one from Microsoft, tying you in to supported architectures (c) use Linux or BSD, even if you were obliged to contribute back any modifications you made (but NOT the front-end application the end user sees).
And indeed that's exactly what Apple did (first with GPL'd then BSD code). On the other hand, Apple sees a distinct business value in keeping the graphics and GUI subsystems proprietary (aside from OpenGL of course). I'd wager that as open source components (such as XGL and Cairo) catch up, you will see Apple switch to endorse and use them, licence permitting, because there is no business value in NOT doing so.
Even on the desktop, Novell expect to make millions. Now someone above complains about downloading FOSS tools and them not working. That's the value Linux distro companies add - they package up a supported release, out of free components and applications, that will work. And they do managed point releases like Apple and Microsoft do. Companies are happy to pay for that, rather than employ someone to roll their own.
Don't forget there was a time when the Open Source community was
desperate for validation by businesses like Apple (I'm thinking
roughly the period 1996-2000). Adoption of Open Source licenses or
code does not turn a business into a charity. Apple, or any rational
business, would need to see a good business case for getting involved
in a project.
>
>
Sorry, but the Open Source community was desperate for validation by businesses like Apple. In fact the *REAL Open Source community* never did and still doesn't give a *DAMN* about Apple or it's userbase. It's the Appple fanboy posers like *YOU* who run around cheerleading for Apple and it's fradulent "Open source" efforts.
My God, get a clue. Stop spreading FUD. Supposedly, you research before you write, you know.
@ Rhonald :-
> But if they switch to OpenSource model, definitely they save lots
> of money and they get better testing and bug fixing than now.
Yeah right. Nearly every piece of OpenSource software that I've used has had far more bugs (excepting Firefox) than ANY Apple app I've used.
Scruff - read the above. The foundation of OS X is open source BSD. Seems to run pretty well. Most Mac software is compiled using an open source compiler. Major banks run Linux based servers. Don't confuse applications knocked up by hobbyists, with commercial and academically funded open source.
What is it with Apple users? The fact they have an operating system is completely due to free and open source software. Without them there would be no Mac OS X. Apple have stated as much themselves.
So when people want to port Unix/Linux software to run on Mac OS X it is wrong? Because some free software might turn out to be better than what Apple itself provides? Such as Jahshaka's problems getting help from Apple.
I think it's an arrogant stance to take, just like Microsoft does. Even Sun has a lot more respect nowadays because they don't only talk the talk but they walk the walk as well, as can be seen in the open sourcing of Solaris and Java.
And for that matter OS X's XNU (Mach/BSD) kernel foundation is "utter crap" as Linux Torvalds has noted himself. Until they adopt a pure FreeBSD/DragonFlyBSD or Solaris kernel it can only be considered a toy, just like NT, only even slower.
Vista has changed this, now both of them are slow! As a Unix/Linux consultant I don't have to do much as the competition is killing themselves.
Many customers and acquaintances have now switched to a Slackware GNU/Linux-based Linux desktop that can compete with Solaris for stability and (stock) Windows XP for speed.
That is not to say that OS X is not an intuitive user-friendly operating system. But it is certainly not as stable and performant as GNU/Linux, real/pure BSDs and Solaris.
With Apple free and open source is a one-way street. Real communities share. This is something Apple will never understand nor practice.
I would be installing more OS X desktops if only Apple were willing to do their part in making open source run well on OS X and reaching out to the community like Sun does.
So besides spreading FUD you enjoy censoring comments? Great! You do deserve a jackass of the week prize, jackass...
@zac, You say, "Look at any benchmark, Intel's current chips are faster across the board."
I would remind you of a quote by the late Seymour Cray, "Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." I work in an academic High Performance Computing Center. Let me assure you, our AMD based systems blow anything Intel puts out out of the water.
Kevin
Huh? Where did that come from?
You are seriously linking to Ou for commentary on that security thing? Seriously? Huh. Okay. So... What about Open Source? What exactly are you claiming Apple isn't doing right, or isn't getting?
Truly a weird blog entry. What's your point?
This article brings up some good and note worthy subjects. Apple has made a great os thats easy to use and creative. They do tend towards the 'money-making' over quality and user's freedoms sometimes though. iTunes store is one example, ipods that don't let users move they're music around as they see fit, etc.. the examples are there.
Many Mac programs could be alot better from an openSource community approach. I love my mac but some of the bundled programs are very bare-bones, and i don't use iphoto simple due to its obtuse photo-filing directory structure, and slowness.
someone said: "What I take from Jeremiah's post is more a plea for Apple to improve their community relationship than to actually open up more software."
I agree but think they could probably benefit from opening some things to more community participation with their devices and software. And perhaps allowing more of their code to be used on non-apple devices. Apple-centric thinking is not the way to go.
Jeremiah, people are being too hard on you. You can't write, you can't read, and you don't know much about what you're talking about. But there's no need for people to point that out. It's mean-spirited. It would have been enough for them to call attention to your inability to recognize whether something counts as evidence in favor of a conclusion.
You know Jeremiah, sometimes if people hear a particularly bad argument for a view they'll walk away thinking it's false. Of course that would be a mistake because as we all know there can be bad arguments for true conclusions. Still, it happens. It's akin to losing goodwill, which could be more expensive than you realize.
Dear foo fighter,
Normally I do not respond to anonymous posters who do not stand up for what they post, I find it cowardly and contemptible and to respond is to feed the troll, but here I go anyway. Your comment is mean-spirited and ad hominem.
Recently there has been a pushback against such negative commentary here at O'Reilly and I am going to follow Tim O'Reilly's advice in this regard and start to delete anonymous postings that are of the kind you wrote. So, my misguided friend, enjoy your notoriety while it lasts, soon your post will find its proper home.