The BSD guys are an interesting crowd. Well they can continue to watch Microsoft and Apple pilfer their software stack usually giving nothing in return while they can use GNOME or KDE or whichever other GPL or LGPLed project exists on their system (takes only a recompile) because otherwise they don't have a useable desktop and are stuck with 1980s user interfaces. I have used clang and it was neither faster to compile nor produced faster code than GCC. The only noticeable thing is the ANSI colored error mes
And yet, as so many people here love to point out when it favors them, you still get to have the pig. Apple has taken nothing, the pig still exists as ever and apple has provided you with a sausage as well.
Maybe you don't like sausage and thats fine, but don't act like someone took away your (or anyone else's) pig.
You probably feel fine when you are in a ticket line and someone steps on your feet to get ahead in the queue while saying "sorry" but I certainly do not.
How are Apple "stepping on your feet" by using BSD code and developing successful products with it? If OS X had flopped would you still be saying that?
Apple has put a great deal of effort into open source development because they realise that it is mutually beneficial to everyone concerned. Oh, of course their primary goal is their own success and their own bottom line, but they have been able to strike a pretty good balance with open source software and the community at large on their rise into the company they are now.
Apple are only "stepping on your toes" if you feel jealous of their success or the fact that they aren't legally forced to release the entire source code of OS X because they used a large proportion of BSD code in it. For some reason you think this is Apple being "unfair" or "leeching off the back of the OSS community" to make money. This view is very petulant and childish, and ignores the fundamental truth that *that's how the BSD licence works* and that method of development is *actively encouraged by the licence*. It's precisely why the code was released under that licence.
It also ignores the *enormous* contributions to Open Source (both 'legally forced' on GPL projects like KHTML/WebKit, and non-forced like Apache and BSD code) from Apple, especially with some of the large projects they have been involved with - LLVM/Clang being a big one.
The Open Source community benefits from large companies contributing resources to it - just look at what happened with KHTML, for example, and numerous other projects that large companies have put time, money and personnel behind. The benefits are a two way street, but comments like yours about Apple "leeching" from the community are counterproductive and only damage the community's image.
Just adding to this... Apple in fact actually does release the code back for almost everyone of their BSD projects. They don't tend to take these things private.
There is one point where it would be interesting to have common code and that would be the OpenGL base implementation and drivers (which is based on LLVM). Yet I have never seen any opening in that front from Apple. It means on the Linux side everything needs to be reimplemented including OpenCL support and compilers. As usual if the Linux implementation proves to eventually be better than their own they will have no qualms with using it. Wouldn't even be surprised if they sued these same people who worked
Difference between an iPod and iPhone being "one antenna that costs $1-2"? Give me a break, you're not even trying.
You also seem to be ignorant of what the term "DRM" actually means, just throwing it around like a bogeyman. Apple's lack of exposure of the iPhone/iPod Touch's filesystem as a USB mass storage device is not DRM. It may be a silly restriction (I agree with you), but it's not DRM.
So, your argument is Apple are shitheads because although do do have OSS specific
I do not see you doing any math to disprove my point regarding iPod vs iPhone costs...
So basically you agree that it is a stupid idea not to be able to have full control of the storage space.
Google used KHTML as well. Oh yeah now people prefer to call it Webkit. But they do not only open source the HTML rendering portions they changed and were forced according to the license, they also open sourced the browser itself which was not mandatory to open source. People who put their code under the BSD licens
Disabling Carbon? Ok, your delusional ranting is clearly just impenetrable.
Apple kept Carbon alive for *over ten years* and marked it depreciated when OS X was originally launched. If a full decade of development time isn't enough to transition to the parallel, modern API then what the fuck were they doing?
It's hardly Apple's fault that after including an API that was already deprecated at the launch of OS X and telling everyone about it, and that eventually it would go away but that it was around for now a
You don't understand do you? Do you even know jack shit about programming? Adobe had their entire codebase in C++. They still do. You could not mix Objective-C code (which is what Cocoa is) with C++ code (Adobe's code) in the same file. Carbon was written in C which can be mixed with C++ in the same file. It was a wrapper to Cocoa. Apple dropped it just to thumb their nose at Adobe apparently. Adobe weren't the only ones complaining at the time. Had Apple actually listened to app developers they would have
"Apple dropped it just to thumb their nose at Adobe"?
Just listen to yourself.
The API was old, and deprecated when OS X was literally brand new - when OS X shipped at the start of its life. It was then kept around by Apple for ten years.
"Notorious for breaking backwards compatibility" - right, like keeping Classic around for years after switching to OS X, then shipping and keeping Rosetta around after *changing CPU architecture* so PPC code could run on x86, and keeping an API that was already old hat by the
Quark is not Adobe. You just need to see how much time it took for them to release a Windows port to see the difference.
The PowerPC transition wasn't done when Steve Jobs was around (so they did do some things right then) but yeah they did manage to make CPU emulation work to keep the older apps back then. However this was nothing that hadn't been done elsewhere. Windows NT for Alpha also ran x86 apps at good performance. The main difference was that the 68k was utterly obsolete performance wise by that
Wouldn't it be great if the first revision of anything worked 100% fine at the time of release without any bugs? Adobe probably just didn't want to be the test subjects of it. So they procrastinated as long as they could until the tools were up to shape. Even then I wouldn't be surprised if the tools still had bugs in them by the time they did a port.
The PowerPC transition wasn't done when Steve Jobs was around (so they did do some things right then) but yeah they did manage to make CPU emulation work to keep the older apps back then.
So you don't remember Steve Jobs inviting the CEO of Intel up onto the stage during the Macworld keynote with the Intel logo as the backdrop to officially announce the worst kept secret in the tech industry at the time?
Perhaps some fact checking first before you throw a casual insult at the man.
Or are you talking about the 68k transition? Either way, both CPU architecture changes were handled in the same way - with extensive support for legacy code, so they handled it exactly the same as the PPC>x86 swit
One can search the brain with a microscope and not find the
mind, and can search the stars with a telescope and not find God.
-- J. Gustav White
What's wrong with GCC? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely who do you think has done a lot of the development on Clang/LLVM over the last few years and contributed it to the wider community?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, as so many people here love to point out when it favors them, you still get to have the pig. Apple has taken nothing, the pig still exists as ever and apple has provided you with a sausage as well.
Maybe you don't like sausage and thats fine, but don't act like someone took away your (or anyone else's) pig.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with GCC? (Score:3, Insightful)
What?
How are Apple "stepping on your feet" by using BSD code and developing successful products with it? If OS X had flopped would you still be saying that?
Apple has put a great deal of effort into open source development because they realise that it is mutually beneficial to everyone concerned. Oh, of course their primary goal is their own success and their own bottom line, but they have been able to strike a pretty good balance with open source software and the community at large on their rise into the company they are now.
Apple are only "stepping on your toes" if you feel jealous of their success or the fact that they aren't legally forced to release the entire source code of OS X because they used a large proportion of BSD code in it. For some reason you think this is Apple being "unfair" or "leeching off the back of the OSS community" to make money. This view is very petulant and childish, and ignores the fundamental truth that *that's how the BSD licence works* and that method of development is *actively encouraged by the licence*. It's precisely why the code was released under that licence.
It also ignores the *enormous* contributions to Open Source (both 'legally forced' on GPL projects like KHTML/WebKit, and non-forced like Apache and BSD code) from Apple, especially with some of the large projects they have been involved with - LLVM/Clang being a big one.
The Open Source community benefits from large companies contributing resources to it - just look at what happened with KHTML, for example, and numerous other projects that large companies have put time, money and personnel behind. The benefits are a two way street, but comments like yours about Apple "leeching" from the community are counterproductive and only damage the community's image.
Re: (Score:2)
Just adding to this... Apple in fact actually does release the code back for almost everyone of their BSD projects. They don't tend to take these things private.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You just don't have a clue, do you?
Difference between an iPod and iPhone being "one antenna that costs $1-2"? Give me a break, you're not even trying.
You also seem to be ignorant of what the term "DRM" actually means, just throwing it around like a bogeyman. Apple's lack of exposure of the iPhone/iPod Touch's filesystem as a USB mass storage device is not DRM. It may be a silly restriction (I agree with you), but it's not DRM.
So, your argument is Apple are shitheads because although do do have OSS specific
Re: (Score:1)
I do not see you doing any math to disprove my point regarding iPod vs iPhone costs...
So basically you agree that it is a stupid idea not to be able to have full control of the storage space.
Google used KHTML as well. Oh yeah now people prefer to call it Webkit. But they do not only open source the HTML rendering portions they changed and were forced according to the license, they also open sourced the browser itself which was not mandatory to open source. People who put their code under the BSD licens
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling Carbon? Ok, your delusional ranting is clearly just impenetrable.
Apple kept Carbon alive for *over ten years* and marked it depreciated when OS X was originally launched. If a full decade of development time isn't enough to transition to the parallel, modern API then what the fuck were they doing?
It's hardly Apple's fault that after including an API that was already deprecated at the launch of OS X and telling everyone about it, and that eventually it would go away but that it was around for now a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Apple dropped it just to thumb their nose at Adobe"?
Just listen to yourself.
The API was old, and deprecated when OS X was literally brand new - when OS X shipped at the start of its life. It was then kept around by Apple for ten years.
"Notorious for breaking backwards compatibility" - right, like keeping Classic around for years after switching to OS X, then shipping and keeping Rosetta around after *changing CPU architecture* so PPC code could run on x86, and keeping an API that was already old hat by the
Re: (Score:2)
Quark is not Adobe. You just need to see how much time it took for them to release a Windows port to see the difference.
The PowerPC transition wasn't done when Steve Jobs was around (so they did do some things right then) but yeah they did manage to make CPU emulation work to keep the older apps back then. However this was nothing that hadn't been done elsewhere. Windows NT for Alpha also ran x86 apps at good performance. The main difference was that the 68k was utterly obsolete performance wise by that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The PowerPC transition wasn't done when Steve Jobs was around (so they did do some things right then) but yeah they did manage to make CPU emulation work to keep the older apps back then.
So you don't remember Steve Jobs inviting the CEO of Intel up onto the stage during the Macworld keynote with the Intel logo as the backdrop to officially announce the worst kept secret in the tech industry at the time?
Perhaps some fact checking first before you throw a casual insult at the man.
Or are you talking about the 68k transition? Either way, both CPU architecture changes were handled in the same way - with extensive support for legacy code, so they handled it exactly the same as the PPC>x86 swit